UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

The Infinite [Endless] Loop

Our friend Kevin Randle, along with me, Nick Redfern, and other bloggers, keep trying to take UFO enthusiasts into new UFO territory or, sometimes, try to get them to see elements in older (classic) UFO cases that haven't been trumpeted.

But commenters and aficionados will not go there.

Kevin brought to his blog and readers a note about ball lightning that one of our regulars (Rare Phenomena Lover) provided but, as here, the response by visitors were niggardly or non-existent.

But let Kevin or Nick raise the hoary redundancy of Roswell or the slides allegedly attendant to Roswell, and the comments will come out of the internet nooks and crannies, in abundance.

We bloggers can't seem to shake UFO buffs from their somnambulistic fixation on Roswell and the detritus that the 1947 event procured for the UFO mythos.

The debate is an endless or infinite loop -- of ufological imbecility.

N.B. An infinite loop (also known as an endless loop or unproductive loop) is a sequence of instructions in a computer program which loops endlessly, either due to the loop having no terminating condition, having one that can never be met, or one that causes the loop to start over. [Wikipedia]



  • You are not suggesting that ball lightning, as a phenomenon, has the same public interest as the possession of a piece of spaceship hardware made by an intelligent ET race, plus the remains of the actual ETs themselves? For goodness sake get your priorities right. Perhaps tonight's Perseid meteor shower will finally give us the answer every person on earth is eagerly awaiting. Perhaps.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

  • CDA:

    You're droll in your dotage.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

  • Is it possible that many 'UFO buffs' are only prepared to discuss things that are demonstrable and quantifiable? With Roswell, people can anchor their opinions to facts and testimonies. With few exceptions, Roswell experts tend to be conservative personalities whether they occupy the ETH end of things or the Mogul end.

    More speculative folk are liable to be overwhelmed by the subject knowledge of either side and thereby keep quiet.

    Simultaneously, the experts are reluctant to express more speculative ideas in case the other side uses it to undermine all their more conservative views.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

  • For we theoretical ufologists, Kandinsky, it's frustrating, not to get feedback, often from persons considerably smarter or more imaginative than we are.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

  • You've posted dozens of smart and imaginative articles that generate ideas and add to the cloud of possibilities that circulate in the field. Those are the ones that attract fewer responses and it doesn't necessarily follow that they haven't informed the thoughts of interested readers.

    I certainly understand how it can be frustrating and how it invites thoughts of just giving up altogether. Please don't because the influence this blog carries can't be weighed or measured.

    When Bruce closed his first blog, he mentioned the lack of feedback as a cause. Here we are and he's being posthumously celebrated. Maybe we should celebrate people while they're still able to see it? People undervalue what they have and miss it when it's gone; we all do it.

    If you closed up shop, there'd be a hole with nobody there to fill it.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

  • Thank you Kandinsky...

    You are being generous and kind.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

  • I thought the ball lightning pieces was quite interesting and demonstrative that other phenomena are linked to the topic. Example can be seen in the links provided notably in the image of the vertical drop down that looked so similar to that of the questionable Israeli video a while back.

    Ball lightning, itself scorned by many, would easily account many real sightings. The unclear mechanism of its generation and the variety of its appearance and behavior brings physics into UAPs. Such current unknowns's conjecture beats hell out of popular endless and circular jabber for sure.

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

  • It's just human nature.

    Many buffs are very committed to specific cases or well-rehearsed in making certain arguments. For them, it is too, too easy to run down the same old, deeply etched neural pathways. Perhaps, for some, it has become impossible to resist, as if conditioned to always respond. (David Rudiak and Zoam Chomsky are handy examples, though they sometimes break their patterns. We are talking about humans and not robots, after all.)

    New cases, methods, and ideas are trickier. They are even scary. (Who among us has not experienced anxiety when starting a new job?) And sometimes discussing a new idea requires familiarity with whole areas of science or culture we haven't studied, so we read but don't comment. (At Christmas, I caught up with a niece who is studying at the University of Waterloo. We discussed computer programming and mathematical probability at length -- surrounded by relatives who waited silently for us to just stop it already.) Before we can get up to speed, new posts emerge.

    I read all the posts of my favourite bloggers. I only comment when I have a question or can make a contribution (or think I can raise a laugh). I feel I am influenced by the method of analysis even if the specific case or idea does not stick with me. This influence is not immediately obvious but it is there nonetheless.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, August 12, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home