UFOs and the conflict with personal realities
The research and expected explanation of UFOs (flying saucers) has always been marred or obstacled by researcher bias and entrenchment in subjective realties.
Recent dialogues I’ve had, online, with some of those who continue to delve into the UFO mystery, show me that we’ll never arrive at a reasonable consensus as to what UFOs represent or are.
That is, I keep finding that those who are enamored of the UFO enigma always, and I mean always, really want to impose their subjective realities and belief systems on the phenomenon, to the detriment of objective thinking (or research).
We all are subject to what we’ve been reared to believe or have come to believe during our life-times.
But that often disqualifies us from being objective or scientific when it comes to examining a phenomenon or topic in the current zeitgeist.
Pressing UFO people to be sensible and open-minded doesn’t work, as I’ve experienced it.
I keep getting suggestions as to what UFOs are, supported by egregious reference to belief systems and preferences for various theories or hypotheses that are interesting but still just theories, belief systems, and/or hypotheses.
I’ve often mentioned Edward De Bono’s books and ideologies about how to think, but this has fallen on deaf ears.
Persons locked into modal thinking, refracted by personal exigencies and preferences, are tough to deal with; they are cemented into thought processes by mental glitches or neurotic, even psychotic-like subjectivity.
What causes this erratic subjectivity?
Psychological malfeasances they’ve accumulated over the years or actual neurological malfunctions.
In my UFO journey I’ve come across all kinds of nuts and crank and, currently, suffused with suggestions, in comments here that border on insanity.
Let me exclude such ravishing real thinkers as Eric Wargo or academic Bryan Sentes and creative, investigative reporter Nick Redfern.
These men offer real thought and objectivity.
But Tim Herbert and I see the mental configurations that intrude on the search for a UFO explanation, and these mental configurations are rife in the UFO community, online and off.
Kevin Randle allows, at his blog, an open ended commentary where some of the nuttiness intrudes, although Kevin is becoming more circumspect about who or what can appear in his blog’s comment section. (I applaud his stance.)
Here, I will allow obtuse, erratic commentary if it is creative or humorous, inadvertently so even.
But overall, I have to eschew the nonsense that comes my way and often engulfs the UFO topic everywhere else.
But I am fully aware that much of what I’m getting in the way of commentary or private e-mails is material steeped in wayward thinking or mental disturbance of a minor and sometimes serious kind.
And if many of you think Zoam Chomsky is on my list of nuts, you’d be wrong. His anti-UFO spiels make more sense than anything one might get from David Rudiak, who is a brilliant researcher, besmirched by a belief that ETs are the sole explanation for Roswell and UFOs generally, bereft of any evidence to the contrary.
So, I am not gulled into presenting ideas that come from disturbed minds – except my own – or from persons who don’t really think in a way that bespeaks intellectual acumen.
That may sour some, who believe they are intelligently presenting UFO-speak when, in fact they are offering crumbs of insanity, disguised by posturings of high-readibility and intellectual refinement.
The UFO enigma deserves better, does it not? Zoam?