UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Keeping UFO discussions on track

One of the problems with the UFO community – and there are many – that is irritating in the extreme, is the wayward direction(s) that debate takes.

I only regularly visit a few web-sites and blogs (Kevin Randle’s. The Anomalist, Eric Wargo's TheNightshirt, and sometimes Mysterious Universe) and the one that gives me the most heartburn is my pal Kevin’s.

Kevin allows some of his visitors carte blanche to be discursive and/or ignorant. And he gives David Rudiak free rein to hog-tie readers to protracted sidebars that often have little to do with the topic at hand.

At this blog, I keep a tight rein on comments, as you know. Few avatar-identified commenters show up in the comment sections.

(I know that most UFO buffs are homely and have to hide photos of their real façade, but couldn’t they pick an avatar that has some class instead of the goofy-ass images they often adopt?)

In Kevin’s recent postings about the 1964 Socorro event, he has suffered side-tracks, mostly from Mr. Rudiak. That bear no, or little, relationship to the point(s) that Kevin is trying to make.

This is typical of many UFO aficionados. They have particular interest in a UFO case and some minute detail in it. (For me, it’s the symbol in the Socorro sighting, as you well know.)

When a UFO case, old or new, is proffered for discussion, those who have an obsession with some aspect of the case impale readers with their obsession, no matter how irrelevant it may be.

In the Socorro incident, Mr. Rudiak, for example, is locked in to the whereabouts of Officer Chavez, a fellow-cop with Lonnie Zamora.

Readers often tell me that the symbol is insignificant, in context of the whole Socorro episode, but I’ve never seen a distaste for Mr. Rudiak’s Chavez obsession, except from Mr. Randle.

Mr. Rudiak’s modus operandi has always been, especially in the Roswell incident, to lead readers away from the truly significant elements, taking them to minute aspects that can’t be pinned down or explored because they were so under-reported at the time, and even now have no value in pursuit of the Roswell truth(s).

Yet, Mr. Randle consoles Mr. Rudiak’s misplaced adventures, because Mr. Randle is a polite gentleman.

At other blogs and websites, the owners of them want to stuff their venue with anything so as to appear popular or to accrue web clicks and gather a few pennies from advertisers. Frank Warren’s site, The UFO Chronicles is like that, an observation I made a while back, losing his friendship for pointing that out.

There are dozen’s of distractions that take UFO buffs off course in their belabored pursuit of the UFO reality.

Again, here, at this blog, my “friend” Aaron Sakulich [aka Zoam Chomsky] likes to badgers commenters and me with his idea that UFOs do not exist, and never have, because there is no concrete evidence for their reality, only reports of them: nothing tangible has ever surfaced to show that UFOs exist. He uses the “Null Hypothesis” to bolster his erratic view.

When I was in college and absorbed by classes in Abnormal Psychology, we (the class) often were taken on field trips to Eloise Hospital (Wayne County General Hospital) to interact with and observe patients there who were “diagnosed” with schizophrenia or other debilitating mental aberrations.

The doctors at the hospital and our professor(s) never, as I recall, said such patients had a disease, a matter which Dr. Thomas Szasz has been livid about in many of his writings, and which I’ll be dealing with, in the UFO context upcoming.

The doctors treated schizophrenic patients as if the voices they heard and the visions they allegedly were persecuted by were a reality – for the patient. And I have always thought that such schizophrenic visions and voices had a “reality” that we “normal” folks were not privy to.

This is how UFOs should be seen: as a reality for those who have seen them, or those who think they are real, because “normal’ people have reported seeing them.

To debunk that reality, via the (goofy) Null Hypothesis, takes away the prospect of investigation of an odd perception of something that is rampant in the social milieu under the rubric UFO.

Getting side-tracked or off course when it comes to the UFO topic is understandable, as the followers of the phenomenon are often skewed toward ignorance and non-think, suffused in belief rather than a scientific, intellectual (intelligent) scrutiny of the things.

But those who exploit that ignorance with attempts at derogatory onslaughts or side-trips to meaningless detail merely exacerbate the confusing environment that has evolved about flying saucers/UFOs under the sobriquet of Ufology.

If Kevin Randle would clamp down on his wayward readers and hog-tie David Rudiak’s nonsense and Zoam Chomsky would understand that his Null Hypothesis is just silly, that would go a long way to cleansing the UFO topic of its current effluvia in our neck of the UFO community.

RR

17 Comments:

  • As one of your most beautiful of the correspondents, I can see where you are coming from!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Sunday, November 20, 2016  

  • Grazie....

    It's always nice to hear from one of the "eloi" rather than a "morlock."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, November 20, 2016  

  • I was really a bit nervous that you´re going to scold me for writing stupid off-topic things...well, I guess I have some hope : )
    I kind of think that the beginning of the (UFO or paranormal or mental health) examination should be the presumption that the experiencer/whoever is telling the truth as he/she experiences it. Wouldn´t that be a great starting point? And then you can go on to find out what things don´t fit the narrative (or do) and so on.
    And yes, Rich, if you ever feel that I´m writing stupid off-topics as a commentary, you just tell me (I know you will) : )

    JC

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Sunday, November 20, 2016  

  • You're fine Jerry...

    You and I are "on the same page" (as they used to say) pretty much.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, November 20, 2016  

  • Thanks Rich,
    I must admit that I was I was thinking too : )

    JC

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Sunday, November 20, 2016  

  • Sure, Jerry, sure.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, November 20, 2016  

  • Rich, Kevin already clamps down on his comments section...he did, as you have always, moderated his comments section. So, David Rudiak's comments are included because Kevin chooses to allow them...as well as others despite the side track ramblings.

    This is not meant as a slight to Kevin's blog as he ultimately decides what topic to post and what comments are to be allowed as is certainly his right to do so.

    Wish you a great Thanksgivings day.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • Hello,

    Maybe you (including our host, Rich) must be questioned?

    Why you have been interested in UFO, and your work, blog (or posts.threads, here). ???

    In fact, the ANSWER is simple, but double.

    1) The need of any of you/us (mainly you), as Human, to be transcended by any entity whatsoever (but not human, please!)...

    2) You as (poor, but very human) guys have found in the UFO modern myth, the means that there is in every need of ego of self: to deliver a transcendental, transcendent message...

    I may develop...

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • Tim:

    Kevin wrote me about his inclusion of David Rudiak, which I understand to be often provoked by Kevin himself.

    I understand Kevin's use of Rudiak's comments: they provide counterpoint to Kevin's postings and many of the comments of Kevin's readers and fans.

    David's views, and laborious and/or lugubrious are fine with me. He often provides information that no one else has uncovered.

    But they kill objective, terse responses, because one is so worn out by circumlocution of the topic as he presents it that the matter at hand is smothered before it has a chance to gestate.

    (You also have a great Thanksgiving.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • Gilles...

    Yes, we all need myths, as Jung tells us, and Joseph Campbell "proved" over and over again.

    Yes, UFO sightings may have evolved into a mythos but that doesn't preclude the possibility that there is a truth about them or that they aren't a real, objective phenomenon, worthy of study and evaluation.

    As a psychologist, I'm surprised that you don't see the viability of "ufology" -- even as silly as it is.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • I have a more simple approach to Rudiak's comments...I ignore them as they tend to be a form of verbal/written carpet bombing. Yes, there may be a kernel of truth/interest, but unwrapping the Rudiak layers leaves me bored with instant loss of interest.

    I hate "manifestos" and feel that brevity can be more appropriate most of the time.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • I couldn't agree more, Tim (even though I tend to be wordy myself).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • Rich

    "UFO sightings may have evolved into a mythos but that doesn't preclude the possibility that there is a truth about them or that they aren't a real, objective phenomenon, worthy of study and evaluation."
    I agree. I find it weird that so many people reporting same kind of thing just get categorized as "hallucinating" or "disturbed" or whatever. On the other hand, I´ve sometimes thought that (warning: another UFO theory is coming, I´ve got too many of them, I guess I´m a UFO agnostic?) maybe it´s really in our heads. I mean, if we don`t use like our brains and our imagination they start to overflow, maybe that would explain UFOs and other paranormal happenings? Doesn´t a UFO story often start with explaining that the experiencer is just a normal, dull person who´s not interested in science fiction or anything? Maybe that´s the reason. Their subconscious and imagination just need to get out. And why couldn´t that same subconsciousness even create physical traces of an alien contact?
    Umm, just wondering

    JC

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • Of course there's been ruminations that the unconscious (or conscious) mind can create real things (matter?) but the idea presupposed that thing substance can be created ex nihilo, from nothing, a view I dismiss when it is applied to the Big Bang.

    The idea hat imagination or wishful thinking can create matter is seemingly absurd, but anything is possible -- not probable, but possible.

    However, my view is that UFOs are tangible artifacts, from somewhere, other than the id....or the Krell-like minds that some think humans have.....even dull, normal persons.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 21, 2016  

  • Rich

    I don´t think UFOs are tangible artifacts but they can create physical things, maybe like the Forbidden Planet kind of stuff.
    On the other hand...how the hell should I know?

    JC

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Monday, November 21, 2016  


  • "UFO sightings may have evolved into a mythos"

    Actually the IDEA "UFO" was a myth from the beginning as the imaginary Airship in 1896. There never were any Airships, only newspaper hoaxes and then, and only then, came wild reports.

    Rich says, "that doesn't preclude the possibility that there is a truth about them or that they aren't a real, objective phenomenon...."

    That's known as "appealing to ignorance," my friend. And it's fallacious "logic" applied to a junk science, "UFOs," that has never played by the rules of logic.

    Because it has never been shown that there are, the rules of evidence and reason demand that there are NOT: the Null hypothesis triumphs and the PSH explains the history and mechanics of the utterly inconsequential "UFO" myth and delusion.

    Absence of evidence is very real evidence of absence, and the fundamental rule of parsimony in a scientific hypothesis is that the simplest--and by now completely obvious--determination is the most plausible: there is no "UFO" phenomenon, and there never was.

    The view presented here is not the peculiar property of me or any skeptic alone but of all of us and the world.

    Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, November 23, 2016  

  • And happy Thanksgiving to you, buddy. (You know I luv ya, no matter what.)

    As for your "mad" position, that there is no 'UFO' phenomenon, and there never was," I'll be after that position again, upcoming.

    [You know I'm not an ET aficionado, but the term UFO represents for me an identifier for people who've claimed to have seen one (or more), as I have, and it (the term UFO) is a keeper.]

    I also love your persistence in validating the "Null Hypothesis." That determination is as goofy or goofier than using the term ufology to pretend there's science behind the interest in UFOs.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 23, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home