Thursday, July 2, 2015

The continuing analytical approach to UFOs: Is there a point?

The aftermath of the Roswell slides fiasco is running it's due course and has left many wondering what is the future in the studying of UFOs.  Ufology, if that's still an appropriate term, has been dealt a serious blow and many have been hit with the shrapnel of the recent Mexico City farce.  Dew, Maussan, Carey, and Schmitt might have well parked a car bomb in the middle of Roswell, NM and detonated it.

Most who read this blog know that I'm skeptical of the UFO phenomena.  I've come to see very little intrinsic value in the subject matter.  True, the phenomena still offers a gold mine for those, such as I, who are drawn to the psychological mini-dramas that ensue.  This is still what draws my attention otherwise I would have chucked the subject matter and this blog along time ago.

To answer the question posed in the post's title, yes there is a point to analytical approaches, but in my case, only for the studying of the psychological issues that surface with certain cases. 


  1. > I've come to see very little intrinsic value in the subject matter.
    > only for the studying of the psychological issues

    This fringe mindset has often puzzled me:

    Nick Redfern has written a very smug post about the ignorance of skeptics, using the old "oh, yeah, well, what about this case?" ploy. Somehow the issue is not the failure of that case to tell us anything about UFOs, or the failure of UFO proponents to have ever demonstrated the presence of alien ships, rather, the issue is the imputed character of people who are not convinced of the substance of the UFO phenomena.

    Science or pandering?

    1. I would have engaged Nick at the post itself, but I have been blocked by Mysterious Universe (though Nick denies this).

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. The public response to my first foray into this field was almost immediately an incomprehensible insult directed at both me and my family, so I have very few memories of any friendly or reasonable motivation to discuss these matters. It's no exaggeration to say, therefore, that I became some kind of weird UFO pariah sitting in the back row of a church full of comet Kohoutek freaks wondering why for the love of God I left my flame-thrower at home.

    The bestiary was plainly evident: a couple of peripatetic old men were making ridiculous, self-righteous, and fictional UFO claims that were almost universally accepted as factual. I happened to have a unique point-of-view in regard to these claims that I thought should be disclosed, and although I did so with what I consider to be unflagging intent and discipline, I would never describe it as unreasonably one-sided, a characteristic far more typical of dogma lacking intrinsic value.

    It was gratifying, of course, when the evidence I disclosed was well understood and found for the most part to be convincing. I admit as well that I often gave as much as I got in the grief department. On the other hand, I didn't consider any of that to be nearly as important as the fact that those same UFO claims were eventually demolished as an intelligent argument. While I certainly wasn't alone when it came to any real consideration of the issues involved, I am convinced that my arguments were a significant contribution to the record. More to the point, the UFO claims that we addressed are today nowhere near as universally accepted as they were in 2009 when I was first subjected to the insulting strategies that these clowns rely on the most.

    The thing is, we weren't merely disarming a couple of fraudulent hucksters; we were reaffirming a historical record that had been maliciously tortured and contemptuously ignored for far too long. While it often seems even now that the associated nonsense tends to reduce the efficacy of all those concerned with achieving that outcome, you shouldn't ever think for even a moment that there's no intrinsic value to the arguments you and others have properly established. There is always intrinsic value to the truth, just as there's always intrinsic value to the ruination of lies.

    The people that you and others associated with the Roswell Slides Research Group have targeted are liars and frauds who are motivated by profit, and while it can certainly be argued that their primary victims are idiots apparently incapable of forming a knowledgeable opinion or addressing issues most normal humans properly dismissed years ago, that essence of character doesn't make them any less worthy of the education being proferred.

    Whenever I think for even a moment that it may very well be a waste of time to educate people who reach conclusions on the basis of so little actual fact, I always try to remember one little point that never fails to motivate me when I see little more than futility decorating my natural course: given any democracy, idiots tend to vote.

    The only real measure of the issues that I find most necessary to assess is the character of those who find it necessary to maliciously torture and contemptuously ignore both facts and history. When that character is so obviously and nakedly dishonest, and the deceit being practiced is so clearly discernible, any estimation regarding the intrinsic worth of the topic shouldn't really be considered at all. For me, the arguments are clear: if you possess both the ability and the knowledge necessary to throw a little light on such criminal artifice, it's your duty to do so.

    To some extent, people should be held responsible for the inclinations of their community, and while the fact that our "community" has only recently (in geographic terms) been expanded to the extent of the world wide web, I can see no ethical reason to reduce the scope of that responsibility.

  4. I realize the above seems a bit choppy -- sorry for that. I just haven't had a whole lot of sleep lately. Anyway, I think the message comes across okay, and that's the main thing.