UFO Conjecture(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.