UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

How NOT to be famous (in Ufology or anything else)


When the banged-around Roswell Dream Team makes it mark with a clarification of the Roswell incident, and it will clarify that irritating event, the team-members will leave a mark; they will become famous, outside of the UFO community too.

In the UFO community, some already have cachet: Stanton Friedman (no matter that he’s espoused some goofy beliefs in MJ-12 and a Roswell ET crash), Kevin Randle (just for being around and involved with many noted UFO cases), Don Schmitt (for prevaricating and getting away with it), Brad Steiger (sort of), Jerry Clark (but only at UFO UpDates), Jeff Rense (because he allows anti-Semitic materials on his site and many UFO mavens are anti-Semitic), and a few others.

And some who have a little cachet are the skeptics: Robert Sheaffer, Michael Shermer, James Oberg, plus the deceased and most (in)famous UFO skeptic of all, Phil Klass.
oberg.jpg
But it’s the flying saucer advocates who get the lion’s share of notice from the media and public.

Minor skeptics – Christopher Allan [CDA], Lance Moody, Gilles Fernandez, Zoam Choamsky, from our circle – are unknown pretty much, even within the UFO community at large.

Yes, it’s true. Being skeptical brings no kudos or laudatory commentary. It’s a path to non-fame.

Richard Dawkins who, in the science arena (nothing to do with UFOs), has become rather famous for denying God.
dawkins.jpg
He’s a skeptic with élan, outrageous in his non-belief.

UFO skeptics, even those with a little cachet, have nowhere the fame of Dawkins. Of course, some of that lack derives from the topic, UFOs, which is a fringe matter for the public.

God or non-God impacts a larger audience, surely, but it’s how Dawkins takes on the deity; He (God) does not exist.

UFO skeptics, such as Zoam Choamsky, take that approach with UFOs, but using the online sobriquet he identifies with – Zoam Choamsky – does him in. It leaves a zoopy patina.

The milder skeptics, named above (from our small corner of the UFO world), will never be famous. They pull their punches, and raise no hell.

Friedman, and his ilk, get attention and fame by making waves; they promote the irrational with verve, and create books, like Dawkins does, that stir the waters with belief that is patently silly but provided with such energy they get the attention and fame they need or seek.

The Roswell Dream Team will get massive attention if they produce those slides of alleged alien body, the iflm taken near Roswell in 1947. But hey also have their hands on, they say, other evidence that supports the Roswell story of an ET crash.

If so, their fame and legacy is certain to arrive.

Skeptics, not so much. Skeptical stances are unhopeful, unimaginative, and boring. We want surprises, belief in things amazing or fantastic, not a dowsing of reality. That is so unpoetic and sobering, even if the reality is the reality.

So, my dear quidnuncs, if you want to be noted, now or after you leave this mortal vale, be a promoter of things that open the door to realities that offer hope to humanity or, at least, excitement.

And if you want to be skeptical, be so, dynamically, and pungently, not wishy-washy.

Fame will be yours, one way or another.

RR 

17 Comments:

  • MJ-12 isn't 'goofy', it is, to those who care to invest the time, the most significant leak of all time.

    I have personally communicated with 2 archivists (both with several decades of service behind them) who have confirmed the reality of the MJ-12 distribution tag and its attendant classification.

    Not liking the source of the material, or hitting an investigative dead-end because your background did not pique the interest of those whose attention you sought, is not a reason to dismiss the canon

    By Blogger Ross, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Ross...

    You've got to be kidding, right?

    MJ-12 authentic? Oh my...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Thank you, Rich for this post. But as I expressed in my FB, it seems you forget someone I consider as a model for me and critical thinking concerning UFO...

    Amitiés,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Stan Friedman still takes time to slander the long dead Carl Sagan and Donald Menzel, so I would say they had some influence.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Here's the thing about Sagan and Menzel - they were both highly accomplished professionals with top of the line academic credentials and cachet. UFOs were just a very inconsequential side interest in their much broader lives. Contrast that to Stan, who doesn't have the academic credentials they did (an M.Sc. compared to their PhDs) and whose career in science petered out in the late 1960s (although he continued to do work well into the 1980s on an ad hoc basis). That's not to say that Stan isn't a smart guy, but his fame rests solely with UFOs - nobody would listen to him talk if it wasn't for that. Sagan and Menzel were listened to and influenced a much broader and influential group of people in spite of their interest in UFOs, not because of it.

    Therein lieth the difference.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • And there were/are these differences:

    Menzel was duplicitous and mendacious.

    Sagan saw science as theater; he treated it as drama (or comedy).

    Stanton believes what he proffers.

    People like that, even when he's off the mark. His enthusiasm for his views thrill those on the fence about UFO issues.

    That's why he has a modicum of fame.

    Sagan has fame from Cosmos.

    Menzel has no fame.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Anyway, the people you are commenting about fame/not fame (your opinions) have enough fame... to comment them here and by you. Strange paradoxe, no?

    Regards,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Blogs are for opinion(s), Gilles...

    You should have one.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • If the Second Tier skeptics/debunkers want to make it on tv as the ubiquitous 'skeptic' on whatever ufo program is on (even a basic interview like Larry King-CNN use to occasionally host) - they need a show biz agent. [And Second Tier is not an insult, as there are Second Tier Ufologists too. The media seems to like and return to certain ufology 'experts' over others]

    I think it's interesting that the plethora of ghost shows do not have debunkers on but ufo shows (what few there are on) do. To me that suggests perhaps government steering as well as a deep seated psychological fear of ufos and what's operating them (as opposed to ghosties, which everyone and their mother's uncle gab about as it's so acceptable and non-threatening now).


    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • RRRGroup,

    Amidst the obvious fakes (possibly a cointel attempt to put the genie back in the bottle) there are several core documents that stand up to scrutiny.

    By Blogger Ross, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • I'm not going off-topic to discuss MJ-12, but will write that they may be a brilliant hoax but they are indeed a hoax.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • I find it ironic that Klass' Curse on ufology still seems to be more of a reality than the existence of UFOs.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Definition of a UFO Skeptic: Someone who believes that we underestimate the ancients ability to stack 200 ton blocks of stone, and join others seamlessly with edges left vitrified, while, at the same time, their written observations of lights and objects leaving the ocean and entering the sky are due to superstition and a primitive understanding of natural phenomena.

    By Blogger MB, at Monday, October 28, 2013  

  • An honest attempt at an objective skeptical question:

    I just saw another semi-offical sounding explanation of the Phoenix Lights as Combat Aerial Flares (with an A-10 as the visual reference for the dispensing aircraft).

    Is there any skeptic out there that can tell me if there is any flare capable of remaining airborne and functional for 106 minutes?
    (And the model number please, if it isn't classified, of course)

    If so, then I can scratch this one off of the list. If not, then who is it that is having the fantasy moment here?

    By Blogger MB, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • MB - I've wondered if the earlier, smaller sighting (smallish triangular craft) that evening in Phoenix might have been the 'meat' of the matter, with the 'Phoenix Lights' display later on as intentional diversion by the military (or some org. working on it's behalf) to confuse the public.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • Apologies brownie, but I find your response to my question somewhat confusing in itself.

    Regardless of the earlier sighting, if the later sighting lasted 106 minutes and the AF says it was flares, I am curious about the physics of a 106 minute long flare suspended by parachute. I would like to be directed to the info regarding a flare capable of doing that.

    By Blogger MB, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

  • Oh, excuse me for confusing you. I assumed someone with the technical background might come forth to specifically answer your question.

    I made a general comment on the double sightings in Phoenix, that evening, which I find interesting.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Tuesday, October 29, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home