UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, January 08, 2009

The UFO Destroyers

destroy.jpg

Who is killing ufology, and thus the UFO mystery?

Stanton Friedman would be a suspect, but despite his fixation on the extraterrestrial hypothesis (that UFOs are from alien civilizations) and his promotions of the MJ-12 hoax and Roswell confusion, he keeps UFOs alive in the minds of many media persons and a slightly interested public.

stanf.jpg

So he’s not a UFO Destroyer.

Jacques Vallee, the UFO guru for members of the flying saucer intelligentsia, proposes that UFOs are an overt manifestation of a “tangible mythology” [our term, not his].

One aspect of the UFO mystery may well be mythological in nature, but that aspect doesn’t address the physical elements that have accompanied sightings, and alleged landings.

Vallee’s tangible mythology is more evanescent than not.

vallee2.jpg

But Vallee is no UFO Destroyer. He may be on to something, but hasn’t made his case in a definite, scientific way. Nonetheless he has mustered a panoply of circumstantial evidences for his hypotheses.

Physicist Michio Kaku is no UFO Destroyer but, rather, a voice of reason from within the scientific community.

kaku.jpg

But his views are so amorphous that they are platitudinous and useless.

Deceased astronomer J. Allen Hynek was no UFO Destroyer in his later years, but had been near to doing in the UFO phenomenon when he was a spokesperson for the United States Air Force.

hynek.jpg

The momentum of his turnaround continues to this day fortunately.

Kevin Randle, who is obsessed with correcting the UFO record, zeroing in on old sightings and episodes, is wasting his and our time with the minutiae of historical UFO events. But he is no UFO Destroyer.

randle.jpg

He just wants someone in authority to accept the (past) evidence.

Richard Hall and Jerome Clark, two past UFO experts, have given up the flying saucer ghost pretty much, appearing now and then to bolster former and present colleagues.

dhall.jpg

clark.jpg

They are not UFO Destroyers, even though they are no longer significant players in the ufology game.

The UFO second stringers, Nick Redfern, Greg Bishop, David Clarke, Andy Roberts, the UFO Hunters, Paul Kimball, and a plethora of ufological mavens are not UFO Detroyers.

3bishop.jpg

4clarke.jpg

These people pursue the UFO enigma in context of other things that interest them, paranormal things and less mysterious things, like music and drink.

Mac Tonnies, a sci-fi writer and buff, puts UFOs in such a discursive arena of weirdness that he diffuses the topic, but he’s not UFO Destroyer, taking a benign neglect attitude toward the mysterious lights and images that others see as UFOs.

mac.jpg

So who are the UFO Destroyers?

Whitley Strieber is one, having made a fictional mockery of the phenomenon, and persisting in his quasi-religious take to he point that many interested persons have discarded UFOs as something that science might be able to decipher.

whitley.jpg

Then there’s a small group of confused and addled persons who sneak in and out of the UFO arena, venting their spleen because they have gone unrecognized by UFO cognoscenti.

Let’s call them Alfred, Regan, and Lesley.

glitter.gif

They gather ideas from others, either stealing those ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts their psychological well-being into question.

They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that others generate about UFOs.

And the final group of UFO Destroyers are those who hoax photos or generate sightings to give them a prominence that they could never achieve in a more credible arena.

These include the former contactees -- Adamski, Van Tassel, Bethurum, Fry, Angelucci, et al. – and present day hoaxers, such as Billy Meier.

bethurum.jpg

angelo.jpg

meier.jpg

The UFO phenomenon needs a focused approach, a discipline that is scientific in nature.

It isn’t getting that, and those above, whether they are a UFO Destroyer or not, haven’t been and are not helping to bring that about.

11 Comments:

  • You wrote: "The UFO phenomenon needs a focused approach, a discipline that is scientific in nature.". I agree totally. You failed, for some inscrutable reason, to mention Drs.Greer and Salla, and the exopolitics movement. They have certainly raised awareness, but their lack of scientific rigor does a disservice to the field.
    It is for this reason (the need for discipline) that I propose exopsychology as a discipline to bridge the gaps between transpersonal psychology, social psychology, quantum physics, and all sciences that might have something to say about the UFO phenomenon. Of the volumes of discourse that populate UFO forums, there is practically no persuasive evidence of anything at all, except for four things: 1- UFOs exist, 2 - there is a coverup of something, 3- cattle mutilations are real, and 4- the ET meme has infiltrated our culture. My dream is that under the flag of exopsychology, serious researchers can rally to examine the evidence, and let the evidence lead us to the truth. This blog is a refreshing voice of rationality in a field cursed with an excess of speculation.

    By Blogger Michael, at Thursday, January 08, 2009  

  • Michael,

    How could we not agree with you?

    Thanks for the note and observations.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 08, 2009  

  • I presume 'Alfred' is Alfred Lehmberg, but have no idea who Regan & Leslie are.
    I'll borrow a phrase used by Benjamin Disraeli in c.1870 and say only that Mr Lehmberg's postings show that he has a superb command of the language but that he "is inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity".
    But since this comment contributes nothing to the UFO debate, I'll shut up now.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 09, 2009  

  • CDA:

    We have to disagree with your use of "superb command of the language" for Alfred.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 09, 2009  

  • Regarding the Destroyers troika, I posted a comment on a different site that elicited the most insane and brutally insulting follow-up comment from one of them, though I had said nothing related to the Destroyer in question. In a fit of paranoia, my comment must have been taken personally. I suspect you will be bombarded with even more vituperative lunacy for this posting of yours. All I can say is I'm just glad I'm not you.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, January 14, 2009  

  • You write ;
    "But Vallee is no UFO Destroyer. He may be on to something, but hasn’t made his case in a definite, scientific way. Nonetheless he has mustered a panoply of circumstantial evidences for his hypotheses."

    Harrumph! Vallee is (IMO) one of the most sober and scientific of the lot. Even so he comes away feeling that the UFO phenomena cannot be completely examined scientifically, I don't agree with that. Before germ theory was discovered the idea that micro organisms even existed let alone caused sickness was beyond the science of the day. So to, UFOs may be beyond our science.

    You write ;"
    Let’s call them Alfred, Regan, and Lesley.

    They gather ideas from others, either stealing those ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts their psychological well-being into question.

    They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that others generate about UFOs.


    Of the three I'm most sympathetic with Leslie. Although she sometimes sides with Alfred/Regan I think she keeps her own council and does not necessarily agree to their backs.

    Leslie is a true peacemaker and has no problem with an opinion that does not instantly validate her's. I respect that and I respect *her* because of it.

    The other two are just an alliance of convenience. I don't think they set out to destroy UFOlogy, they both tend to have little regard for those who's opinions they don't like and in Regan's case, little regard for how she goes about expressing it. Both of them have very strong, almost radical opinions and stridently beat down anyone with a counter opinion. That's not just death for UFOlogy, it;'s the kiss of death for any debate.

    By Blogger The Odd Emperor, at Sunday, January 25, 2009  

  • I'm thinking your claim that Meier is a hoaxer needs support. If you discredit Meier then you discredit Wendelle Stevens, Lee & Brit Elders and the rest of the technically capable team who assembled to digitally analyse the 'hard evidence' Meier provided. You would also have to discredit the fact that the Stevens team (and Meier) purposefully constructed a ufo model, hung it from a pole and clear filament so that photos of such could be taken (using Meier's original camera too) and digitally compared to the Meier originals. The analysis proved the model to be a model and the originals to be originals. It was easy to distinguish. You would next have to discredit Marcel Vogel when he examined the metal samples and openly admitted he could not put the combination of elements together with his expertise. I think that because Meier shows a level of spirituality that most of us are not acquainted with it creates an instant denial syndrome within the ufo community. Personally I'm beyond clinging to the "nuts 'n' bolts" aspect of it all. Obviously the (behind the scenes black ops folks) have had ample time to back engineer and create 'ufo mimicry'. It is to say that the sightings of today contain a good percentage of said mimicry. When astronauts (while in space) report 'unknowns' (to Houston for example) immediate distractions/denials conveniently continue to muddy the waters. Thanks for this opportunity. John Webster

    By Blogger John Webster, at Sunday, March 22, 2009  

  • John,

    Thanks for your rejoinder, but Billy Meier, whether or not his sightings are real, still is a "destroyer" since his methods of disclosure are too foxy for the common man and/or even the UFO "professional" to accept.

    His glibness and calculated reticence belie authenticity for his tales, even if they are true.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 22, 2009  

  • You're partially correct in the use of your angled perceptions to ufology. However you're NOT THE "LICENTIATES" on this topic, nor am I. Meier doesn't have to, nor would he waste his time to prove anything to you. As to your claim of his disposition to silence, you're incorrect. He's quite approachable by email, phone, personal visits. If you want to choose to adhere to your belief structure he'd be okay with that! But then the conversation would end! He's represented by an intelligent (not unlike yourselves) who also wouldn't waste time attempting to persuade your apparent 'heartless mindset'. Nope, I neither defend these gentlemen nor do I place them on a pedestal! Take a step or two back simply to scrutinize yourselves and your fit into the human mix. There's no need to get stuck on what god is or isn't. There's no need to appear as authorities on irrelevance. If your perspective demands the scientific method as the "licentiate" approach to ufology, or life as a whole, you're incorrect. Before any human concern can be adequately addressed one must "know thyself" first. This available knowledge doesn't solely revolve around science. Once one attains and assimilates this level of understanding everything else IS ANSWERED. Science HAS exercised its disciplinary function toward ufology in mind only. The substance of HEART hasn't been included in the experiments! All the evidence in the world has come tumbling down to be placed under an assortment of scientific lenses. It's the 'belief systems' which get in the way. I feel you simply like to stir things up! I'm enjoying this back 'n' forth!

    By Blogger John Webster, at Sunday, March 22, 2009  

  • John...

    If you like this "back and forth," you might want to check out our contentious blog.

    http://rrrgroup.blogspot.com

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 23, 2009  

  • Then there’s a small group of confused and addled persons who sneak in and out of the UFO arena, venting their spleen because they have gone unrecognized by UFO cognoscenti.

    Let’s call them Alfred, Regan, and Lesley.
    Hehehe. Lesley is the lowest common denominator of what ufoolery has devolved to. Now Alfred can probably be excused because of PTSD from Nam and all. Regan is, well, I would just like to know what her real name is.

    By Blogger Brownie, at Thursday, April 16, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home