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












