UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Scrutinizing Ufologists

Paul Kimball is greatly disturbed that our colleague Anthony Bragalia has, sometimes, checked the credentials of those posting or commenting on UFOs, here at this blog and elsewhere.

Just as ufologists, skeptics mainly, want to know the background and profile of UFO witnesses, and ufologists want to know the background of skeptics, we who are involved with UFOs should know what the credibility and educational backgrounds are of authors, commentators, and UFO loudmouths.

I, for instance, check the credentials of authors whose books I am about to buy.

While I do that for writers, I don’t give a good goddam what the background is of those who comment at this blog. Their comment speaks for itself, usually.

Having been lauded, vilified, and scrutinized by news media – I’ll post the newspaper accounts here sometime – I’m don’t care if someone wants to run a check on me.

I don’t like it when a UFO nut attempts to get closer to me via background data gathering. (I have one homoerotic character hoping to become a close “friend” but I’ve waylaid his advances and warned him I’d note, publicly, his attempts to become a bosom buddy.)

But that aside, shouldn’t we know a little – a little! – about those who hope to mar, corrupt, or enhance our blogs and web-sites?

And when a person excoriates you or me, shouldn’t we be allowed to see what gives them that right or privilege?

Paul Kimball doesn’t like persons sniffing around anyone’s personal information. I understand that, but Paul and I are on Facebook and that service, along with Google, et al. is deep into our backgrounds and personal business. If Paul hates intrusive checking, why is he so prominent on Facebook?

Me? I don’t care what Facebook knows about me. My life is so boring and without significant merit that Facebook or Mr. Bragalia can have all the info about me they want.

The current imbroglio about Mr. Bragalia or anyone who’s checking ufologist backgrounds is a tempest in a tea-pot as the old saying goes.

So, let’s move on, and try to explain the UFO phenomena (sorry, Jerry Clark – it is phenomena) before the topic becomes completely moribund.



  • Rich, I've been gone for a few days and have to say that I'm dismayed by what has transferred.

    I read Paul's write-up on his Face Book page and have to agree with his take on the matter.

    Running background checks via the internet (easy for a fee) is not illegal, but thoroughly in very poor taste. It does not advance one iota of any debate other than to deflect away from the topic at hand.

    A classic Texas "goat rope" imho.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, August 05, 2014  

  • So Mr Bragalia has been checking into bloggers' backgrounds and credentials. Perhaps he can tell us what desirable qualities & credentials he expects from us, also what undesirable qualities he looks for and disapproves of.

    I am thinking of certain UK personalities/celebrities who have been convicted recently of some HIGHLY undesirable things. No, they had nothing to do with UFOs. You can probably guess what these are. I doubt AJB's researches would extend as far as this, but I could be wrong.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, August 05, 2014  

  • I wouldn't say there is anything wrong with what Anthony did, unless he is publicly airing Paul's dirty laundry (if he has any). What Anthony did may have been in poor taste. But in the age of google and quick background checks, (hell you can't even get a job these days without a credit check), there is no more privacy. People cry about the NSA spying on them, they should be so flattered! If you don't want to be spied on, then live like a hermit.

    And yes, we should focus more on solving the UFO phenomena and less time on discrediting skeptics and believers.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Tuesday, August 05, 2014  

  • How can there be a phenomenon of any kind when there are as yet no objects, no-thing to study? There are only REPORTS of failure to identify.

    So you see, the idea "UFO" is fundamentally misconceived--unidentified cannot be an identity--that's why it's a myth, and why the false belief--that the subject of the myth is real--is a delusion. And it's why the entire matter has not and will never progress--its subject is an illusion.

    Now, by all means, let's discuss ONLY reports!


    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, August 05, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home