UFO Conjectures

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Robert Sheaffer -- WTF?

I've been a "fan" of Robert Sheaffer's skeptical outpourings for a long time; that is until I saw him on a UFO program recently.

This is a clue as to why I have to part ways with Mr. Sheaffer:
I'm not being superficial here, but Mr. Sheaffer has adopted a look, a facade that tells us a lot about how he's thinking nowadays.

I did a paper in college about how one's personal visage represents their mental condition and their intellectual abilities.

Neatly groomed persons, generally, have neat, logical mind processes. Scruffy, sloppy-looking, messy-haired individuals......well, you get the gist.

(My paper was online at our former RRRGroup blog a few years ago, and may still be found by a Google search. No, it's not my harangue about beards.)

Mr. Sheaffer, who was going bald and is bald, has adopted a cap and straggly hair of a longish dirty-looking kind. (He formerly looked rather dignified.)

According to my obtuse thesis, Mr. Sheaffer has lost his ability of clear-thinking and has given in to a messy confluence of bad, errant influences.

To example my point, Frank Warren's superb UFO site, The UFO Chronicles has a piece by Robert Hastings which skewers Mr. Sheaffer's current state of mind.

Click HERE for that "article."

Remember, if a person looks goofy, because they choose to look goofy -- not those who were cursed by the gods with goofy looks -- then you can assume, rightfully, that their pronouncements are goofy also.

It's a maxim that psychology has always flirted with....



  • Rich,

    My wife says I look like "Bozo The Clown" first thing in the morning; this explains my incoherent mumblings and the big floppy shoes. ;>)

    Kidding aside I understand your argument that unkempt individuals, or those seemingly who don't care about their respective appearances, or personal hygiene might be exhibiting symptoms of some sort of psychosis; however, I don't think this applies to Robert Sheaffer.

    I think he's just "comfortable in his own skin."


    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Rich,

    Forgot to mention (in fairness to Sheaffer) he did pen a rebuttal to Robert's (Hastings) first article:

    CSI and CIA: Hastings’ Hyperbole


    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Sorry Frank,

    I come from the Freudian school, where everything has meaning; and there are no "accidents" in life.

    Mr. Sheaffer's comfort in his skin makes for a bad impression on others.

    Not to be considerate of how one looks (to others) is selfish human behavior.

    And that indicates a bad mind-set.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Rich,

    What does that say for Einstein? :>))


    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Einstein was a pure genius; one can forgive people like him anything.

    Moreover, he wasn't intentionally unkempt.

    Sheaffer is.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Frank slipped in the Einstein comparison before I could...

    You have to admit that Einstein, minus his genius, could have been the poster child for pushing a shopping cart in downtown LA.

    So Freudian thinking making a comeback? I can only go by your photo since I happen to miss the Nat Geo program (as well as Chasing UFOs) due to my work schedule and can't really comment on Scheaffer's appearance.

    BTW, there's a reason why I have no photo for an avatar, though my wife tells me that I was such a handsome young man when we married.

    You, I and others are old school. Appearances told a story one way or another. Now days...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • I'm holding tough on this Tim...

    Messy visage, messy mind.

    It's got nothing to do with handsome or physical attributes; it has everything to with personal care and appearance.

    Throwing in Einstein is a red-herring.

    Einstein is an exception to all rules....one of a kind.

    There is no one in the UFO field, no one! who compares to Einstein.

    Freud's insights still hold up, and yes, there is a re-emergence in his favor.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Fair enough...

    When I get the chance, I send you or provide links to some current psyche papers that highlite the re-emergence of Freudian thought. He's only whispered about by the psychiatrists that I work with since cognitive behaviorism(s) rule the roost for now...at least on my ward.

    I leave it at that and let others comment...have a good day.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Among cognoscenti, Freud remains viable, Tim.

    Not about everything but in many areas that psychiatry deals with, as you know, in your career.

    But setting Freud aside, one only has to use common sense to understand that a sloppy person has a sloppy mind.

    A sloppy desk bespeaks a sloppy work agenda too, but that for another time.

    My experience with UFO people has been that the worst of the lot are the sloppiest....unkempt beards, dirty hats on their heads, and vulgar references scattered through their comments and postings.

    You, however, could make a case for the overly neat -- the obsessive compulsive (as we used to tag them); their thinking is equally flawed, but not intentionally.

    The sloppy, dirty, long hairs are intentional in their derision of convention and good taste.

    They don't give a damn about how they look or how they think; they are self-centered bastards.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Do you really think Robert Hastings has "skewered Sheaffer's current state of mind"?

    It is perfectly possible to refute everything Hastings has said in that article, though I doubt anyone will go to the trouble of doing so.

    His ideas on Rendlesham are poppycock, and he is clearly besotted with the idea that the CIA is in cahoots with Nat Geo, NASA and other civilian organisations. What a load of c--p. He then brings up the fact that because Kendrick Frazier was once at the Sandia Atomic Research labs, he must come under suspicion. If any skeptic has any connection, however remote, with some high security group they are automatic suspects when writing about UFOs.

    What about Hastings himself? Can't someone dig up some dirt on him? You'll find a connection if you look hard enough. (That is, if anyone can be bothered).

    As an 'ad hominem' article, it ranks as one of the worst I've seen. And his remarks about the Twining memo are merely a repeat of what Stan Friedman told us decades ago. And totally useless as far as establishing UFO reality.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • "Skewered" perhaps was hyperbole on my part, anxious to drone on about Robert Sheaffer's physical demeanor when I saw him on a UFO show a while back.

    I was so offput by his change of look that it affected my admiration for his once erudite skepticism.

    And now that Frank Warren has defended Mr. Sheaffer, despite being the place where Mr. Hasting's screed was highlighted, I may have to temper my skewered remark.

    But Sheaffer's slovenly facade remains a bone of contention for me, as does the slovenly thought processes of a few other UFO reprobates.....need I name them?

    (You can find out who I mean by seeing their comments go unnoticed or unresponded to at UFO UpDates, Kevin Randle's blog, and other UFO venues.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • CDA,

    I've personally spent well over two years reviewing and commenting on Hastings work and research methodology. One only has to read my blog on the matter.

    I've been considering responding with my on post, but Scheaffer is more than equal to that task. All that I would provide is unnecessary artifact and a distraction to my current on-going project...but its tempting.

    Hastings is what he is...a true believer and a conspiracy advocate. And that goes with the paranoid ideation that anyone who doubts his work is nothing more than a "dupe" or working hand in hand with the government. I realized this first hand some two years ago when engaging in an email discussion/diatribe with him.

    Malmstrom did something psychologically to him back in 1967. I have my professional suspicions but must leave it at that. That he discounts my technical evaluation of some of his claims (I was an ICBM launch officer at Malmstrom)is telling in my opinion.

    I do give him credit for his tenacity.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Thanks, Tim..

    A hint of insight.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Rich,

    Please don't temper your remarks on my account; I just happen to disagree with you on this particular issue. Moreover, as I have been saying for over 7 years years now, just because an article is published at TUFOC doesn't mean I endorse it, or agree with it.

    We have published various articles of Robert's (Sheaffer) with his permission; moreover, we syndicate his site, Tim's (Herbert), Printy's, CSI's, Mori's and RU's etc., and I can assure you I disagree with most the minutiae that appears in those respective sites; however, I respect their right to voice their opinions–whether I agree with them or not, same with you of course.

    For that matter, I disagree whole-heartily with Tony's last article re Soccorro but was happy to publish it.


    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Oh, I'm well aware Frank, that you are a free-speech advocate, and all round good bloke, with a discerning mind.

    That you give a nice nod to Mr. Sheaffer wears well with me.

    As I wrote, I've always liked Mr. Sheaffer's skeptical analyses, and have touted them hither and yon.

    But he was so goofy looking on that UFO show that I questioned his present thought processes.

    After all, this was a TV show, and one should look good, just as they should dress well (and clean up) when they go to church or a restaurant.

    That he has chosen a new look, one reminding me of my old hippie friends, indicates, to me, an abdication of good, proper thinking: sloppy demeanor, sloppy thinking.

    I made the case years ago -- was lauded by the psychology department at college -- and still feel I'm right about the connection between looks and thinking.

    (I also think my pal, Tony Bragalia, feels likewise, as do all gentlemen of taste and refinement.)

    Nonetheless, I temper my remarks, hoping Mr. Sheaffer gets a hair cut -- for what he has left apparently -- and discards that crummy cap.

    His message(s) shouldn't be besmirched by a lousy facade.

    What you see is what you get, as I understand it.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Rich,

    You'll get no argument from me re one's appearance in making a presentation or conducting business etc., in fact I used to teach its merits. Moreover, I was chastised for my cristism of the "dress code" for the so-called investigators on the former "UFO Hunters" show when I wrote:

    "One thing that remains this season, which some may accuse me of being too cavil, is the slipshod appearance of the investigators; Ufology in general has an “uphill battle” in regards to being taken seriously, not only with mainstream science, but the media and public in general. “Blue jeans, tee shirts and ball caps” are what a ditch digger 'appropriately' wears to work, not an investigative team whose hallmark claims to be 'scientific, analytical research' to uncover the mysteries of the UFO phenomenon."

    You intially wrote:

    According to my obtuse thesis, Mr. Sheaffer has lost his ability of clear-thinking and has given in to a messy confluence of bad, errant influences.

    I would argue that Robert doesn't think he's being messy, or dishoveled, and I haven't seen any commentary of his that strays from his long standing on UFOs . . . in other words if nothing else he's consistent.

    Admittedly I have not watched the Nat geo doc in its entirety; however the segments that I did see which afforded Robert's commentary did seem idiosyncratic, although I don't think has anything to do with his attire.

    What I find great irony in–is that this latest back'n'forth between the two Robert's started with an agreement that Nat Geo's Chasing UFOs was/is one steaming pile of dung, and apparently James Fox has bumped his head. I personally would have enjoyed that "common ground" to be further explored.


    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • RR, You make an interesting observation. Consider this
    idea: The Occupy Movement Protestors. As far as I know & see most are dressed and groomed appallingly. Their cause is a righteous one, imo, but it gets muddied by their appearance.

    Contrast that to the brave men & women who took part in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. At protests & marches they wore mostly suits & ties and dresses. They were dressed with an outward reflection of having self-respect. I think their impeccable dressing and grooming under immensely dangerous situations, made an impact, particularly on tv news.

    Of course I could be reading entirely too much into this whole appearance thing especially when confined to ufology. After all, Stephen Greer dresses nicely & is well-groomed.....and claims to be able to vector in spaceships. ;-)

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger Brownie, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • Frank....

    Sheaffer's skepticism is always erudite, but I think he's coming apart, at least he looked as if he were.

    Susan/Brownie makes some excellent points.

    That some well-dressed UFO people are loony or have loony ideas is no surprise.

    As noted, some pristine people have greater problems than muddy thinking; they are just nuts.

    For me, both sloppy people or buttoned-up people make me wary.

    Sheaffer's appearance was shocking, to me.

    It was as if an icon I greatly admired just crawled out of bed after a night in a flea-bag hotel.

    He looked stupid. He didn't act stupid; he just looked stupid.

    And as Susan suggests, appearance can make all the difference in how one leaves an impression, intellectual and otherwise, as the civil right marchers showed us; we came to identify with them.

    I didn't identify with Sheaffer. He was a turn-off...just because of how he looked.....goofy.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 21, 2012  

  • He's starting to look like Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt and a raft of other celebs. This is a premier "look" du jour with the high profiler set along with the billionaire windbreaker and baseball cap.

    Dress for success went out with the 80s. I don't like him, but not because of the way he's attired these days. Besides, I hang out with a much younger crowd of gamer geeks and he looks really tame in comparison to their sense of style.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • Same here, PG....my nerds are well-kempt and aren't fad-influenced.

    For some reason UFO geeks think it's cool to be slobs.

    I don't get it.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • Rich,
    I have read several times now where you made reference to the notion (which is all it is BTW, a basic prejudice) that beards and appearance indicate a lesser status of composed intellect. Ever heard the old saying "don't judge a book by it's cover"?

    "A sloppy desk bespeaks a sloppy work agenda too, but that for another time"

    Come on! In the name of common sense man, provide some substantiation for what you're proposing here. Study after study has indicated that a messy desk is an indicator of a specific right brain dominance, not an ineptness, nonproductive tendencies, nor a deficiency of any kind really. Don't ever confuse a greatness of intellect and human contribution with a pseudo esthetic measure of intelligence, productivity, or whatever. Dress codes and rigid esthetic measures are something those raised Catholic schools, and preppy surroundings tend to have an irrational indoctrination of and for IMO.

    Some of those most notorious serial killers of all time were very well dressed, neat in appearance, and downright boy scout/esque in mannerism. Look at politicians, lawyers, and other various nefarious ethics magicians. Are they not the epitome of the well organized?

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • Sure Jeff, one can make a case for the (neurotic) overly neat person; that is, they are not above reproach.

    But that gets into sociopathic behavior.

    The slovenly, no matter how much one defends them, are lacking of civility and mental acumen.

    Their thought processes are messy.

    A neat lawyer or criminal has a thought process that may be criminal in effect but the process is thoughtful -- has a premise, a procedure, and a conclusion.

    Slobs just throw thought against the social wall and hope it sticks.

    Give me a well-organized criminal anytime, over an ill-kempt UFO bloke.

    If you don't think that first impressions are important, then you are ill-read....and I don't that is the case with you.

    Maybe you have a beard, and long dirty hair and sloppy garb, but fortunately you remain unseen via this internet communication.

    So your thought remains unsullied,

    But show up, online or during a UFO show, looking like bum or homeless person, and your presentation will go nowhere.

    This is what happened to me when I saw Sheaffer's TV moment.

    That's all....it's a personal pique of mine. bolstered by some studies and common sense thinking.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • It's also a geographic prejudice.

    Here on the West Coast, people have a much more open-minded approach to appearance. Dress really isn't an indicator of anything. and that man you think is homeless might be wearing $5k on his back.

    When I lived back East almost everyone there was a desperate Ivy League wannabe, and some had debt issues related to tying to appear "old money" all the time.

    For some of us, life is simply too short to spend thinking about someone else's fashion sense or lack thereof.

    Hey, I'm blind in one eye because of a massive tumor that was luckily removed some years ago, but left the eye disfigured. In deference to others, I wear an eye patch over it in public. I'd say about one in a thousand feels the need to say something derogatory to me about wearing it. But, I figure it's their problem, not mine.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • I find this fascinating. Banal... but fascinating.

    I think it's situational. I've been known to lounge about in my underwear in the privacy of my own home, and I think that's just fine. But when one goes outside and interacts with other people, things change. Like it or not, but some care with one's appearance is called for. You can wear a bright red suit with a yellow walking stick if you can pull it off - just do it with some style, and give the impression that you give a damn.

    The clothes don't make the man, to reference the old saying - but they do indeed make the impression that others have of him. And Rich is right - the worst impression one can make is that he's a slob.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • Okay Pirate PG...

    You accommodate your bump-intos.

    Sheaffer and the UFO cowboys, with their ribbon-ties and cowboy hats think what they have to impart allows them is so profound they can exploit their bump-intos, forcing them (the bump-intos or TV viewers) to view an unesthetic visage, a slob.

    Some UFO people are restrained and classy. (I have them as "friends" on Facebook.)

    Others just lack social class and sophistication.

    They lose their audience by being slovenly.

    That they don't know anything about social graces and communication goes to why the UFO field is eschewed by refined thinkers.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • Thank you Paul....style is a word I was looking for.

    That and class go a long way to getting attention, which is what the UFO topic needs....the right kind of attention.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • The current New Yorker [8/27/12] in a piece about writer Stefan Zweig by Leo Carey [Page70 ff.], under a set of pictures of Zweig, had this:

    "Zweig painstakingly cultivated his image as a supremely civilized man of letters...."

    Has anyone in the UFO field committed themselves to do likewise?

    Is anyone in the UFO field "cultivated" or "civilized"?

    I didn't think so....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • You're a bit too hard on the UFO guys when it comes to style, Rich. There are some who get what you're driving at. I may not agree with these fellows (an understatement), but no-one can say that Stan Friedman doesn't have a well-honed sense of style (outdated, to be sure, but classic nonetheless), and Rich Dolan is always well dressed and makes a good impression. Ditto Nick Pope, who maintains his civil service look even as he has long since transitioned to the private sector.

    The fact that these three are also three of the biggest media names within ufology goes some way to illustrating your point.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • RR wrote: "Has anyone in the UFO field committed themselves to do likewise?"....
    " Is anyone in the UFO field "cultivated" or "civilized"?"---

    The late J. Allen Hynek and the late Cynthia Hind (So. Africa) were well-dressed and presented their opinions and investigations quite well as has Raymond Fowler, who's been retired for about a decade now. All three were well-spoken and dressed well. Interviews with them can be found on youtube.

    Just contrast Hynek, Hind & Fowler with the ufo hunters, ufo chasers and the slew of paranormal/ghostie 'shows' that are loaded with jeans, hoodies & leather-jacket wearing characters (I assume to appear 'cool'). I understand that production must make some of them dress that way and some are actors anyway following dumbed-down scripts, but but it's so packaged for a certain consumer. There's no authenticity.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger Brownie, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • Such slovenly dress is endemic to society, I'm afraid, Susan.

    You've seen people going to or in church: shorts, flip-flops, jeans, et cetera.

    And what about restaurant habitues?

    I had to leave Florida because of the casual wear that permeated restaurants and every other venue.

    But the point is that the mind-set of such grungy, disheveled people mimics their outer wear and over all sloppy facade.

    Sloppy dress, sloppy thinking.

    (And why do balding guys try to correct their loss of dome-filler by growing long side locks of hair or heavy beards -- the latter making it look like their head is on upside down.)

    Class, style, cleanliness, and derring-do thinking are necessary to keep my attention.

    Thankfully, as you note, a few of the old-timers were thusly gratifying.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • " You've seen people going to or in church: shorts, flip-flops, jeans, et cetera." - - -

    Oh! Speaking of church! Two sundays back I had to endure sitting behind a woman who was sucking through a straw on her coffee coolata, right in the pews. I then heard another sucking sound and realized she was nursing her baby, right in the pews. Yeesh....the noise between the two of them! Then she burbed and put her son up on her shoulder and burbed him! I'm no prude and I nursed my son for nearly a year, but never in church. You can easily go out to the foyer or the ladies room and nurse your baby. BTW, she was dressed like a slob and her husband, who nearly fell asleep, was dressed even worse -- shorts that rode up and a sleeveless stripped shirt that showed spidery hairs on his shoulders/back/upper arms. No problem if you're in your own home or your own backyard, but not church just a few inches in front of me. Gack!

    "And why do balding guys try to correct their loss of dome-filler by growing long side locks of hair or heavy beards -- the latter making it look like their head is on upside down." - - -

    You know, Rich, if only men who do this would realize that if they were to shave their head (including those weird side burns) they'd look so much more appealing! Actually a man who shaves his head looks very masculine to me and it's an overall neater appearance.

    "Sloppy dress, sloppy thinking." - - -

    I so agree. And yet I do wonder if people like Einsten and Steve Jobs (who was said to have smelled so bad in his earlier years at Apple, his colleagues had to make sure he bathed & changed his clothes every few days) - had Aspergers Syndrome (the high functioning level of Autism). His partner Steve Wosniak has been rumored to have Aspergers Syndrome (this came up when Wos was dating Kathy Griffin, the commidienne, and it was brought up on her reality show). He never denied nor confirmed it. Wosniak needed help buying dress clothing and understanding certain etiquette. He'd said he would study it in advance to learn it. Now obviously these men were/are geniuses. Some Aspies are slovenly and have poor hygiene and yet some can be quite clean (if it's a priority to them).

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger Brownie, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

  • Susan...

    You and I are on the same page, in the same book!

    Courtesy, civility, manners and decorum are small commodities in today's society.

    Thanks for the note....although the descriptive about the guy in church, with his cut-off shirt made me put my toast back on its platter.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Rich,
    I had to rib you a little with the substantiation bit and all due to your recent insistence on as much from myself. So much of that which is theoretical, let alone hypothetical, originates and is furthered via instinctive right brain activity rather than that which is patently learned, stored, and processed logically by the left hemisphere of our brains. I don't doubt the general premise of what you're stating here in the least because at some level you "feel" it instinctively. Further, you find personal agreement within the notion. It's an inherent individual thing of your own and therefore I respect that fully. The problem with appearances however, is that esthetics tend to invoke subjective responses within the beholder. What you individually perceive as a sloppy or unkempt person, another might liken to David Crosby, or Jesus Christ for that matter.

    I am absolutely certain that you are aware that the vast majority of innovators within the highest order of liberal artistic and scientific pursuits are in fact right brain dominant. As was Einstein and so many others whose contributions to human endeavor are virtually beyond measure.

    Appearance boils down to an individual thing IMO. Grooming is a learned social behavior and we as a species are a social animal so naturally an individual's appearance and the manner in which they are perceived is very important. Of course first impressions are critical and not to be downplayed. In the wild, as much could save your life. The thing is, within this refined process we call civilization, when it comes to discovery sciences as well as subjective creativity and problem solving, those with a greater propensity for the applied imagination (the right brain) come in first hands down. Logic is a disciplined, narrow, and precise process. By itself, logic is as useless as a one armed paper hanger because it's linear and therefore rooted in the past at all times henceforth. However, those who manage to temper their right brain's progressive dominance with an assertive logical aptitude are hard to beat in almost any applied question mark or uncertainty. They are those that serve best while "thinking on their feet" because of their tempered yet spontaneous nature. The know and understand in practice the critical nature of improvisation.

    Balance is key, however perfection is only a fallible idealism.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Jeff...

    You know I luv ya, but I have a quibble or two.

    Only you guys (not PG or Brownie) keep sliding in Einstein (or Jesus and David Crosby, in your example) who are exceptions to the (my?) rule.

    The people or person I'm citing are not Sons of God or a musical or scientific genius; they are UFO blokes with opinions, and not very well-thought opinions either.

    The UFO community is flush with slobs -- intellectual slobs, physical slobs, and sociopathic slobs.

    If it weren't for the likes of some honorable, high-thinking, clean-cut civil people, like PG, Susan, Paul Kimball, Nick Redfern, Frank Warren, Tony Bragalia, Jose Caravaca, and a few others I know, I'd skip over this UFO stuff and stay close to my Ann Arbor peeps and their erudite, sophisticated presence.

    If I were only subjected to people like Steve Sawyer, Alfred Lehmberg, Errol Bruce-Knapp, Don Ledger, and a few others I could name, I'd dispense with UFOs altogether.

    These UFO pigs give the UFO topic a patina of manure, with their vulgarities, unkempt thought, and need for self-aggrandizement.

    Fortunately, few pay attention to these people, so the rest of us can maneuver within the UFO topic freely, escaping their disgusting thoughts and even worse physical presence pretty much.

    Keeping the likes of them off TV and out of ear-shot or eye-shot is a goal that TV producers should emulate.

    Preventing them from soiling blogs or web-sites is a goal that the rest of us would do well to strive for.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Why are we discussing all this? Wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss Prince Harry?!

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Ah, Wild Prince Harry....

    Your dominion Christopher.

    The Prince is clean-cut -- very much so, by the way -- so we don't need to rag on him.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Rich,
    Whether it be the formal notion of Ufology, or just a fun and informal address of that which comprises the hobby of UFO considerations, IMO, you'll find a pretty equal smattering of charlatans and blowhards that make up the neat n tidy as opposed to the esthetically conscientious. The UFO watchdog.com site might provide an interesting look see.

    "Remember, if a person looks goofy, because they choose to look goofy -- not those who were cursed by the gods with goofy looks -- then you can assume, rightfully, that their pronouncements are goofy also."

    I believe the reason why this post elicited so many counter responses is because of the word "choose" as used above. No matter how many times the aforementioned patina rich brethren drop their proverbial UFO hats in the cow pasture, trying them on as many times as they may, much to the perceived chagrin of their pain staking details, the stench you complain of does not originate from any measure of aesthetics. What you describe here originates solely from a perceived measure of ethics. Unfortunately, apart from the content of action itself, there is no hard correlative blueprint for the latter.

    Who the hell is Prince Harry anyway?

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • ....I don't care if PK has adopted the "permanent Ron Howard filmmaker cap' look (for the same reason.....)

    ....I don't care if Professor Tony Braglia is logically kicked in the teeth by his Dream Teammate D. Rudiak...

    ....I don't care if Deuce Bruseing wears a Santa Claus beard to distract from his "thoughts"...

    ....I don't care if RRGrupen ignores the Roswell research of Kal Korff...

    ...but seriously, Sheaffer's fashion sense is the most important 'UFO' research topic currently?

    I expect more from this blog....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Hey KP...

    The Sheaffer screed was just an itch I needed to scratch,

    We've moved on...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Actually, I never wear the cap anymore unless I'm outside in a non-formal setting, where it comes in handy to prevent sunburn, something people with a full head of hair wouldn't understand.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, August 23, 2012  

  • Rich,


    OK, I have since watched the doc all the way through, paying close attention to Robert Sheaffer's commentary or specifically–his attire/appearance. He was wearing a dark blue (dress) blazer, blue shirt buttoned to the top with no tie. He also wore what looked to be a "new" (matching) dark blue "golfer's hat" (his signature). His (thinning) hair was shoulder length, unsullied and combed.

    If anything stood out, it was his demeanor which seemed subdued, and he looked down, rather then into the camera; however, his declarations were clear and concise, although they were monotone.


    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Friday, August 24, 2012  

  • Thanks, Frank...

    I was so put off by his hippie-hair that I didn't catch much of what he said.

    It was a shock to see him in such a 1960ish mode.

    Shoulder length hair on an old guy is not only sad, it's indicative of befouled thinking.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, August 24, 2012  

  • I agree. Mr Scheaffer is losing it. If he ever had a good mind, he has long since lost it.
    He is now a ridiculous, pathetic character, crawling around UFO conferences and harrassing people, while trying to score points with his sycophants.
    He is not a scientist, and is every bit as illogical and unscientific as the most out-there people he claims to be "debunking". His "investigations" of the fields he ridicules appear to consist of pronouncements that everyone else's investigations, or evidence are to be discounted just because he says so.
    Mr Sceaffer needs to get a life, and do something constructive for a change. He is embarrassing himself with the tripe he spouts, as well as with his isheveled appearance.

    By Blogger Colbern Steve, at Monday, March 25, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home