This
week, given a bunch of unrelated circumstances, I decided to use the show to
express some opinions about the current state of UFO research and some of the
history that brought us to this place. You can listen to the show here:
The
show was divided into four segments. I began talking about why I’m beginning to
dislike Ufology. I have written about that in the past and you can read some of
it here:
In
the second segment, I finished talking about some of the fakers that seem to
have nearly overrun the field. I had begun with Robert Willingham and moved
onto some of the latest of those claiming extraordinary adventures with little
in the way of objective evidence or common sense. I am astonished that some
people accept these tales as true.
 |
| Carl Hart, Jr. of Lubbock Lights fame. |
But
the real thrust in this segment was talking about Project Mogul and some of the
issues raised by those who accept this as an answer to the Roswell case without
much in the way of analysis.
In
the third segment, I got into Project Blue Book and some of the trouble with
those investigations. I ended that with commentary on the Hippler letter and
the Condon Committee acceptance of the conditions outlined in the letter. You
can read about the Hippler letter here:
The
final segment was about some of the best UFO cases including the Lubbock
Lights, Levelland and Socorro. I touched on these because in each there was an
opportunity to advance our knowledge but that chance was lost in the bickering
of the various institutions and individuals attempting to advance their
personal agendas rather than searching for the truth.
Anyway,
I think that I touched on a number of important topics and why some of it is
problematic. If you enjoyed this monologue, let me know and I’ll try it again…
at least once in a while.
Next
week’s guest is Mike Rogers, he of the Travis Walton abduction case. He was
also a witness to the Phoenix Lights, though his take on that event is a little
different than that expressed by many others.
If
you have questions for Mike, send a comment, and I’ll try to get the question
asked during the interview. I will note that the questions will not appear on
the blog.
Hi Kevin, this post seems quiet so I will take the time to post my particular bugbear - that we do not have institutional recognition as a field, hence no peer review, no canon, no progress, everything that comes with academic recognition as a field. It took 100 years or so to come up with a dictionary of cunieform, but they did it. We however get repeatedly stuck at square one, having not even proved to anyone that this is a worthy area of study for universities and scientists. OK, there are some academic studies of Ufology as a movement, a variant of folklore etc., but that seems to leave us as a problematic meme in society, rather than as people talking substance about a valuable investigative inquiry. There was of course John Mack at Harvard. If only disclosure efforts could be re-oriented to academic recognition, but so long as research seems laughable or stuck in a rut there is a Catch 22, and we remain in exile. I wish I could come up with a catchy name for this alternative to disclosure. The history of our exclusion would make an interesting topic in itself - NASA's rejection of a UFO desk etc. That for me is big, because it marked official civilian disinterest and left data with the military (and the language of paranoia, coverup, disclosure etc., the whole cold war military "thing"). Perhaps we could call it "coming in from the cold". Regards, Tom.
ReplyDelete