The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Ufology: A lack of scientific protocols and nuance


It doesn’t surprise me or members of the RRRGroup that UFO “researchers” (ufologists, so-called) and their followers are unsophisticated thinkers who eschew cultured, classy thought processes when it comes to their hobby.

Persons who comment here, some, maybe most, miss the finer points of the postings, the nuances.

And when I’ve used the word forensic, some  -- I think Terry (the Censor) -- griped, not knowing the definition of the word.

Forensic thinking is nuanced thinking,

Read any UFO book or seek out any UFO venue on the internet and you’ll see that they all are rife with barbaric thinking, Neanderthalian approaches to the UFO enigma and its peripheral aspects,

The finer points, the subliminal clues and elements, are not addressed by almost all UFO hobbyists or researchers.

The clubbed-in-the-head approach is endemic to UFO reports and investigation, even (or especially) by the UFO clique or old-guard: Jerry Clark, Kevin Randle, Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedman, et al.) and surely by the lesser lights (David Rudiak, Don Ledger, among others).

The finer points of life and UFO accounts are cavalierly overlooked or dismissed, sometimes not understood or seen, even though they are blatant to the sophisticated follower of UFO reports..

Examples: the use of “flying disk” in the Roswell press release, the Socorro symbol, the Betty/Barney Hill associations (outside their alleged abduction experience), the food or medicines and drinks that experiencers ingest before their so-called abductions), the radar responses in the Washington D.C. sightings and the RB-47 account, the sulphur smell in the Flatwoods case and the flying objects in the Jose Caravaca “distortion” accounts, to name a few).

When I place a book or magazine article online in my postings, how many visitors here have read or subscribe to any of them? Few or none, I’m sorry to say.

Aside from Bruce Duensing who is obviously well-read and infused with insight to what he’s read, or Kandinsky, who seems to be immersed in things intellectual or cultured, not just UFO oriented, I don’t see a finely crafted mind-set among the commenters here.

That lack of nuance and refined thinking is what has kept the UFO enigma in place as an enigma.

And I’m as much as fault as the persons I’m excoriating here; I allow the superficial comments to be placed underneath some fine thinking by Anthony Bragalia or Jose Caravaca or by outside writers I’m pleased to present at this blog.

That said, I would hope that some of you will gear up your minds to cope with the finer points being made – try to see the trees and forget the forest.

That would go a long way to providing a valuable down-to-Earth experience at this truly irrelevant (in the great scheme of things) venue of ours.

RR 

15 Comments:

  • LOL! Hey now, Some of us interested in ufology may be high falutin'.

    As I write this, I'm enjoying Bizet's Les Pecheurs de Perles, "Au fond du temple saint"; featuring tenor Roberto Alagna and baritone Bryn Terfel. It's sublime..... ;-)

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger Brownie, at Saturday, April 28, 2012  

  • What Susan?

    You're not listening to the Met broadcast of Die Walkure?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, April 28, 2012  

  • Ha! RR, Wagner is too brute for me on this fine spring day. ;-)

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger Brownie, at Saturday, April 28, 2012  

  • He is a bit lugubrious, I have to agree, Susan...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, April 28, 2012  

  • I'm not sure that chiding your regular posters is the best way forward! Rather than being 'irrelevant,' I usually learn something from the blog and the folk who post their comments. It's likely the case for others too.

    There's also a case to be made that overriding intellectualism can be as limiting as an uneducated commentator. Taken together they can become a sum greater than their parts with each party (hopefully) raising their game for the other to understand their ideas.

    In simpler terms, the A-Team succeeded because each character was distinct (and crazy as hell too).

    The UFO enigma has defended its battlements under an onslaught of technical, intellectual, esoteric and plain idiotic assaults. We seemingly have to wait for new scientific advances/discoveries before trying again to breach the walls....or a new approach from our erstwhile antagonists.

    It just ain't for being made sense of...

    Anyway, I'll try and stay more on-topic in the future.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Sunday, April 29, 2012  

  • Kandinsky...,

    You are always on topic.

    As for chiding our regular commenters, this blog is a venue for presenting ideas and/or hypotheses about UFOs that are almost unique or off-the-wall.

    We don't care if we get comments or not.

    We want the ideas of people like Anthony Bragalia and Jose Caravaca to go forth into the world to resonate with reasonable and intellectual people.

    As a media critic, elsewhere online, I am short with persons in journalism who write stupidly or act stupidly.

    And I choose my friends very carefully, limiting friendship to highly artistic and intellectual souls, even those who are overly affected by their creative efforts.

    The raft who post here, or try to, strain my patience with their attempts to undercut thinkers like Bragalia and Caravaca.

    I am open to attack as I do get a little bizarre and off-track myself.

    But others who contribute here are sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned, or else they would not have our forums to place their ideas in.

    You have no idea how many comments don't get posted by me or my gang; crazy stuff, envious broadsides, and snide remarks because the commenter just doesn't have the facility to present something worthwhile.

    So by chiding I hope to keep the riff-raff far from here...let them go to UFO UpDates or Above Top Secret where everyone is a graffiti artist.

    I'm trying to cleanse the UFO palate in my small part of the internet universe.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, April 29, 2012  

  • Rich, a few points..

    What's with the odd defense of Bragalia? I don't want to be too testy, but isn't defending Bragalia (it isn't even that he defends Roswell as an ET crash - well it is a little - but it's his um reasoning and dubious logic that he uses to justify his stance here) as a cutting-edge thinker just a little exaggerated?

    I'm sure each commentator here can speak for and defend himself or herself, but in our defense you can't really say too much in commentary to a blog, they are only comments. To really flesh things out, we would all need our own blogs and speaking for myself I don't have the time..

    As far as culture and nuanced thinking are concerned, I'm with you Rich! The state of ufological discourse is however a reflection of the wider anti-culture, and things are just going from bad to worse (don't we all know that?). I do think one of the biggest problems in ufology is boxed thinking and the inability to make connections between different but overlapping disciplines. However it is a universal problem that infects our so-called civilization and all the sciences.

    On a personal note, I would have you know that I am currently reading a thesis on the religious symbolism in Lowry's 'Under the Volcano' (seriously). I am trying to see the connections to ufology, but haven't got too far there. However that may be my own fault and my own lack of deep insight! I next plan to read a major work on Haitian voodoo and will be plumbing it for any ufological associations. I'm on the level here, as I think divorcing a religious and mystical context from ufology is like divorcing sex from marriage. You can do it, but the marriage suffers a slow or not so slow death. That's just my own POV.

    Rich, for what it's worth, I think your blog is great and I appreciate what you do. I think
    it's important, even if most everybody else on the internet is arguing about the Hunger Games and Lindsey Lohan's latest escapades. And worse..

    However on a controversial, heated and enigmatic topic like ufology, there is no avoiding clashes, misunderstandings and the like. Also we all need to leave our egos behind when embroiled in even heated arguments, and not take criticism too personally. Easier said than done I know. Everybody's ideas and notions are up for criticism and even ridicule. There are no sacred cows. Hell you should know what I sometimes have to say about Jacques Vallee, and I practically hero worship him and am heavily indebted to him (as are we all)!

    There is a lot more I could say, but this is just commentary to a blog, as I write above, and that's all. In closing, remember Rich we are like a big family. Corny I know but it's true - bickering, backstabbing, loving and hating, yup that's family!

    By Blogger Lawrence, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • Lawrence...

    I'm with you pretty much,

    As for Bragalia, he's a great researcher. I know this from what he's provided or uncovered, much not in the public arena, yet.

    As for squabbling, yes, there is that and the lack of refinement by the general UFO crowd, from which you and a few others are an exception.

    We have a nice, small, rather sophisticated group visiting and commenting here, so I shouldn't keep bitching.

    But, like other long-time UFO devotees, the continuing UFO enigma has made me testy.

    I'll try to loosen up...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • I neither hero worship Jacques Vallee nor am I heavily, or even lightly, indebted to him.

    The same applies to Anthony Bragalia. He has his good points and can sometimes present a reasonable case. He is not a 'great' researcher, and his ideas on Roswell are just plain dotty.

    By the way, not long ago I asked him to present his evidence that Arthur C. Clarke was a paedophile. I am still waiting. If he does ever present anything, I predict it will be second or third hand tittle-tattle. Shades of Roswell.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • Christopher (CDA):

    I don't know why Bragalia hasn't replied to your Arthur Clarke request.

    Bragalia's allegation took me by surprise also.

    I'll make sure he sees your current comment. (I sent him a copy of your previous comment about the matter.)

    As for being a researcher, Anthony has found some truly interesting Roswell material, not shared openly yet, but on its way.

    From what I've been privy to, he still can't prove that an alien crash occurred near Roswell in 1947 but he has found circumstantial material which seems to indicate that something of an extraordinary nature did take place.

    But that's for him to offer up, when he's ready...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • CDA wrote: "By the way, not long ago I asked him to present his evidence that Arthur C. Clarke was a paedophile. I am still waiting. If he does ever present anything, I predict it will be second or third hand tittle-tattle. Shades of Roswell."

    The accusation was made by either the Sunday or Daily Mirror (some "mirror", I don't know the British press) I forget when.

    It would probably take maybe five minutes of browsing about to get the whole story.

    I refer Rich back to my personal correspondence he mentioned in the previous Caravac discussion.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • Anthony Bragalia has communicated, privately, with CDA about the Clarke matter.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • Don had this in a comment, which wasn't posted because of a need to omit a portion, which we can't do with Blogger; that is comments can't be edited by us:

    "I agree, I don't do what some others do, including Bragalia and Randle. I actually read the documentation before I comment on a case. Those two, on the Rhodes case, are just carrying water for Hynek and Project Grudge. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

    And there's not much I can say to forum commenters -- not side track them -- and their universal opinion the Air Force did not return the negatives to Rhodes...not much to say except read the documentation.

    And there is nothing at all I can do for Stalter's, and probably Bragalia's, misreading of Zamora's

    "Car chased was a new black Chevrolet (it might have been Floyd Reynold's boy, Vivian, about 17)."

    as

    "The driver was a boy about 17, who might have been..."

    And they must consider what Zamora wrote just before an just after that statement that he was never closer than three blocks behind the car as a mere detail of no significance. Just something a pedant like me would consider interesting.

    Jesus. Zamora id'd the frickin' car and made a guess who might be driving it.

    A minor detail, right? Just my little kink."

    Don

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • To provide context for the above, I was responding to the implication that my interest in minor details is irrelvant to the big picture, and a kind of personal affectation on my part which sidetracks otherwise ok discussions.

    And that I agree with Rich I am not in the same class with those others.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • Thank you Don.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home