UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 17

Re: UFO Spies Vanish Into Black Hole - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:22:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:26:14 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Spies Vanish Into Black Hole - Warren


>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:28:58 -0500
>Subject: Re: UFO Spies Vanish Into Black Hole

>>From: Wendy Connors <fadeddiscs.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:58:25 -0700
>>Subject: Re: UFO Spies Vanish Into Black Hole

><snip>

>>I have to agree with Jerry Clark. Ufology is far from dead or
>>even passe. Roberts, as usual, must be taking one of his
>>trips... and I'm not talking Club Med.

>>Let's see. During this lull in major activity, the following is
>>taking place while Roberts flits around like the tooth fairy:

>>1. Richard Hall is producing a major analysis of the 1966-67
>>Wave.

>>2. Jerry Clark is producing a major work on pre-1947 material...
>>which hasn't been tapped before.

>>3. Carl Fiendt is producing major work on underwater UFOs...
>>neglected for decades, I might add.

>>4. Vincente-Juan Olmos is cataloguing the photographic
>>evidence... much needed and has been for decades.

>>5. Jan Aldrich is compiling radar/UFO material from new
>>sources.

>>6. Loren Gross has completed his 30 year trek of UFO history in
>>his wonderful and very important booklet series from the Ghost
>>Rockets to 1959.

>>7. Frank Warren is hard at work digging up every scrap
>>detailing the Maury Island incident.

>>8. Francis Ridge is ensuring that the NICAP material is on-line
>>for the benefit of all... and that's a huge job, but a great
>>one.

>>9. Dominic Weinstein is hard at work updating his Pilot/Radar
>>databases.

>>10. Larry Hatch is still hard at work making the UFO database
>>something everyone can be proud.

>>11. Ann Druffel just gave us a major insight into Dr. James E.
>>McDonald.

>>Well, the list of projects continuing in Ufology is enormous and
>>world-wide. Ufology is far from dead. It's losing many of it's
>>fanatics, dingbats, do-do's, conspiracy nuts, etc., which is a
>>good thing, but they'll pop up in force when the next major wave
>>or event takes place.

>>What Ufology needs to lose is the Andy Roberts, who haven't a
>>clue as to what the hell they are talking about.

Steven, Wendy,

>Wendy,

>For all of the projects you've mentioned, who is the target
>audiance and where will that information eventually end up?
>While I would not agree with Andy completely, he makes a point.
>I don't think the field is "dead", but how the field is defined
>has been vastly changed by the Internet and the media. How
>ufology is viewed by the general public (not the subset of those
>that are involved in research) is far different than it was
>during the last half of of the 20th Century, and even during
>that time period the public's view evolved. Richard Hall's UFO
>Evidence II is a tremendous collection of information, updating
>one of the classic NICAP publications, but it hasn't really made
>any difference among those who aren't already involved in the
>field. Libraries didn't race out to purchase it, and I would
>suspect that sales have levelled off at this point.

Roberts was quoted as saying, "the public's fascination with
mysterious flying objects had faded." I think it would be fair
to say that "television ratings" and "box office ticket sales"
would be a good "litmus test" to gauge the "public's
fascination" with UFOs, and the like. E.g., the Roswell
Documentary was the highest rated show in SCI-FI Channel
history. Similar numbers were achieved with the documentaries on
Kecksburg and Rendlesham. Mel Gibson's movie "Signs" was a "Mega
Blockbuster" and with the exception of "Passion," it was his all
time "top grossing hit" out of 33 films spanning 27 years. Let
us not forget Spielberg's mini-series, "Taken." Believe me the
interest, fascination and curiosity held by the public in
regards to the subject of UFOs is as strong as ever.

I think the public's "outward view" or "perception" of Ufology
has been fairly consistent (say in the last 40 years)given the
years of debunking by the government and eventual neglect by the
media, with the exception of light hearted and or ignorant
reporting.

Furthermore, I would venture to say that "most of us"  involved
in Ufology "have evolved" in our thinking and or "perception" of
the subject. I think it's safe to say that the majority started
out as skeptics, as that is what society has programmed us for -
 little green men, flying saucers - don't be silly!

I also feel that Dick Hall's work and others like it, has and
does "make a difference" to level-headed" people ignorant to
Ufology. It was work like his, that for me personally, and I'm
sure, not unlike others, made me ask questions, and want to know
more; yes it can be construed as a "David and Goliath" scenario,
but it still has its positive effects nonetheless.

>IMO, ufology is far from a scientific pursuit at this point, and
>while there are those within the field doing good work, it
>largely goes unnoticed by all but the hard-core among us.

It wasn't when the mass media wasn't ignoring the subject.

>I would also suggest that we are not seeing any reduction in the
>number of "fanatics, dingbats, do-do's, conspiracy nuts, etc."
>on the Internet and at sponsored symposiums. It pains me to see
>some of the good researchers in the field jumping at the
>opportunity to appear on the same venue as those that define the
>"fringe" in ufology, but they seem to be addicted to the
>limelight and don't really understand that they become defined
>in part by those they appear with.

The "fringe element," I believe, has also been consistent over
the years.

>The loss of UFO Magazine UK as a resource may have been
>inevitable due to loss of subscriptions and rising costs. UFO
>publications in the US also have problems, IMO, and unless there
>is an event that sparks the interest of the general public, then
>I suspect the number of (what I would define as scientifically
>oriented) UFO researchers will dwindle over time. Should that
>occur, the field will fragment further and who can guess as to
>what it will look like in 15 or 20 years.

So far, within the last 7 decades, UFOs haven't let us down -
interest and participation ebb and flow with UFO activity, or
lack thereof.

I think it is safe to say that until the "power-that-be" make a
statement, and or the mass media gets more serious and
inquisitive, UFO researchers will always be a small minority.
(David).

>Just a few thoughts.

>Steve

Me too.


Cheers,

Frank






[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com