UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Ufological Fame….it could be yours

I have blogs dealing with media (social and otherwise) and entertainment.

I note at those blogs how advertising has taken hold of businesses, that are vying to get content that brings the great unwashed to their venues.

Every one want to be entertained, like those in Rome before that great empire was sacked by barbarian hordes, leading to the Dark Ages.

But absorbing or creating entertainment is meaningless in the great scheme of things.

While I think the UFO topic is disreputable and embarrassing for thoughtful, dignified human beings, I offer this:

He or she who resolves the UFO enigma/mystery will gain a fame that exceeds that of any entertainment star or economic wunderkind.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s partial founder and current CEO, is famous, for his internet acumen.

But a person who tells humanity what those UFOs are or are not, in definitive terms, will have a mantle of fame that will supersede such mundane fame.

Of course, the truly greats – Leonardo, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Einstein, et al. – will maintain their famous sobriquet(s).

But the UFO “resolver” or explainer will be among the high and mighty who now traverse the Earth.

So, get at it UFO enthusiasts….fame (and fortune) can be yours.



  • Rich wrote "I think the UFO topic is disreputable and embarrassing for thoughtful, dignified human beings"

    Given the prevalence of that attitude, the only logical solution is to use a pseudonym if indulging a guilty pleasure of involvement in the UFO "community".

    Of course, it would probably be even more logical for us all to find some other guilty pleasure.


    By Blogger Isaac Koi, at Thursday, July 09, 2015  

  • Isaac...

    I wear my UFO interest proudly, but that's because I pretend to be a rebel.

    Sensible persons should (and do) work surreptitiously or pseudonymously (ahem!) and I understand that.

    As for other guilty pleasures, no other is as great or guilty as UFOs.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 09, 2015  

  • Rich:

    It would seem the first step in resolving or explaining a mystery would include a definition of terms. What, exactly, is meant by the term "Ufology" or "UFO"? To that end, I'm a fan of Wendy Connors' line of reasoning as outlined in her article "Death of Ufology" (link below). She explains what she believes Ufology is and is not and then expounds on why the science of Ufology has failed to advance significantly in the modern era.


    "There are many fallacies adhered to in the field of Ufology by the majority. Some are innocent, but the majority are entrenched to the point of strangling a new science to death before it has had an opportunity to birth. What are some of these fallacies?

    First would be the belief by the majority that Ufology encompasses all areas of the paranormal. It does not. Rods, crop circles, most alien abductions, spook lights, bigfoot, gnomes, fairies, channeling, crystal gazing, HAARP, Chemtrails, etc. are not parts of the science commonly referred to as Ufology. Any attempt to associate these with Ufology is an egregous intellectual error."

    I would recommend reading the entire article.


    By Blogger Dennis Pharr, at Thursday, July 09, 2015  

  • Dennis:

    I'm not a fan of Ms. Connors but she's absolutely right.

    But my posting refers to the phenomenon that shows up as flying or landing near by witnesses, and was once commonly called "flying saucer(s)."


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 09, 2015  

  • Dennis quoted Wendy Connors as saying that it is an "egregous intellectual error" to associate channeling etc with "Ufology".

    I am a fan of the audio archiving work done by Wendy (and was very pleased to assist Croatian researcher Giuliano Marinković make part of that collection freely available online back in 2011 with the blessing of the person to whom Wendy Connors entrusted her materials - Roderick B. Dyke, as archivist of the Archives for UFO Research, "AUFOR").

    However, I think Wendy's remark risks oversimplifying the scope of "ufology".

    Understanding the history, evolution and sociology of the UFO community cannot be done in isolation. The UFO community interacts with (indeed, overlaps with) communities in relation to other esoteric subjects. For example, some interesting people in murky parts of the history of ufology are linked together (at least in part) by their participation in official government studies of remote viewing. I’ve therefore spent a significant amount of time considering remote viewing literature and associated government documents) and recently posted a relatively long item on this topic on the AboveTopSecret.com forum. (I'll refrain from posting a link to their forum, since I don't want to look like I'm spamming this blog).

    Of course, it could be argued that the "science" of "Ufology" is distinct from the sociological/psychological studies of the UFO community - but I'm not sure how much real science is left in our field if sociology and psychology are both removed.

    By Blogger Isaac Koi, at Friday, July 10, 2015  

  • I would have to strongly disagree with the words of Wendy Connors. There are clear parallels between Ufology and the study of fairy lore - Vallee's work makes that abundantly clear. There are numerous cases of Bigfoot seen in association with anomalous lights, and orbs seen around crop circles. Now, those same (usually small) lights and orbs are clearly not nuts and bolts "metal ships." But they are by definition unidentified flying objects. Synchronicities are a major part of ufology and not mere coincidence - as I see it. I suspect many people deny the weirder side of Ufology for one key reason: it is at odds with the idea that we are being visited by nothing stranger than scientists from other worlds in those aforementioned metal ships. UFOs are real. But, the phenomenon is far stranger than the likes of Keyhoe, Stringfield etc suggested.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, July 10, 2015  

  • Okay fellows...

    (Isaac, feel free to add links to ATS here. Your site, aside from the often goofy comments, is a splendid source for UFO and other pertinent news.)

    But you and Nick are wrong to chastise Ms. Connors' definition of ufology. I am no fan, as I've often said of Ms. Connors -- for a slur at UFO UpDates years ago -- but she's astute with her delineation of ufology.

    The problem lies, as Nick gets into it, with those peripheral aspects of the paranormal that have seeped in the UFO topic.

    Bigfoot, Nessie, orbs, and associative weird things, despite Vallee's assumptions, muddy the waters.

    UFOs and its pseudo-research/scientific sobriquet, ufology, is clobbered by adding all those attendant odd phenomena that may be connected but not essentially so.

    When a discipline tacks on possible related elements, that discipline gets sidetracked.

    That's all the Ms. Connors is saying I think.

    The political statement "keep it simple, stupid" applies.

    I know you guys like those paranormal shenanigans -- Nick couldn't live without them (chupacapras et al.) and Isaac's site would be bereft of content without such phenomena.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 10, 2015  

  • Here's the link to my recent item I mentioned above regarding connections between remote viewing and ufology:

    (By the way Rich, ATS isn't my site. Heck, I'm not even a moderator there. It's owned and moderated by others. I'm just one of the people that post there, among other places).

    By Blogger Isaac Koi, at Friday, July 10, 2015  

  • Geez, Isaac...

    I always thought it was your site....as no one else lives up to owning it.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 10, 2015  

  • You would not expect ANYONE to admit owning a site that is ATS (ABOVE TOP SECRET), would you?

    What about Timothy Good, whose book of that title makes him the obvious person (except that he is not!).

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, July 10, 2015  

  • Yah, CDA...

    I was always puzzled by my thought that Isaac Koi was the instigator of ATS, which I came to believe because his remarks were so prominent there.

    The site is chock full of crap but, occasionally, has a gem or two.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 10, 2015  

  • I would like to apologize if my comment offended anyone regarding Ms. Connors and her thoughts regarding Ufology. I didn't mean to stir up the conversation or deflect the discussion away from the subject of the post. My intent was to goad Rich a little to better understand exactly which Ufological mystery he was referring to in his post. Also, I didn't mean to say I was a fan of Ms. Connors or her work but instead that I was agreeing with the line of reasoning she used to reach her conclusions.

    Isaac Koi said:

    "Of course, it could be argued that the "science" of "Ufology" is distinct from the sociological/psychological studies of the UFO community - but I'm not sure how much real science is left in our field if sociology and psychology are both removed."

    Mr. Koi's statement highlights a very important point that, IMO, needs to be discussed a little further.

    Shouldn't we consider the possibility of ever reaching any definitive conclusions resulting from further studies of the peripheral aspects of the paranormal? What are the chances we will ever understand, to any degree, phenomena such as Bigfoot, Ghosts, Crop Circles, Alien Abductions or Cattle Mutilations? Personally, I don't like the odds of ever gaining any significant knowledge in these areas - so I'm not sure why the effort should be made.

    On the other hand, science does give us the tools to study physical phenomena such as the nuts and bolts of "metal ships". As Ms. Connors further states in her article "..There has never been an applied, unbiased, long-term, funded research effort regarding the hard data and documentation by any area of legitimate sciences in regards to the issue." This is an undeniably true statement - there has never been a serious, unbiased scientific study of UFOs. Obviously, this concept has been debated before, but what if a real study were to be organized and conducted in a professional, unbiased manner (if that's really possible). What might we learn given the current state of science and our ability to computerize and organize the available data?

    One of the other problems with studying tangential paranormal issues such as Crop Circles or Alien Abductions is that the investigation inevitably devolves into the question of Why. Why are the aliens abducting people or why are the aliens carving crop circles. Questioning or trying to discover why aliens may be doing these things has no value. The answers may serve to satisfy our curiosity, but they wouldn't advance our understanding of the science behind their technology.

    Instead, shouldn't we be concentrating on the question of How? How are the aliens getting here? How do their machines seem to defy the known laws of physics? These are the key questions that need to be addressed. After all, solutions to these other mysteries would likely flow from these answers as a bonus of the effort.

    By Blogger Dennis Pharr, at Saturday, July 11, 2015  

  • Dennis, no need to apologize for anything....you offended no one.

    But here's why we luv ya....you wrote:

    "How are the aliens getting here? How do their machines seem to defy the known laws of physics?"

    That's ET cute.

    I've followed the Big Foot/Sasquatch stories (even posting one that ended up in Phenomena magazine), the Loch Ness sightings, ghost visitations, Crop Circles, et cetera.

    But I think UFOs are a "species" all by themselves, and adding such paranormal oddities as those I've mentioned muddies the UFO waters.

    UFOs are a special paranormal breed, and researchers would do well to study them alone, and in a context devoid of extraneous effluvia.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, July 11, 2015  

  • Rich wrote:

    "I've followed the Big Foot/Sasquatch stories (even posting one that ended up in Phenomena magazine), the Loch Ness sightings, ghost visitations, Crop Circles, et cetera."

    Yes, I too follow all aspects of the paranormal. It's all very entertaining and highly engrossing. But, that's the question isn't it? Do we prefer entertainment over enlightenment? If the history of Ufological research is any guide, it would seem we do, in fact, prefer the former even at the expense of the latter.

    By Blogger Dennis Pharr, at Saturday, July 11, 2015  

  • There are some things. Dennis, that are not amenable to enlightenment; the nature of God, consciousness, the ingedients in Burger King's nuggets.

    One can only stand back and be entertained or awed.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, July 11, 2015  

  • "...are not parts of the science commonly referred to as Ufology."

    There is no science of uf*logy, never was. There is no science IN uf*logy either; it’s no different from all the other related paranormalist nonsense that WC wishes to divorce it. And Connors’ seven points are just the believers' litany for keeping the brain-dead myth alive.

    The subject of “UFOs” is a journalistic creation, period. The Airship hoaxes were created to sell newspapers; and Ray Palmer created “the Hidden World of flying saucers” out of the Shaver mystery’s paranoid "ancient aliens" mind-control and "Hollow Earth" conspiramythology to launch his new FATE magazine, where the horrific nightmares of pulp science-fiction fantasies became “reality.”

    The IDEA “UFO” is a popular-culture myth and delusion founded on the logical fallacy of petito principii, assuming the answer—assuming a positive out a negative, an identity out of the failure to identify. But the abstract “unidentified” cannot be an identity. That’s the absurd basis of the myth and the entire reason this subject has not progressed in over a century; there is no substantive core, no extraordinary physical phenomenon to this subject, only mundane visual stimuli and observers entirely predisposed to the myth expressing it in idiosyncratic stories.

    And that's why there is no "UFO" story—not one—that convincingly represents a true unknown of any kind.

    Claims of subjective failures to identify and extraordinary stories without one bit of extraordinary evidence are not considered seriously by rational adults. First, because there’s nothing to consider without evidence; and experience teaches us that human beings are emotional, perceptually and logically fallible story-telling creatures. So innumerable, insubstantial and utterly inconsequential anecdotes, however fantastic, will never amount to anything that rational adults will consider as more than curious fiction. And it’s all hardly the stuff of a new reality-challenging science.

    It’s a wonder that this “UFO” nonsense was ever taken as seriously as it was at some points in the last century. It’s certainly a Collective Delusion of epic proportions that will be studied by social psychologists for centuries.

    And when a catalogue of these anedotes is presented in writing along with the commentary of a self-styled “UFO” authority who fallaciously assumes the “reality” of his subject, as if it were worthy of serious consideration and possibly even scientific investigation—when it most certainly is not—it’s called pseudoscience.

    And when a bunch of boomers and new wavers hang out on the Internet and discuss all aspects of the "UFO" myth and delusion recapturing some bit of the novelty of life growing up in the mid-twentieth century, it's called entertainment!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, July 11, 2015  

  • Zoam asserts that there is "nothing to consider without evidence" referring to what some of us call the UFO phenomena. Two points. One is that there is plenty of solid theoretical work (in mathematics, for example) that does not depend directly upon "evidence" for establishing "truth". Empiricism is not the only avenue to understanding problems. Secondly, "observations" are a kind of evidence although they are certainly not what lawyers term "best evidence." In the absence of best evidence, however, it is irrational to assert that there is NO evidence or that we will dismiss every observation as faulty.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Sunday, July 12, 2015  

  • Dominick...

    I luv Zoam, but he's a little nutty when it comes to UFOs.

    He's a UFO atheist, an extremist.

    Those of us who've see odd things in the sky, and not hallucinating (because others were with us, and hysteria was not afoot), know that UFOs exist.

    What they are may be up for grabs, but the existence of UFOs is palpable and real for us.

    (I even believe in God, although I've no experience of Him or It, and think God may be dead, and not just metaphorically -- and I like to think I'm a rational being.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 12, 2015  

  • "...the existence of UFOs is palpable and real for us."

    But it's never been about what's "real" for you, it's about what can be shown and so what's real for everybody, what's real in the world.

    So far there are no real "UFOs" — no trufos in the world of scientific discourse.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, July 15, 2015  

  • Dom; No demonstrable trufos means no "UFO" phenomenon.

    Except for hoaxes, real people make "UFO" reports about real experiences, there's very little abstract or theoretical about it, and that's all we have: reports. And whether one extraordinary report or the entire catalogue of over a century of such reports, it's really crummy "evidence" of any reality-challenging circumstance.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, July 15, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home