The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

"None of this speculation gets us any closer to explaining what these things are, and where they come from."

That line above comes from “Albert Guitar” in a comment at Kevin Randle’s blog which is in a torrent of responses about electromagnetic effects and UFOs.

And “Guitar’s” comment sums up the ongoing and ever accurate state of affairs when it came to or comes to flying saucers and UFOs: all the huffing and puffing online and off has not brought an iota of explanation of what the elusive phenomenon is (or was).

Regurgitating the old cases, as we do here and others do at their UFO venues, might elicit an explanation for sightings and reports, such as Roswell, Socorro, the Trent or Helflin photos, Arnold’s iconic sightings, the Hill episode, et cetera, but none of that UFO lore gets anywhere close to determining what UFOs are or what flying saucers were.

In the old days, we seem to have been dealing with material craft; today we’re dealing with evanescent sightings that are insubstantial and almost unworthy of cogitation.

Either way, no one, no matter how glib or wordy (David Rudiak comes to mind), has a clue as to what UFOs are or were.

And what’s truly disturbing is how lax the UFO commentators are when it comes to pursuing UFO sightings or events.

In the Randle “debate” not one UFO sighting or flying saucer event seemingly affected by EM transmissions or something more esoteric is examined specifically or in depth; that is, no sighting is forensically approached by those in the midst of their “elaborate” discussion.

As usual, the participants are looking to display their knowledge of electromagnetism and similar physical emissions without actually any of their knowledge to a specific case.

That’s what spurred Mr. “Guitar” to write what he wrote. He understands the nonsense of the Randle but can’t help participating.

This has been and continues to be the problem with “ufology” that pseudo-science which underpins the whole of the UFO enigma, and which has sunk the phenomenon to where no one with any true academic or scientific acumen will join in the swim.

Mr. Randle is reminiscing about UFOs and certain aspects of the folly, just as I do here. But my excuse is that I’m intrigued by odd elements in old sightings, such as the Socorro insignia or the appearance of a “spaceman” in the Solway photo. Those quirks are fascinating to me, just as the electromagnetic discussion at Mr. Randle’s blog is fascinating to his readers.

The difference is that they pontificate to show off, and I (and readers here) just note some unusual UFO quirks that won’t explain UFOs surely but do provide grist for the minutiae within the UFO mythos.

Note the tendentious responses of Larry or Rudiak and others at Mr. Randle’s blog. And note the nature of those responses. Where so they take readers? Not very close to a UFO explanation. But they do help provide a patina of expertise to those who wish to appear erudite and intellectual.

I give them that, but, like Mr. Guitar, I see nothing that comes close to resolving the UFO mystery, then or now.

RR

34 Comments:

  • If speculation would be eliminated on the topic, especially when it comes to old cases. there would be hardly any verbiage left in what has become a moribund dialog, outside of the commentary regarding this situation of nickle plated "expertise" being displayed.
    That much is self evident.
    The abdication of science has left a void wherein there is a very finite amount of material that has not been gone over a hundred times or more.
    As a result, what should have been a fascinating exploration of a highly strange phenomenon has become a predictable game of argumentative ping pong whereas no one knows anymore than the other outside of each side pricking holes in the other's balloons into infinity.
    What is left is based solely on preexisting philosophic underpinnings, a sort of positivist determinism that has been channeled into a vague language of placeholder terms.
    Argumentative fluff.
    While the subject is still potentially provocative, old habits die hard along with shopworn arguments and blustering advocacy that demonstrates just how fossilized critical thinking has become.
    Simple answers? There aren't any and yet that is what is clung to in a death grip.
    As you said a long time ago, you cannot study "ufos" by "ufos" and that is exactly what has happened.
    Argumentative stances have a higher priority than the subject matter.


    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • Those professors are hilarious. Larry makes a statement that begins something like, "it is obvious to those of us with command of the science..." ,!!!

    The gist of Kevin's post was how witnesses probably got their stories all messed up by overly zealous UFO reporting and that stories of cars being shut down and then starting up on their own accord might not be accurate. It was a reasonable and decent story,

    Not one word on that topic in the comments from the saucer scientists. Instead they launch into how UFO propulsion works, etc. . Rudiak seems have concluded that Magnetic Zapper is unrelated to the Saucerian Power plant. Unless the phase monitor was out of kilter with the clystron modulator.

    At least I think that is what the geniuses are saying, I don't have command of the science like they do.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • UFO propulsion was being talked about back in the 50s. There was always an 'expert' to explain it. It was assumed, of course, that the UFOs actually performed the manoeuvers and feats that the witnesses claimed. You can examine the various papers of Wilbert B. Smith to get a good idea here.

    This is the same Mr Smith who wrote that (in)famous TOP SECRET memo that launched the MJ-12 era 35 years after it was written. He didn't live to realise what he had started, of course.

    But I'll say no more, or you'll accuse me of diverting from the topic, again.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • CDA:

    I've often written that footnotes frequently take readers to subject matter more interesting than the copy they (the footnotes) support.

    Your diversions, sometimes --sometimes! -- do the same.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • UFOs lead to circular arguments. As you point out, these arguments/debates offer no tangible elements other than speculations that run amok.

    It's not the physical component of the stories but the psychological aspects that rampantly appear in virtually every case. It is in that direction where we gain more knowledge and understanding of the phenomena.

    Not to despair...Lyriad meteor showers later tonight...MUFON and others will have a busy night:)

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • I believe research on UFOs will be handled by the young scientist. I have been watching every science program I can get on tv and find they are not dismissive of the subject of ET visitation. There has been a great deal more speculation on UFOs by the TV science gurus and I haven't seen a smirk on any of there faces.
    The horrible battles of the past are over (except the low lives on You Tube). On TV science channel they have Close Encounters and they are usually very fair.
    That's all I want. I know UFOs can hold up to the scrutiny of real scientific research and I welcome that no matter where it comes from. I think UFO researchers did a great deal of leg work and brought the UFO enigma to the attention of many scientist who never heard of Klass or the other debunkers.

    I certainly will not put them down. I also think MUFON is doing much better and will continue to get better.


    Joe Capp
    UFOMM

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • I'd sum up anyone's experience with ufology, who keep a grounded perspective to it, with a Pink Floyd quote :
    "We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year, Running over the same old ground. What have we found ?"

    By Blogger Yvan D., at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • Rich,
    You wrote:
    “Regurgitating the old cases, as we do here and others do at their UFO venues, might elicit an explanation for sightings and reports, such as Roswell, Socorro, the Trent or Helflin photos, Arnold’s iconic sightings, the Hill episode, et cetera, but none of that UFO lore gets anywhere close to determining what UFOs are or what flying saucers were.”
    You’re correct. There isn’t any agreement among ufologists. But all the evidence hasn’t been studied. An example: I’d say that close to 99.9 % of the folks who criticize the Alien Autopsy footage haven’t viewed it in the Beta Cam version, where the footage can be viewed frame by frame. Nor have they taken the time to consider the various versions of the stories told by Ray Santilli, Spyros Melaris, and the other characters. The alien autopsy was a major SNAFU by those who control UFO information. That footage should never have seen the light of day. The UFO community failed to take advantage of the situation and have allowed the AA conversation to be controlled by debunkers and other ignorant folks ever since.
    There is not a scrap of hard evidence that the AA is a hoax or fraud or the cameraman’s story a lie.
    I’m convinced that understanding the footage, crash site and cameraman’s drawing and narrative and what this tells us about the creature and other aspects of the UFO drama will allow researchers to “determine what UFOs are”. What we’re likely to find is a thirty million year old monotreme civilization.
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Tuesday, April 22, 2014  

  • Rich,

    I posted that comment to David Rudiak and sort of walked away from the conversation... because it seems that everytime I bring up what my father wrote and when he wrote it it seems to be ignored... or I get the "he's not an expert" comments from someone that wouldn't know Mu zero from Aleph null... or comments like the one about Puthoff... Um... My father was in contact with Puthoff before he published his piece on gravity... but by then my father had begun having serious health issues.

    So like his work in other areas he was ahead of his time or being the disagreeable cuss that he was disliked because he was right... which seems to be the reaction I seen to the things I posted.

    When you say "the participants are looking to display their knowledge of electromagnetism and similar physical emissions without actually any of their knowledge to a specific case. " that is spot on... I don't claim to be an expert... but given that my father was paid by TRW Systems and Lockheed-Martin Space Systems to build satellite degaussing coils and the control equipment for such devices and paid in the range of two hundred thousand dollars to do so and to handle the designed and built of various electro-magnetic "plasma wave detectors" space science experiments on the order of a half million dollars for each of those... I pretty much can accept that he had good working knowledge of the field and knew what he was describing--- and corporations that are in the business of making money trusted him to deliver... But now? I can't really think of an expert that would want to get mixed up in this mess of "can you top this" ignorance.

    I suggest you read the document that covers his "ufo" battery killer experience [see "THE UFO SUMMATION" in the documents I sent to you]... and then put it in the perspective that he *was* an expert.

    One of my favorite quotes by Richard Feynman is: "I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

    http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/feynman/probability_and_uncertainty.html

    And there is the gist of the issue... all of the "UFOnauts" [with or without the a] are stuck on their solution being the correct one... because it simply must be what they believe... which explains why we are no nearer to understanding the phenomena than we were 67 years ago. Nobody knows how it can be like that and no one is making the effort to actually do Science to find out... except as part of a book tour or fund raising effort for dubious purposes... which is to say they are not.

    alas...


    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • Joel...

    You've experienced what your father experienced: UFO aficionados often (usually) ignore expert commentary so they can insert their non-expert commentary -- the point being that they wish to be seen as "brilliant" when they are not.

    Shutting down or setting aside real expertise goes to the heart of what "ufology" is and has always been -- fools step in and take over the conversations.

    Lance Moody has the proper perspective on this.

    And Mr. Randle's blog is an example of the foolishness that prevails.

    It's not Mr. Randle but it is his fault. He lets everyone have their say, no matter how loony their commentary.

    Democracy is rife; intellectualism is not.

    He let's the topic go astray so that his blog becomes the blog of the inmates.

    I take the fascistic approach. You send loopy stuff here and it's deep-sixed.

    (The off-kilter Steve Sawyer found this out.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • Basically, one cannot be an expert on the specifics of an unknown. The best one can do is avoid what Robert Anton Wilson termed “naive realism” and carefully label theoretical innovations as suspicions because thats exactly what they are regarding an unknown.
    This is so basic as to be redundant or self explanatory and yet it escapes the majority as to become what I call “surrealism at play”. One wag once observed that only philosophers understand other philosophers.
    Actual science has to a lesser extent, the same issues, the more expansive the theory, the more ad hoc the details become. Due to the fact that the scope of UAP is incommensurable and cannot be directly measured the focus of attention is a inbred examination of decidedly human characteristics regarding what could be called competing mythologies. Then you get issues regarding second, third or fourth hand evidence and it’s chain of custody as well as a focus on the “character” of those providing the “evidence” for this or that which pulls the entire shebang into x assassinating y in a contest of personalities.
    There will always be fools who walk where angels fear to tread, the needy, the self aggrandizing, the vested and the profiteers who fill this vacuum with cynical propaganda simply to stir the pot without contributing a dime’s worth of common sense.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • Rich, your (no doubt benevolent) fascism has failed us! Edward Gehrman has turned this subject into another disturned comment about the AA hoax and monotremes!

    Now that UFO Updates has closed, Mr. Gehrman seems to be looking for new venues from which he can be banned.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • Thanks Terry for a few moments of amusement reading the delusions of Gehrman.

    The breadth of gullibility amongst these folks is glorious.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • Lance, Terry,
    What evidence convinces you that
    the AA is a fraud?
    Have you viewed the uncut version?
    Have you carefully read my crash site article?
    Have you seen Dr. Roger Leir's interview on the validity of the procedures seen in the AA.
    (Oh, I forgot, you also think he's a fraud)

    Or have you let others think for you and just accept what others,
    just as ignorant as you, have mistakenly latched onto.

    Before you toss around insulting
    remarks, you should at least read
    what I've written. Rich was saying that UFO research hasn't accomplished anything and I was disagreeing. You think I should be banned for that!?
    What are my delusions that are so obvious to you? Describe one.
    Have you taken the time to Google my name to see the topics I've written about. Find something that seems deluded to you.
    Also you can call me Ed.
    I was only banned from Updates for one month but I agree that the subject of the AA was banned,
    much to there collective loss,
    just as it would be if I or the AA subject were banned from "Iconoclasts".
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • @edward gehrman
    > What are my delusions that are so obvious to you?

    As a former Updates subscriber, I have read your mad ravings about the AA -- and know you were banned more than once. On other sites I have read your comments and stated to you my opinion -- again, more than once.

    It is clear no evidence of any kind will ever convince you of a hoax. If aliens appeared to you today and announced the AA film was a fraud and that they were not monotremes, you would demand to know if they had read your articles carefully, and would scold them for believing that dastardly liar Santilli!

    ENOUGH PLEASE!

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • Sometimes, Terry and Ed...

    UFO sightings or events that some or many consider hoaxes or outright con jobs (MJ-12, The Alien Autopsy, or Socorro, to name a few) are grist for discussion.

    I accept comments about those questionable topics if there is a patina of civility and the presentation isn't totally loony.

    For me, the Alien Autopsy film, if a hoax, is a good one.

    I'm not particularly interested in it, just as I'm not particularly interested in alleged alien abductions.

    But Ed presents his views in a way that does not offend me, so I'll decide whether or not his comments appear.

    I decide when enough is enough.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 23, 2014  

  • Terry,
    Please show an example of my "mad ravings" that so bother you.
    Below is the Leir video I mentioned, made in Roswell, 2007.
    He certainly doesn't believe the AA is a fraud.

    Also, I'm not the only researcher to think that UFO are piloted
    by citizens from an ancient civilization. I only theorize Monotremes because of their similarity to the creature in the AA. (no teeth, one hole, no secondary sexual features, six digits, no navel, and the ability to send and receive electric currents)
    Of course I could write more, but if you refuse to discuss these issues without insults, what's the point?
    Ed




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3NwgD6HmUQ

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • > Please show an example of my "mad ravings"

    See all of your comments on this post.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • Terry,
    Why don't you ask me some questions?
    When and where did the monotremes evolve?
    Are they real animals?
    Where do these creatures live now?
    I'm not going to bite. What do you want to know to confirm my madness? Why not have a real discussion. Both of us might learn something.
    I'd like to know why you can't even view the complete AA or consider reading my research
    or take a look the Leir video.
    I think you may have rushed to judgment.
    I don't ever remember discussing the AA with you on Updates. Can you give me a link to that post.
    Thanks,
    Ed




    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • Ed:

    I appreciate your desire to debate Terry about the AA film but not here.

    I'm not about to open the blog to that internecine struggle.

    The AA topic doesn't really address the gist of the posting you're commenting upon, and takes us into the very thing I'm bitching about.

    Sorry but further comments about AA will not appear here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • RR,
    Yes, of course I won't push the issue. But it does seem strange
    that any jerk with an email address can insult me, and the hard research and opinions of others without being accountable. What difference could it make to you whether the discussion continues? It might even bring traffic to your blog site. While the so called leaders of ufology have assigned the AA to the trash heap, there are others like Dr. Leir who don't think it's a hoax.
    It's not a hoax! There's no evidence that it's a hoax.
    What evidence do you use to prove to yourself that the AA is a hoax?

    Do you want the truth or not?


    Terry has made remarks that he needs to back up.
    Why stop a discussion like this prematurely. Let it go. It's only one comment page of your blog and you can continue on with your other concerns and blogs. I don't think you'll be sorry. It won't be a problem.
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • Rich, What would you suggest to remedy the situation?

    The problem, as I see it, is that there's a lot of evidence when it comes to UFOs but the vast majority is anecdotal in nature. To me, that means that "research" involves discussing said evidence...which leads to speculation. I don't see any way around that.

    [I'm pretty sure that there's better evidence out there that the general public does not have access to see, in the hands of both private individuals and government agencies. I'll leave it at that.]

    By Blogger Capt Steve, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • Ed:

    It misses the mark of the posting, as you can see from the title above.

    It takes us nowhere toward the explanation of the (total) UFO phenomenon.

    It's a side-bar (for me and others).

    I'm not interested in a discussion or the discussion.

    Having excoriated UFO UpDates for such immaterial asides, I'd be hypocritical to allow the same here.

    This is not the venue for your particular topical item. Sorry.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • Capt Steve:

    It's the nature of the discussions not the discussions themselves.

    It's the rambling and discursive aspect of the comments that aggrieve.

    Speculation is fine with me, obviously -- I do it all the time.

    But when it encompasses a topic without actually addressing the topic, I get snarky.

    That said, I agree with you pretty much.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • Ahh, good old Ed:

    Yes, of course I won't push the issue.

    Followed by pushing the issue. Cognitive dissonance at its finest!

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, April 24, 2014  

  • Rich ever notice how when you are having a "reasonable" and "reasoned" conversation on this topic it suddenly takes a turn thru the guardrail and plunges into the abyss?

    In regards to the AA story... my father seemed to have the general opinion that all of these kinds of things are "deceptions" either by "earthly sources" to distract / od delude those who might be intelligent enough to begin to figure out the puzzle... except they are led to chasing phantoms.... or the What-ever-they-ares are playing mind games like they seem to have been playing for as long as they have been around. The "proof" available is oviously not really proof... neither as science nor even as investigative reporting.

    Any time some one *insists* their version of truth "just *must* be true" and says "prove to me I'm wrong" is not looking for reason nor are they willing to accept that their information might be skewed by persons unknown just simply because it is more convenient that the truth never be know.

    For a "B" Sci-FI movie I suppose that the AA stuff might pass... but to me its something along the lines of the Cottingley faery "photos" that led Arthur Conan Doyle down the garden path so to speak. There might be something along the line of "The Gentry" or Possibley the Pari / Apsaras or something else along that line but tiny little butterfly winged tinker bells? Not likely. Consider the laws of biology for such creatures and you'd find that due to energy requirements and the actual biophysics of a creatures scaling. They would not be capable of being any more intelligent that a kitten or a bird...

    Consider the same things for "alien life". It can neither be too large nor too small... for entertainment try: http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/

    also see the an explanation of the squared cubed law here: http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

    The whole Grey E.T. seems to be a biological chimera / illusion / distraction from whatever the truth maybe [remember a successful stage magician always lears to distract the audience so he can pull a fast one.]

    The whole 1947 NM UFO event[s] seem to fall into the category of somebody's hiding something but it is not likely corpses or working aliens or secret underground bases invaded by aliens ... something happened but what it was we'll probably never know simply because those that actually do know won't say and those that want to make a quick buck will be happy do lie to make their money before the lynch mob arrives [Col. Corso anyone?].

    alas... "the truth is out there... but you will never know what it is...." -- that maybe ultimately what we will learn...



    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Friday, April 25, 2014  

  • All right, here is a new angle. Don't all laugh at once:

    The AA film is a fake because it is not mentioned in the MJ-12 documents. Hillenkoetter would NEVER have left out this important piece of movie evidence when informing Ike about Roswell, would he?

    Over and out.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, April 25, 2014  

  • I posted of ber at Kevin's blog a recollection from my thater's notes about a "battery stoppage" he experience...

    and now I am here to vent because some one replied that "gee I've aways heard that it was from the strong electromagnetic field a UFO has..."

    to which I responded that who ever told them that does not know what they are talking about.... here is the rest of the comment I did not post over there as I thing the point would fall on deaf ears:


    An electomagnetic field does not operate that way. The problem here is that some people seem to believe [I won't say think because they haven't really thought about the science] that because there is an "EM effect" that some kind of "EM field" must cause it-- that is an incorrect assumption.

    Ever played with a magnet or an electromagnet? Try stopping a battery or a ignition system in a car from operating with one... to interrupt the current flow along a wire requires manipulation of what we consider "fundamental constants" which a simple EM field cannot do.

    One other assumption that some have made that may be in error is that the "visitors" [if that is what they are] are benign. If they were benign then why are there so many reported "deceptions" of observers or those who claim they were contacted?

    Another assumption is that they are "space faring"... Has any one been to their to their home world and brought back verifiable proof? Got pictures and astro-graphic co-ordinates? It may seem easy to say "oh, they're from space..." but proving that is the case is a whole 'nother thing. It also may prove to be a dangerous assumption since we do not know their 'true motivation'.

    Sadly I have yet to hear or read a logical proof with actual scientific data that supports ETH. Most of what I have heard or read is the equivalent of "table pounding" that "it must be so... it just must be..." with no proof and no effort to actually show proof.... so what do we have for 67 years of UFO-logy? Nothing. No science has been done. No proof presented.... just a lot of bogus nonsense spouted by people that are not qualified to even have an opinion. Alas... that is not science... not does it prove what UFOs are, where they come from, who is operating them, and why they want to visit this dirt ball with so many ignorant people that love to be led around by the nose rather than do some real thinking.

    Forgive me if I sound harsh but it seems there is a bit of an echo chamber here with the propagation of bad ideas and non-science answers.

    alright I'm done ranting now... I think I'll swear off trying to give reasonable replies to ignorant statements.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Friday, April 25, 2014  

  • Joel:

    Without those "ignorant statements" ufology wouldn't exist at all.

    Bruce Duensing and Paul Kimball can tell you all about it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 25, 2014  

  • 10-4 on those "ignorant statements" being UFOlogy.

    I made the mistake of posting again at Randle's blog... I won't do so again. There are far too many comments along the lines of "I think know enough to be an expert on a subject which I have no qualifications to open my mouth about but you should take my word for it because after all it is *I* who says so and only my opinion counts.".

    That kind of logical fallacy seems to be de rigour there, and it creates a high noise-to-signal ratio for reasoned discussion... I suppose that Randle looks at all the responses as advertising traffic... for after all controversy can sell books... and selling books is after all what Randle wants to do...

    The truth is [of course] I have no one to blame but myself for trying to inject "reason", "logic", and "objective fact" as a discussion points with trolls and fools... which of course leads to re-learning the proverbs: "A wise man who argues with a fool is not wise." and "You can lead a man to truth, but you cannot make him think".

    I suppose this is why my father never bothered to publish any of his observations or opinions... because the 'non-expert experts', 'non-scientist opinionators', and the 'echo chamber bloviators' "own the field".

    So let's declare UFOlogy dead and move on to "UFOlogy" which is to say "The study of Usually Flatulent Opionators" which would not move us forward in regards to 'truth' but it might be entertaining in an Jon Stewart / Steven Colbert sort of way.



    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Sunday, April 27, 2014  

  • Joel:

    You are so right.

    Randle re-opened the Electromagnetic Effects thing again as it ties in with his pending latest book and that is (and has been) his primary motivation for his blog and UFO interest.

    But it's not worth getting too worked up about.

    You've been castign pearls before swine, as had your father before you.

    Now you've had the epiphany your Dad had, and know to debate with fools is futile.

    I don't post comments that go to extremes to self-aggrandize and feel much better by being a censoring (and even censuring) bastard.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, April 27, 2014  

  • @Joel
    > The truth is [of course] I have no one to blame but myself for trying to inject "reason", "logic", and "objective fact" as a discussion points with trolls and fools...

    As a participant in that discussion, I stunned. It would take a Nobel-level breakthrough in physics to support the towering edifice of your arrogance.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Monday, April 28, 2014  

  • "UFO aficionados often (usually) ignore expert commentary so they can insert their non-expert commentary -- the point being that they wish to be seen as "brilliant" when they are not.

    Shutting down or setting aside real expertise goes to the heart of what "ufology" is and has always been -- fools step in and take over the conversations." -RRR

    ---

    A comedian once asked his audience, "Who here thinks that racism still exists in America?"

    Nearly everyone raised his hand.

    He then asked, "Now, who here is a racist?"

    Strangely, no one raised his hand.

    That is a portrait of the problem within UFOlogy, and society in general.

    The problem is always with everyone else, isn't it?

    We experts were doing just fine until the ignorant new upstarts came along with their poorly-informed ideas and effed everything up, right?

    An endeavor begins as an open-ended discovery because there is an acknowledgement that little is known, but it slowly transforms into a rigid crusty ideology, a gateway of "expertise" that cannot support its own weight.

    And all this time the authorities insist it is not an ideology at all, the REAL problem is of course those damn new arrivals who refuse to accept our criteria of what is and is not worthy of consideration.

    Because clearly, anyone with sense can see what is truth and what is rubbish.

    In UFOlogy. Ha!

    This process of crystallization from a growing endeavor into a rigid corpse has occurred over and over in society, and it is always blamed upon the ignorant masses and never the authorities.

    Which is convenient, since the authorities are the public spokesmen.

    And that is unfortunate, because the reason a discipline or organization fails is most often due to basic character faults of the experts and authority figures. They fail to live up to their responsibilities.

    "I can memorize pi to 256 digits, but I have the temper of a 14-year old" - a combination that could never result in perceptual or cognitive bias, noooo way.

    As Mr Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."

    Unfortunately, UFOlogy is still too young to illustrate this tenet in its own house.

    By OpenID Indrid Cold, at Tuesday, April 29, 2014  

  • @ Terry the Censor

    *That* was a discussion? It's too bad the Yiddish accent / idiom does not translate well as text because the irony of calling that bit of hackery as a discussion is giving it more credit that it was worth... I erroneously gave the 'participants" in that "what ever it was" more credit for discussing possibilities.

    I'm sorry you don't believe that my father was an expert in EM effects, EM engineering, and the measurement of EM fields. When he wrote and spoke on the subject he spoke as an expert he got paid for that expertise-- not as a typical @$$hat UFOnot expert... What are you? Have you ever been paid professionally to do EM work? I worked for him.

    When I said he was no fool in regards to tools, electrical systems, and determining possible cause of failures in systems... it was because he would not suffer foolishness... I worked for him for six years... and half of his business at the time was EM measurement for FCC compliance to EM standards.

    He had an IQ of a 140... not that it makes him a genius or that it is even relevant.

    What do I get for the trouble of even sharing his "notes"? I get a bunch of people talking to fill the air with words so they don't have to listen to their pet theories or favorite bits of "science set in stone" marred by the observations of an expert.

    You said: "It would take a Nobel-level breakthrough in physics to support the towering edifice of your arrogance."

    Um... My arrogance? It would take a similar break though to feel hurt by your ad hominum attack. The point ultimately is that either "serious researchers" look at the observations offered or they don't. If they don't it is no loss to me. I don't have a book deal riding on whether or not I get a lot of fools, trolls, or obsessive-compulsives to yabber about subjects they know nothing about.

    Nor do I have trouble making reasonable observations about both the fanatics and the skeptics. Why? Again-- I don't have anything to lose you see the real "reasonable researchers" are either dead [Hynek, or my father] they have gone on to do other things where they are not being attacked [Vallee]. You will note I do claim that my father was a reasonable researcher... and under the circumstance [I knew him well enough and you did not know him at all] I think I can be a good judge of ability.

    I probably won't live to see the day where e0 and mu0 are found to be "variables under the right circumstance" but that certainly would mean a Nobel for someone... certainly not for me. I don't want to be a "UFO expert" nor spend time "debunking skeptical experts".

    Reasoned conversation and an examination of reasonable observations of an expert is what I was looking for... and what do I get? "craziness and insults!" Does it bother me? Not really. it just teaches me that "reasoned discussion" and the acceptance of "facts and observations" by a now deceased expert is not acceptable to those that claim they are "looking for the truth". So much for the search for truth.

    Regards.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Thursday, May 01, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home