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|
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