UFO Conjectures

Saturday, September 17, 2016

UFOs and oneupmanship (rather than UFO research)

Cartoon from http://annehodgson.de/2009/11/16/one-upmanship/

UFO buffs (ufologists?) are more interested in internecine arguments than they are interested in resolving the UFO mystery.

Kevin Randle referred to this as oneupmanship, a little used term nowadays that denotes the practice of besting an opponent in a discussion, using any machination to wipe the floor with one’s adversary: ad hominems, illogic, vituperation, vulgar epithets, anything.

UFOers like to argue. They do not like to exert energy on the UFO phenomenon itself.

Some (like David Rudiak and Kevin, himself) pursue the vicissitudes of sightings, the aspects of witness testimony and the alleged “evidence” offered as proof of a UFO sighting or event.

Everyone else jumps on a UFO account (or report) to debunk or approve it. These UFOers engage in back-and-forths with each other, not to clean away the scrim of a UFO sighting but, rather, to see who sounds the most intelligent. Circumspection is nowhere to be found.

Meanwhile, a few (very few) work to see what they can discern from the (often) weak elements of a UFO account that witnesses provide.

(Zoam Chomsky) derides witness accounts as meaningless and sees all UFO sightings as the empty ramblings of delusional observers, whose ramblings have provided a mythos, one without any substance at all.)

Quiet UFO research hasn’t gotten us anywhere close to a discernment of what UFOs are either. The primary reason for that is so-called “ufologists” are deficient in research acumen; that is, they are untrained in the mechanisms of research, and lack the disciplinary accoutrements of science.

Even a UFO maven as skilled as Jacques Vallee hasn’t come up with anything worthwhile, just untested conjecture and erudite rumination, which doesn’t go far when dealing with such a barbarously elusive phenomenon as UFOs.

Thus, we are stuck in an unresolved rut of wayward wrangling and opportunistic jousts to make points, for an audience that doesn’t care one fig for what UFOs are. They just want a voice at the UFO table, to give some kind of value to their meaningless lives.

And that, dear friends, is “ufology” as French skeptic Gilles Fernandez often reminds us.



  • The Half-Finished Heaven

    Despondency breaks off its course.
    Anguish breaks off its course.
    The vulture breaks off its flight.

    The eager light streams out,
    even the ghosts take a draught.

    And our paintings see daylight,
    our red beasts of the ice-age studios.

    Everything begins to look around.
    We walk in the sun in hundreds.

    Each man is a half-open door
    leading to a room for everyone.

    The endless ground under us.

    The water is shining among the trees.

    The lake is a window into the earth.

    --Tomas Tranströmer

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, September 17, 2016  

  • Has anyone thought up a good UFO limerick yet?

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, September 18, 2016  

  • You Brits and your limericks.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 18, 2016  

  • (This post is devoid of one-upmanship.)

    "There is no 'UFO' phenomenon, never was." --zoam, 1995

    But I'm willing to listen to any story, consider it and render my verdict. As I have done dozens of times in my life online, as well as deconstructing a lot of other astronomical and archaeological mumbo-jumbo.

    Rich, speaking as if "UFOs" are a fact in the world: "the UFO mystery; the UFO phenomenon; what UFOs are; barbarously elusive phenomenon as UFOs."

    "(Zoam Chomsky) derides witness accounts as meaningless and sees all UFO sightings as the empty ramblings of delusional observers, whose ramblings have provided a mythos, one without any substance at all."

    Not exactly. Dismisses rather than derides, as insignificant rather than meaningless, and I've never said observers are delusional. I say the population as a whole--except for the most hardened skeptics--suffers under the weight of a social delusion: the IDEA, a false belief, that "UFOs" of some kind exist and that witnessing ambiguous stimuli have significance and are worthy of reporting. This is purely a mass media invention, period.

    There have always been astronomical and meteorological objects and events, add aerospace objects and events to that. Now, what else is there besides stories that refer to objects and events not present and for which there is not one bit of evidence. It's the central superficial issue of this subject, the invisible dragon in my garage, the logical fallacy of assuming there is a something on the mere suggestion when there's really nothing there.

    I have yet to hear one convincing "UFO" story, see one picture or video, see one bit of evidence or witness anything in my many years of skywatching or in everyday life that moves the argument for some kind of "UFO" reality off of ZERO, the Null hpothesis.

    The substance of the "UFO" myth has more to do with new-age religion--the hidden worlds inside the earth and inside deranged minds--the warring cosmic forces of science-fiction and real-world publishing than it does with astronomy, hypothetical ETs and interstellar travel, or any real but elusive unknown ghostly thing haunting the stratosphere.

    Like the lake, the myth is a window into the earth and ourselves.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, September 18, 2016  

  • Now I understand, Zoam.......(I don't think so.)

    The signifier, UFO, has created a mythos. Everyone knows that.

    But in the Jungian and Campbellian mythology camp, we all know (and accept) that myth is spun from a fundamental truth; that is, at the core of a myth (or a mythos) lies a truth that transcends what we normally [sic] think is reality.

    You have a problem with the signifier; UFO.

    I see that as a psychological block, and would love to have a psychoanalytic session to determine what causes that block (or detestation) of the signifier. (I've mentioned this before, here.)

    It's not a cascading descent into madness, this block of yours. It's merely an aberrant affectation.

    And I love you for it. It spices up the UFO topic.

    But it's nutty, in an almost cute way.

    Your counter-persona, Noam Chomsky, would allow for the signifier, and let all that it represents shine forth for explication, linguistically and otherwise.

    You choose not to do that. You want the signifier to disappear, even in the face of overwhelming odds that's not going to happen. You are like Sisyphus in a way.

    The mythos exists, the myth exists, thus the terminology exists, and UFOs are extant, in real terms thereby.

    Sorry buddy, You can't erase the tide of mythology and the realities that mythology creates. You know that.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 18, 2016  

  • One wants a limerick ufoological
    of reality not philosophical:
    _ None can say what's a "UFO"
    _ since saying would make it not so--
    a mere myth no more than scatological.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

  • Hahahaha, Zoam.

    Thank you for the ongoing levity.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 20, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home