UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, June 22, 2014

UFO Buffs are NOT Intellectual Gourmands!

I placed four posting this past weekend [6/21-22] online: one about interesting early Airship/UFO sightings, one about the Big Bang, one about the NSA and evil government shenanigans, and one about Roswell and memory metal (from our colleague, Spanish UFO researcher Jose Caravaca).

Which one did readers surfeit on? The Roswell memory metal/Uri Geller item from Señor Caravaca.

Yes, it is an interesting item.

But is it the only item that deserves attention?

Roswell, in a title – despite the irritation it causes sensible UFO devotees – always brings a raft of comments, most biased and many incendiary.

That’s what happened with my postings; the relevant Redfern-connected machinations of the U.S. military and government when it comes to UFOs and the spicy UFO sightings of the 1890s and 1947, all dismissed so mavens could debate the Roswell memory metal item.

It’s shameful, intellectually.

That’s why academics, scientists, and news media general eschew UFOs. It’s not just the epithet UFOs that causes sane persons to eschew the topic. It’s often the inordinate attention to Roswell, which lopsides the matter.

Changing the UFO sobriquet to UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) or UAO (Unidentified Aerial Objects) as Gene Steinberg addressed in his recent Paracast newsletter won’t assuage the obtuseness of the subject for rational humans.

It’s the concentration of attention on Roswell, with all its erratic permutations, that keeps the UFO topic from real scrutiny.

UFO aficionados, swilling on Roswell, have ruined the UFO topic, in general, with their obsession.

An intriguing phenomenon has been emasculated by the Roswell fixation just as this blog has been diverted by readers who have no idea what is nutritious and what isn’t.

RR

10 Comments:

  • I've only read a dozen or so newspaper accounts of the 'Mystery Airships' of the 19th century. Setting aside the local Mark Twain wannabes, there seem to be two sorts of narrative. One is what we would recognize as a typical ufo report, 1947 and thereafter.

    The second is the one I find most interesting, which at least imply there were inventors and financiers building airships and flying them. Who and where, though, was a matter of rumor.

    This was the 19th century, not the 21st...telegraph and rail and native-surface trails -- it was the same sort of world in which bicycle shop owners could invent and fly airplanes. So, there was romance and mystery about it, and it beguiled. The solitary or secret inventor became a stereotype of early science fiction. They did exist, though, probably in every small town in small town America. A vestige of the era can be glimpsed in Bill Rhodes.

    'Roswell' is an ET/No-ET magnet. Several generations now only see it through that lens. It is beyond dull and boring. It is the epitome of MEGO -- not the ETH, but the polarized debate between advocates and skeptics who ought to know better.

    I wondered why you buried the Socorro discussion, which was substantive.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • Don:

    Socorro could be debated endlessly also.

    I can only take so much, especially when comments start to get rancid, not yours, but others.

    And I was distressed and am distressed that David Rudiak is so dismissive of that insignia.

    It's the "murder weapon" in the case.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • For many of the "buffs" you can drop the last word of the title and it would still fit.

    Many "buffs" and their skeptical counterparts are locked into a rigid belief system which does not allow for contrary opinion or multiple answers. Their answer to the unknown is based upon a choice of belief rather than any logical or factual basis.

    Saying all unidentified objects are from aliens from another solar system is on equal footing with there are no "unidentified phenomena". Neither is likely to be true

    There belief will permit not questioning their reasoning because what "must be the truth" precludes them from accepting any other answer than the one they've already chosen.

    Is that scientific? No.
    Is it rational? No.
    Does it sell books or get your name in bright lights in the media? Sure it does if you play your cards right.

    That is where I have a problem with most of the "buffs" and "skeptics"... for the most part neither group is qualified to speak about the subject matter that they espouse as "the truth" or "fact" but they love the fame, money, and ego strokes from the attention the subject can bring.

    But then we're not talking about science are we?

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • In terms of Roswell derived material on your blog garnering the most attention, the answer for me is very simple. You are a victim of your own success with Roswell fans who prefer to be called researchers. The same applies to other examples outside of your blog.
    One of my favorite television shows is Boardwalk Empire and I am a fount of trivial facts regarding the minutia of characters, plotlines, the actual history of the real life characters as well as that period of American history. Much of it is meaningless, harmless and derivative much like the Roswell arcania and sort of science fiction appeal given with a dose of “it could be true”
    Just as some folks prefer Marvel comics, and can give you the issue number of what happened where to what character, I noticed the same here on Roswell...nothing wrong with any of this in my opinion but your blog is the go to place for the Roswell fan base and this is bolstered by AJB’s continuing and episodic adventures and this is reinforced by the examination of cases around that period of time. The focus of Kevin Randal etc. It could be an age demographic. I know of a couple of former correspondents that are drop outs from the RRR Roswell saga due to the continuing exploits of ALB and especially what they consider to be your “promotion “of the teasers surrounding the Kodachrome revelations.It was an overdose according to them. Its also a Venus fly trap for card carrying skeptics who love to hate Roswell. So I think other avenues of subjects surrounding UAP, UFOs or that genre just dont generate the same sex appeal with your audience who are as you say Roswell “mavens”. I think you are a victim of your own success.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • Roswell, Bruce, is an interesting, tasty part of the UFO buffet, but if I can break away from it (with posts about Socorro, the Airship craze, and 1947 sightings that intrigue), I expect UFO aficionados can do the same, but they can't.

    It's a matter of fixation.

    As for the eventual slides presentation, I think that's important too, no matter how it turns out. It's part of the Roswell mythos.

    Anthony Bragalia's Roswell work, in conjunction with his Roswell teammates, is also important.

    It will, perhaps, clear the air of the mystery, one way or another.

    My plaint here is the obsessive focus of UFO hobbyists; they can't see the UFO forest for the Roswell tree(s).

    And skeptics are okay with me.

    They pose no harm and are relatively gentlemanly in this venue.

    I'm just irked that UFO mavens can't further the UFO dialogue without the infusion of Roswellian input, myself included.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • I think with Roswell there is a chance that something can be proven as fact eventually. Whereas Socorro, Mystery Airships, and lights in the sky are all things that can be endlessly discussed over and over with absolutely zero hope of ever finding a definitive answer.

    I think people are attracted to Roswell because of the possibility of hard evidence being revealed. Although I doubt it will happen any time soon- or possibly ever.
    I find your other postings very interesting Rich. I just have very little to add to what's already been said.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • I guess my view boils down to it's a game for adults with no clear winners or losers. Yes some games are more intellectual than others but in real sense as far as the subject matter at it's core, none of us know what we are playing with. Some who take a more turgid view say they do, and like all games of expertise it is also a gamble, the game of expertise.
    One think we do seem to share is that it's a great platform to discuss a variety of issues. To me , that's its sole appeal. It links to as many subjects as we care to count and it simply depends on how many subjects one finds interesting. For the Roswell hardcore, they don't seem to demonstrate a wide variety of interests. At least, here that much seems to hold true form the comments.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • @RRRGroup

    Personally I find the USO connection to be very intriguing. The 'quackers' encountered by the Soviets during the Cold War, and the USO/AUV aspect to the Pascagoula case. Far less coverage than Roswell, but extremely thought provoking and worthy of analysis. I suppose it would also fit with USN interest in the subject.

    By Blogger Clayton Robertson, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • The problem, Clayton, if there is a problem, lies in the evanescent or ephemeral aspect of USO reports; even Ivan Sanderson couldn't generate a lot of interest in the things.

    But the reports are what, perhaps, caused the Navy's interest (as you note), which remains intact to this day.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 22, 2014  

  • @RRRgroup

    Indeed. I've found that a lot of the most interesting material is just not discussed; ie the weird experiments with children that apparently went on.

    By Blogger Clayton Robertson, at Monday, June 23, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home