The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, February 11, 2012

UFO Phenomena [sic]


UFO compiler Jerry Clark suggests (at UFO Updates) that UFOs should not be categorized as one thing or another; that is, the nuts and bolts provision isn’t the only explanation for UFO sightings.

There are other possibilities, none of them exclusionary.

UFOs may be nuts and bolts, or Vallee-induced craft, military misperceptions, or a lot of other things is what I think Mr. Clark is saying.

His observation is obvious and a little late to the table.

He offers that UFO buffs will get no where with a solution to the UFO question until they address the possibility that UFOs are phenomena, not a phenomenon, or singularity.

He may have held that view for a long time but he’s now offering it a bit dynamically, as age and death creeps up on him and the other UFO geezers and they’d like a denouement to the soul-crushing and futile search that has consumed them for most of their (wasted?) lives.

Yes, UFOs are phenomena, in that the sightings may be ascribed to many things, some real, some hallucinatory, some general misperceptions, some neurological, and even some caused by an ethereal presence that Jose Caravaca, Jacques Vallee, and Nick Redfern, see as the progenitor(s) of UFO events.

But is there one phenomenon among the phenomena that UFO aficionados should be devoting time and effort to?

Is it the extraterrestrial (nuts and bolts) craft phenomenon? From other worlds and other galaxies or even other dimensions or time?

Is it the neurologically’psychologically produced phenomenon?

Is it the Mac Tonnies, Jacques Vallee concomitant civilization intrusions?

Is it Jose Caravaca’s Distortion “entities” or Nick Redfern’s Fortean presence(s)?

Is it the intersect that caused the idea of God or gods in the human mind, from time immemorial?

Jerry Clark is right to bemoan the plight we UFO mavens are in – the plight of not knowing what to do next.

With the intellectual state of most UFO hobbyists, I think we are surely lost…

RR

9 Comments:

  • I think Jerry's change of mind is a step in the right direction but I suspect there's too much damage that has been done to date in the labels, "anwers" that have been applied to an unknown phenomenon to take them back, and erase them from memory. It has been on the fringes of the fringe due to the politics of science, the politics of amateurs, the politics of zealots, cults..everything but the kitchen sink and that would be thrown in shortly if they could find it.
    What's next..on our side..nothing. On the phenomenon side, a good question. If some extraordinary event occurs, every bit of useless and stupid baggage will be brought out again. I think a break is due from this and the question is do we need this phenomenon so much are we so attached to it that twenty years from the now that the same dried carcasses are brought out again until they have been dissected to dust and then dissect dust? That is what I see, not in the future but now.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • I couldn't agree more, Bruce.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • We all go through phases of belief. All except people like Stanton Friedman, who has never wavered, and never will, on nuts-and-bolts ETH.

    For the rest (i.e. most of us) it gradually becomes boring with time and we wonder what to do next. As I wrote before, why not adopt Arthur Clarke's "UFOs need a long period of benign neglect" idea?

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • No, there is not one issue that we should be focusing on more than any other.

    We should always remember that the "U" in "UFO" STILL stands for unidentified flying object.

    And, as long as that word "unidentified" is applicable, we should follow all avenues, and not get all faith-based about one or another.

    We should follow all avenues and see where they lead. And there might (in fact, there probably are) be several explanations, but let's not focus on one or the other because it's "exciting" or preferable.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • I disagree Nick..

    It's the specialist who gets the prize and discovers the truth of things.

    The all-over-the-map people (and we know a few) who think they are Renaissance people take us nowhere.

    You like the all-or-nothing approach because everything Fortean (and otherwise) excites and interests you.

    But the hunter who goes out to the woods looking for anything or everything to shoot comes back with nothing but tired feet and an empty game bag.

    Sorry chum....you are wrong.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • But, Rich, it's all very well specializing when we know what we are looking for. But UFOs are a definitive unknown.

    If someone specializes in the "UFOs are time travelers" theory, and the theory has no merit, where's the point or the advantage, in spending years specializing?

    There isn't an advantage - at all.

    Addressing and investigating everything, and carefully filtering until we (hopefully!) get to the answer is the approach to take.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • I guess, Nick, that my belief system(s) make me think that each and every UFO category is rife for study; that is, one will hit paydirt if they study the ET thesis, or the military prototype misperceptions, or the Ancient Alien hypothesis, or the Distortion theory of Caravaca, or your ideas.

    And trying to get a handle on phenomena is harder than getting a handle on one phenomenon.

    It's like studying one butterfly species than all butterfly genera.

    Ufology people can't filter. They are not competent or educated to do so.

    This is what happend to UFO compiler Clark: he collected everything and has ended up clarifying nothing. Quite sad.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • The phenomenon is a synthase of leftovers from a dream logic that obeys no boundary and it's defining feature is that it has no definition.
    It reminds me of William S Burroughs admonition on the baggage of addiction, "Why do you think they call it Junk?"
    It's evolved into a experiential comic book for adults, an ink blot for circular arguments and a reliquary for lost time that cannot be repurchased.
    Ufology ended quite a while ago and no one noticed. This in of itself is revealing.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

  • The answers won't come from the US. Real answers to the phenomena will come from somewhere else in the world where real science-based research will be conducted by real scientists.

    American Ufologists of all ages are still too caught up in the 1950s science fiction movie paradigm to make room for any non-ETH hypotheses, such as those mentioned in your post.

    Ufology in the US is at a dead end. It's become a joke to the military, the media, and most mainstream scientists.

    So let's just keep arguing over that non-event, Roswell, and keep the beer and chips flowing.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Saturday, February 11, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home