From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:58:28 +0000
Archived: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:32:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology


>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:22:30 -0500
>Subject: Re: Discreditation Of Ufology

<snip>

>Hey, Joe, why not just tell it like it is... Don't hold back
>or anything...

I'm not exactly know for my diplomatic touch :-)

>You've said what a number of people feel, and unfortunately
>there's no way to control the cacophony of noise that this genre
>puts out. Is this a "science" or is it a "belief structure", and
>the answer to that question often relies on that individuals
>actual experiences?

You may be right that we can't gain control of ufology, and
perhaps that isn't really desirable. Total control also has it's
drawbacks. What irks me is that some respected researchers
(whether or not that respect is merited) actively participate in
events organised by unobjective groups, contribute articles to
disreputable journals, and fail to be publicly critical when weak
cases are promoted as viable. Groups stage conferences with
presentations made by charlatans and proliferate weak cases by
treating them as if they are worthy of attention. The motivation
of such individuals and groups in my mind is either financial or
to gain notoriety at the expense of the reputation of ufology.

When someone does question the credibility of a case or the
reliability of a researcher, investigator, or witness, they are
often treated as a blasphemous 'debunker' and ignored or derided.

>Those who've had a close encounter often view the subject far
>differently than someone still trying to interpret and accept the
>data.

and I wouldn't expect any different. The problem isn't the
experiencers, but the 'experts' which many of them actively seek
out for an explanation to their experience. There are some
exceptions where experiencers become active proponents of a
particular brand of ufology, but these will in the main have been
influenced by acknowledged 'experts' (who are accountable to no-
one). The bottom line is that ufology as a whole has no
standards, or where they do exist, they are not properly applied.

>The Internet has probably proven to be the greatest boon, as well
>as the greatest impediment, to the furtherance of Ufology as an
>accepted science. Add to that the popularity of the subject in
>terms of entertainment as far as the general public is concerned,
>and it's no wonder that many of the seasoned researchers have
>faded into the background.

Researcher/investigator churn has been happening long before the
advent of the internet, though I agree that the people turnover
is generally more volatile than it used to be.

The churn isn't only because 'serious' individuals are deterred
by the antics of the glory-hunters, but also because many enter
ufology thinking that they either already know the answer or that
it won't take long to discover the facts. When they discover how
many of their preconceptions are baseless, they throw in the
towel. Another factor is that because of the entertainment
industry, ufology is portrayed as a thrilling pastime when in
fact much of it is extremely tedious and repetitive.


Cheers,

Joe



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.