UFO Conjectures

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Ufologists miss the point

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
I notice that some UFO persons I chum around with or use to are ignored in ufological circles (me among them but for different reasons).

Ufology’s buffs, who are ignored, are those who persist in clubbing “archaic” UFO cases, splitting hairs about those cases, ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseum.

They don’t conjure with UFOs per se but bedraggle details that surround the phenomenon or sightings that interest them or, rather, UFO events that they have gathered material about over the years, dishing out that material in a way to try and establish some ufological acumen and/or “fame.”

Detail upon detail is piled up in insensate commentary that doesn’t address the UFO phenomenon but does provide red-herring information that takes readers away from the enigma, slugging them with UFO detritus that is peripheral to what UFOs are, an explanation for them.

It’s the phenomenon that should be addressed, not the niggling, fractious details of what UFO witnesses were wearing, how they reacted, and what happened to them after their observation or incident.

In science, it’s the phenomenon that is researched, not the ambient patina of irrelevancies that surround it.

Yes, I understand that some physical forms (matter, energy, et al.) are considered in the context of other egregious elements that may or my not impact it, but a physical item itself is never shunted away from scrutiny in order to zero in the patinal attributes of an experiment or process.

In ufology, the UFO itself is, generally, smothered by the attention given to outer factors that may, indeed, have some bearing, but usually only becloud aspects of the thing (UFO) itself under examination.

An example that one of my readers likes is the 1952 Desvergers event in Florida where irradiated soil was found underneath where the alleged UFO hovered.

But the Blue Book investigators and latent UFO researchers and hobbyists insisted upon exploring, to the detriment of the phenomenal aspect (that irradiation), the iffy background of the scoutmaster (Sonny Desvergers) who said he had a UFO experience.

Sure the idea that Desvergers seemed like a person who might create a UFO hoax, and subsequent behavior by him obviated that, but that his "hoax" left ground cover that was radiated was set aside in deference to the “bad character” aspects of the witness (Desvergers).

Look at the commentary at some UFO blogs and web-sites. You will see the charney attention to similar peripheral details that choke the life out of an interesting case; the 1964 Lonnie Zamora-Socorro episode is an example.

My pal Kevin Randle has had an exemplary UFO blog for a long time but with it comes his retinue of followers who engulf his prose and ideas with comments that have nothing to do with the UFO event he’s presenting; the comments are self-aggrandizing tributes to the person commenting.

This is the case with other UFO blogs and sites. It’s the commentary that’s killing ufology and the UFO topic.

Like that now banal political slogan of a few years back – “It’s the economy, stupid” – it’s the UFO, people, not the adornments that surround it.


RR

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home