The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

UFO Regurgitation: A Warning!


One of the problems when UFOs are the subject matter is the propensity for bloggers and UFO aficionados to pad the discussion with a redundant recap of hoary UFO stories: Roswell for instance, and others like the L.A. battle of 1942, Socorro, the Betty/Barney Hill “abduction” among many others.

The RB47 incident, noted here, and regularly by Paul Kimball at his blog, The Other Side of Truth, is also an example of a UFO sighting that gets an extended work over.

We try to avoid presenting hackneyed flying saucer tales at our blogs, only posting such referential stories when and if there is new light to be shed upon them, as is the case when Anthony Bragalia delves into the Roswell event with his memory metal angle.

But, some who visit our blogs can’t help themselves and often regurgitate known and banal details from the classic UFO sightings. It’s a matter of showing off their accumulated knowledge about UFOs we think, or a disregard for the sensibilities of those who are trying to find new, unique insights to the UFO enigma.

Let us assure you that we won’t go down that trail of insipid rehashing, as is the pattern at such blogs as Kevin Randle’s A Different Perspective.

That is, we shall try to limit our postings and comments here to views that are truly unique or new.

Fleshed out theories of what UFOs may be shall be the grist for content here, not purloined hypothesizing or regurgitated material, taken wholesale from other blogs/sites or books and archives that true UFO hobbyists are well acquainted with.

We’ll try to be inventive in our thinking and conjectures. And we’ll try to curtail grandstanding by those who need to display their assumed acumen when it comes to an almost profound mystery: UFOs.

Therefore, if you are a regular here, know that an onslaught of UFO drivel, acquired from sources not your own, will be ignored and not posted.

That’s our caveat for the time being…..

17 Comments:

  • Looking forward to it. I hope we can move beyond these stories, which are fine for the likes of blogs like mine (that entertain as much as inform), and tackle some new areas. I think the old guard has proved itself most unworthy in tackling these enigmas. MUFON and the like are antiquated and stagnant. I look forward to sensible, well-thought out, conjecture from you learned folk.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Tuesday, March 29, 2011  

  • Cullan:

    Thanks for the epithet "learned" but people like you are truly learned, as your blog "Strange State" shows.

    We are edified by visiting your ruminations and hope we might come close to doing what you do.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, March 29, 2011  

  • Rich,

    Actually, the RB47 case was largely ignored even within ufology until we brought it to grater light... and it is certainly not well known within the mainstream - a mainstream, I might add, that knows little about the actual history of UFOs, or the really good cases. But there'a always that Roswell case you keep nattering on about, claiming "new" revelations (insert laughter here). You must find the low hanging fruit tasty, and presumably it ratchets up the views at your blog.

    But I know you like to try and stir the pot, so I'll good-naturedly take this for what it is - factually incorrect, and extremely amusing.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Tuesday, March 29, 2011  

  • Kaku at the World Competitiveness Forum.

    A brilliant and accomplished scientist but also one helluva showman.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctPvEbmFmeQ

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Tuesday, March 29, 2011  

  • Paul:

    Again, the RB47 event is very interesting, but doesn't tell us anything substantial, about the essence of the UFO phenomenon.

    It does tell us something about the Air Force, professional airmen, and radar, but nothing about the intrinsic nature of UFOs.

    That's my point.

    I know you hate Anthony Bragalia's forays into the Roswell incident, a flying saucer incident he sees as extraterrestrial.

    I don't see Roswell that way but his digging has produced some unusual behavior by scientists at Battelle and other agencies; behavior that causes me pause about throwing out the ETH as an explanation for Roswell.

    That said, my sensibilities get strained by how responders to his work often go off-track with a litany of peripheral info and stories that they've culled from the prolonged Roswell mythology.

    But even that can lead to a sociological approach to the tale.

    I like that you see our mixing it up as mischievous.

    That's what we do best, maybe.

    And in the age of Facebook and Twitter tweets, we'd like to keep things to a minimun when possible, but some keep trying to fill our space with protracted detritus that, like your RB47 case, doesn't take us anywhere.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, March 29, 2011  

  • I applaud the sentiment and I share it. The thing is, as far as I can make sense of it, there haven't been any new ideas for years. It's as if all the possibilities have been explored ...from the ridiculous to the inspired.

    Kaku's 'Type #' postulations seem to have been the last 'new idea,' but people who've read sci-fi by Iain M Banks et al were already familiar with the concept. It seems like we are doomed to reiterations/rebrandings of existing ideas.

    Where that leaves people with an interest in the subject is anyone's idea.

    Unless the 'enigma' changes its modus operandi and invites new interpretations, it's hard to see where a new idea will come from. This may seem like a negative perspective, but it isn't intended to be.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, March 29, 2011  

  • Kandinsky:

    I see a smidgen of optimism in your comment.

    Yes, the phenomenon (UFOs) is sneaky or obfuscating (purposely?)
    but some genius might come up with a theory or serious hypothesis that goes to an explanation or near-explanation.

    But like quantum or string theories, much is nothing new under the sun, most of the ideas having been explored by the early Greek philosophers or medieval alchemists, without the math.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, March 29, 2011  

  • I have to agree that Kevin Randle's site has an inappropriate title. 'A Different Perspective' implies something new or different, whereas most of the contents is old regurgitated stuff. Perhaps you and he should exchange blog titles.

    BTW, why does the LA case of 1942 excite some people so much? Until about 10 or 15 years ago, nobody had ever heard of it. I hope nobody is foolish enough to put it into their top 10.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    Why do a lot of UFO sightings or perceived UFO incidents excite anyone?

    The content of the stories must resonate with something mentally genetic within a person to lead them to obsess (sorry Paul) over a particular event.

    Frank Warren is a resident of California and a guy old enough to remember WWII vividly so one might understand his fascination with the L.A. 1942 incident, for instance.

    Nick Redfern's "obsession" with Chupacapras might stem from being bitten by a mangy, stray dog when he was a kid in Britain.

    (I don't know that to be a real happening, but it should be explored.)

    Early life experiences may draw persons to a specific UFO event for reasons that have nothing to do with the event itself.

    (But I'm guessing, as usual -- just a Different Perspective.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • Rich

    LOL, nope, no dog bites. Although as Jon Downes noted in his Chupacabra book, The Island of Paradise, when me and Jon went to Puerto Rico in 2004, I got pissed on by a bat in a cave!

    I decided to take the risk and not get a rabies injection in the stomach, Ozzy Osbourne-style.

    Luckily, I did not get infected! Or maybe I did - by Chupa-mania...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • Nick:

    That bat-pee may explain everything.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • LOL, it very well might!

    Seriously though, one of the main reasons why the Chupacabra story fascinates me, and why I spend a lot of time on it, is because Puerto Rico is not a big place.

    So it's easy to get around, and surprisingly easy to chase down leads, locate witnesses etc.

    I've been there now 5 times and each time I come back with more info, plus it's a cool place to do research anyway!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • So, Nick, Fortean research follows the real estate dictum: location, location, location?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • Well, to an extent it does. The biggest problem with researching UFO cases is that, very often, the trail has gone cold by the time we get the story.

    So, there's very little we can do when we get to the site, aside from having "Mr. Jones" or "Mr. Smith" point to the sky and say: "That's where I saw the UFO."

    Interesting, but not much we cna do with it.

    But, with unknown (or alleged!) creatures like the Chupacabra, Nessie etc, my view is that because they are seen in the same locations over and over again, it may afford us the possibility of staking out the areas and one day finding evidence - precisely because Loch Ness and Puerto Rico are not random areas of the sky.

    That's where a lot of UFO investigations fall down. Not because of the nature of the investigator or the witness, but you can't go on an expedtion for something seen in the sky 2 weeks ago.

    You can go on an expedition for the Chupa in an area it was seen 2 weeks ago.

    So, the issue of "location, location, location" is relevant to the nature of the phenomenon and where it's seen.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • Therefore. Nick, you go toward those aspects of the paranormal which have the prospect of being explained or, at least, providing some concrete clues or evidence.

    UFOs, by the very nature of their evanescence, elude explanation.

    That's how I see it, and it's the reality that some UFO researchers eschew, in their continuing state of denial.

    (Also, Puerto Rico is a nice place to visit.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • Rich:

    Yeah, that's exactly what I do. As I personally see it, so much of Fortean research is steeped in cases where the trail is either cooling or stone-cold when we get there, or it's something seen in the sky, something witnessed hovering over the desert etc, etc.

    So, with the phenomena at issue being so elusive and "here one minute, gone the next," my view is we simply have to try and find a way around that problem - which is why i tend to focus on places that might be termed "repeaters," or "window-areas" etc.

    If something is ongoing, or an enclosed location (like a certain, famous Scottish loch...), then that's better than trying to glean something solid from a 2-week-old "Flying Triangle" case where the object was seen and gone long before any investigation can be undertaken.

    And, let's be honest, you can't really do an "investigation" of a 2-week-old FT report. All you can do is audio-record what the witness said, check if there were planes in the area, etc etc.

    Such an act is not actually an investigation of the UFO phenomenon itself (because it's long-gone). Rather, it's an investigation of issues surrounding that phenomenon.

    When there's a possibility (however remote!) of a colony of unknown animals in Loch Ness - and they are stuck there - to me, that offers more chance of an investigation of the phenomenon itself.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

  • Nick:

    I am in total agreement with your modus operandi.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, March 30, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home