The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Sunday, December 08, 2013

Muting [UFO] Skepticism…

…tempering rabid [UFO] belief systems.

UFO skeptics (sometimes debunkers) are a lousy lot, not really thoughtful skeptics, rather wilding anti-thinkers.

Fortunately, I’ve been able to quell the irrational skepticism of French skeptic Gilles Fernandez here but nudging his vaulted ego with assailing asides.

He’s withdrawn to the cloistered halls of Facebook, where he’s protected from assault by Facebook’s blocking mechanism.

Only his “friends” and like-minded skeptics can read his narrow views.

Christopher Allan [aka CDA] is a skeptic I admire. He’s anti-UFO/Roswell views are laced with subtle British humor and the vicissitudes of age; he, like me, has been around a while, and doesn’t take UFOs seriously, having read and seen all the hogwash that has ensued since the Kenneth Arnold sighting of 1947.

Lance Moody, UFO’s angry man, is also admired by me. He remains, generally, polite and dignified while skewering UFO nonsense, as he defines it.

Tim Printy and Robert Sheaffer are reasonable skeptics. I don’t find their views offensive nor obnoxious; Sheaffer’s UFO invectives are substantiated by reasoned analysis and counter data that is germane.

Zoam Chomsky [aka The Iron Skeptic] has been quiet of late. Did he die?

I like the counter views of intelligent skeptics.

Then we have the die-hard UFO promoters; everything about UFOs are true: abductions, MJ-12, Extraterrestrial agencies working with Earthian governments, Roswellian bodies,
Vast interplanetary visitors (for millennia), and so on….you know the lore they laud as authentic and valid, even in the face of that lore’s absurdities.

There are iffy issues that one has to contend with, such as The alleged Travis Walton abduction.

Walton maintains to this day that he was abducted by a UFO and examined by creatures within it.

His tale is recounted by him in ways that belie falsehood,

For example, Dan Frederiksen provided this, in a comment to an old posting of ours:

“Travis Walton reported a heavy damp atmosphere onboard that was hard to breathe and he felt short of breath. He also felt physically weak as in hard to carry his own weight. He never made the connection himself but it makes perfect sense that the ship had higher gravity onboard because that was natural to them.”

If Walton said that, and I am unfamiliar with it from his conversations (on YouTube) and writings about his sojourn, it makes for an interesting aside, as Mr. Frederiksen notes.

Like Betty Hill’s “Star Map” – an odd thing surely – one finds such an offhand reference to bolster the believability of the event Betty (and Barney, sometimes) revealed.

The there is Roswell.

The recent Kodak slide imbroglio revitalized that ancient, hoary UFO tale. But there is more, and Anthony Bragalia, a Roswell devotee of the highest order, as strong an advocate as David Rudiak, seems to find minute Roswell details that allow one to consider the 1947 incident as possibly extraterrestrial in nature.

But there are enough caveats from the overworked episode that skepticism is warranted, not the skepticism of a Gilles Fernandez, but the rightful skepticism of those who do not find grist in the Roswell mythos.

Witnesses have lied. Balloons were all over the place, near Roswell, in June/July 1947. Nothing has surfaced from an alleged flying disk crash which purports to be from an advanced alien culture or civilization. Alien bodies have not been discovered or their whereabouts disclosed by anyone inclined to present such a monumental truth, despite personal repercussions. [The CDA view]

But yet, something happened near Roswell, in the summer of 1947. What that was remains unknown, as the alien crash crowd and its badgering skeptical counterparts have not deconstructed the matter in any way that brings a conclusive element into play.

That’s true of many UFO accounts; they remain closeted: The Arnold sighting, The Tremonton movie clip (resurrected by Kevin Randle at his blog), the RB-47 event (touted by Paul Kimball and others as a UFO sine qua non), the Phoenix lights, and, my favorite, the 1964 Socorro/Zamora episode.

Skepticism (and/or debunkery) hasn’t demolished any UFO event, fraudulent or real.

UFO proponents, of the ET persuasion or any other conjectural persuasion, hasn’t given the UFO patina a valid gloss that makes the phenomenon compos mentis for the public, news media, or science.

But shutting down those anti-UFO voices may help, along with a concerted effort to separate the UFO wheat from the chaff.

The UFO mystery is a valid topic for the dilettante, a wasteful matter for those who have (or should) an interest in bettering society or, at least, explaining what this life is all about.

Skeptical views and out-and-out acceptance of an ET presence within the UFO phenomenon are both grounds for suppression or dismissal.

Anything less reeks of intellectual cowardice.

RR

14 Comments:

  • The full scope of the phenomenon can best be described as subversive.
    Subversive to what we assume is rationality, causation, logic and reality. In a way, the more I read, the more I see it’s mirror that reflects, either fear or hope attached at the hip to curiosity.
    An enormous amount of baggage that belongs not to the phenomenon but to how this one or that one attempts to frame it.
    Those that would channel the analysis of it in a form of domestication by way of various theories, in order to make it understandable as to market this concept or that are the prime instigators of the two sides of the same coin, both skepticism and belief.
    No one seems capable (outside of this venue ) of using the subject matter as a platform to investigate the issues it raises in a dispassionate manner. It is interesting that skeptics can only address these theories that attempt to domesticate or simplify the fact that no one knows what we are dealing with although some use the same reductionist methodology to promote a sort of competitive marketplace consumerism, whether its the stringing of factoids or shilling entertainment disguised for the weak minded as research.
    Nearly every hard core theorist eventually boxes his or herself into a corner where the skeptics feed off the results.
    In terms of the state of the state of the subject matter, these days it looks fairly rancid to me.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, December 08, 2013  

  • "Intellectual cowardice." -Maybe a bit overstated. But I like it.

    I believe, however, both obsessive skeptic and true believer are certainly walking similar paths. The marketing people have to be expected, like the media's bible thumpers and politicians. Their noise is just distraction and irritation.

    The agnostics, if you will, face the problems of no empirical evidence. As I mentioned before, even your own observation of a single quality event doesn't define or resolve the issue, it is only a tease, a first step with no defined direction to carry on.

    You have to understand the scientific folk's reluctance to pursue the issue when they can't be told where to go to even see one.

    All that we are left with is hope (and I hate that) for further revelation of some kind for the point of that second step. So we keep reading, waiting and looking.

    Does that makes us the researchers? It's that tease again as far as I can see it.

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Monday, December 09, 2013  

  • Glad to hear that I am 'admired', by you at least. You may be interested to know that in my very young days I was much more inclined to the believer side, but that soon I saw the rot setting in...

    I am a bit baffled why Kevin has resurrected the Tremonton movie; he surely does not think this case is the best, or even a good, pointer to ETH.

    And no, there is not the slightest reason, despite the ravings of David Rudiak, Tony Bragalia, Stanton Friedman et al, for supposing the Roswell case was "possibly extraterrestrial in nature" None whatever.

    But if I don't watch out, we shall be venturing off base, for the umpteenth time.

    By the way, I for one would welcome Gilles back into the forum. Facebook?? Surely that is for kids and celebrities only, or have I got it wrong?

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, December 09, 2013  

  • CDA:

    Kevin and Bragalia destroyed their credibility (even further) by disavowing the slide story I and others leaked.

    When it turned out that I and others were essentially right about the Dream Team's efforts and find, they backtracked but it was too late.

    They have besmirched what cachet they had.

    The fellow who promoted Kevin's denial in his paper won't have anything to do with Kevin now.

    And Mr. Bragalia's commentary that I had made up the story out of whole cloth, along with his lengthy portrayal of his part in the slide episode ruined his viability as a UFO blogger; his recent articles getting little or no attention from the UFO crowd (readers) or those who list such articles for the UFO community (Anomalist for example).

    Thus we have Kevin going back to his early days with such UFO "classics" as the Tremonton film.

    (He hopes to regenerate his image I think.)

    AS for Gilles, I reworked some of his offerings and put them online but this didn't convince him that I wanted to give him a forum for his views.

    He closed off any any access to him at Facebook. (He's so sensitive.)

    And yes, Facebook was for kids but the oldies have taken it over and the kiddies have departed.

    Only those with a need to attract attention from a dottering UFO set use Facebook as their vehicle.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 09, 2013  

  • Actually Travis Walton did describe in detail about trying to catch his breath at a UFO conference in Nevada. He also tried to describe the eyes of the human looking beings and he couldn't quite do it.
    I just want to say having met him that I find him a humble man. Of course that doesn't count with the debunkers. Most believers I've met and I've met many have been change by a close encounter of their own. So it's pretty hard to change their minds by telling asking them - "Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Monday, December 09, 2013  

  • Yes, Joseph...

    If Travis Walton is a con-man, he's a very good one.

    There's something about him that seems credible, but who really knows, except for him (and maybe a few of his work-mates).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 09, 2013  

  • After reading your post, I came away with the feeling that you've identified a reasoned "balance" concerning skeptics vs. that of "believers."

    Not surprisingly, this appears to be a "shotgun" graph.

    You seem to be searching for that balance, or a reasonable line of demarcation on a continuum?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, December 09, 2013  

  • I am a believer 100%. I have no time for skeptics whose knowledge of ufos is laughable at best. I have read over 4000 ufo books. I think ufos are alien ships. I think cattle mutilations and crop circles are aliens.It is not my beliefs but proven facts in every facet. Beliefs don't matter in the field of ufos. What you can prove matters. When I talk about UFOs people take notes. I am a skeptics worst nightmare come true(and I have a college degree in UFO history). The worst part for a skeptic is I can do all this off the top of my head. Knowledge is Power! You can't hold the skeptical viewpoint and be knowledgable on UFOs.

    By Blogger Majestic leader, at Monday, December 09, 2013  

  • Majestic leader wrote:

    "I have no time for skeptics whose knowledge of ufos is laughable at best."

    For a truly good laugh, read this sweet piece of UFO knowledge by Mr. Majestic.

    http://majesticleader.blogspot.ca/2013/12/spotting-aliens-among-us.html

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, December 10, 2013  

  • I wonder who 'Majestic leader' is. He claims to have read over 4000 UFO books. Just possible I suppose, but I never realised that many had been published. I suspect that a lot of these 4000 are not UFO books but books about the paranormal which include perhaps one or two chapters on UFOs. (e.g. are von Daniken's books classed as 'UFO books'?)

    Cattle mutilations and crop circles? Yes indeed, these are alien made, but probably not made by the same aliens that visit us in UFOs. One lot come from Zeta Reticuli, the other lot from Venus & Mars.

    The guy has a college degree in UFO history! Really? Which university was this, dear sir? Have you also got a PhD in cattle mutilations and/or crop circleology?

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, December 10, 2013  

  • I beg everyone's pardon. 'Crop circleology' is wrongly named, of course. The correct term is 'cerealogy'.

    You know - the study of cereals. Because of the wheatfields you see. A certain Mr Kellogg or his descendants are VERY interested, no doubt.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, December 10, 2013  

  • CDA:

    Majestic Leaders is just barbarically obsessed about UFOs obviously.

    He falls at the believer extreme.

    A college degree in UFO History, indeed...from a lunatic asylum?

    And 4000 books on UFOs, read by this person?

    Come on.

    I only allowed his comment as it made my point about the outer edges of UFO believability (alongside rabid skepticism, like that of my former ami Gilles Fernandez).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 10, 2013  

  • RR-

    ...I personally don't really see any persuasive difference betwix the argumentative rantings of 'Majestic Leader', 'David Rudiak', or 'Kal Korff', leading me to strongly suspect that you have stumbled upon indirect proof of the Roswell UFO crash, via the apparent infection of only low-IQ male humans by the pesky 1947 'Alien Virus of Continuing Deludedly Garrulous Rantings'...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013  

  • KP:

    Do you really want your online legacy to consist of these silly asides?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home