Tuesday, October 09, 2007

I don't want to steal Paul Kimball's video-blogging thunder, but I can't help snatching this brief clip of Greg Bishop, with whom I agree 100%.



I'd like to see Bishop's sensibility go viral, at least among UFO researchers. Do your part and email this clip to at least five nuts-and-bolts Keyhoe-thumpers or impassioned "disclosure" advocates. Your call.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

12 comments:

Paul Kimball said...

Greg gives a good answer, but the real credit always goes to the guy who asked the question! ;-)

1:18 AM
Mac said...

I should have known!

2:08 AM
Anonymous said...

Not sure how I feel about Greg. I mean the path he's asking "UFOlogy" to take HAS been previously beaten into the ground if you really look at the field. We've looked at the impact of the UFO mythos in ancient culture and the impact these events have on common peoples lives. No offense but he's not really saying anything new here.

I think what he is really asking for is a form of "UFO democracy" that doesn't currently exist. He wants us all on the same research path under someones leadership. While there may be some benefits to that consolidation, a focused path on one or two highly subjective aspects of the phenomenon is dangerous. Many competent researchers don't share his position on the topic and with good reason.

When you give a good study of publicly available FOI documents and an unavoidable, astounding body of testimony from government personnel, there can be little doubt these beings are "Alien" in the classic sense of the word. Sure, there might be the odd spooky, transdimensional peace fairy popping in and out of our reality but I think that's stretching it pretty far based on the available data. It's easier for many of us to believe that a species developed elsewhere and is giving our planet a good study. There motivations and logic are of course...alien.

In my view Greg's comments are a symptom of the frustrated undercurrent thinking men have with UFOlogy except that in his case I can't help but to think he's avoiding key data. The lack of traction he finds with available material is taking him down speculative, invented pathways of viral, memetic lala land. That 's potentially the worst way to find core truth and corrosive to the integrity of legitimate UFO study.

You need to look at what's available and test that integrity before you jump on a train to Spookyville. It's a bit like the massive piles of Dinosaur Bones sitting in plaster under the Calgary Saddle Dome. Some of them have been there over 50 years but the few Paleontologists who study them have to painstakingly and methodically dig through each one to find answers. You either have patience for that or you don't. I think most of us are somewhere in between but I sure as heck don't want the microwave dinner version of the UFO story no matter how tempting it is to jump on that bandwagon.

Just my opinion.

Denny

3:15 PM
Greg Bishop said...

Denny,

The data about people's feelings/ subjective impressions has NOT been systematically gathered or catalogued, as far as I know. This would be on a case-by-case basis. You're right about myths and cultural impact studies, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to people in the field who interview witnesses. Why can't they drop the scientific objectivism act and delve deeper into the individual's experience? Just one account may open a door of understanding.

It may appear that I was asking for some sort of ufological brownshirt patrol, but that was not what I was trying to get across. What I wanted to see is more weight given to subjective human perceptions of the phenomenon IN ADDITION TO other, more conventional forms of research.

I am not a hard-core researcher except in things that interest me, such as government involvment with ufologists. My commentary is just that. Just because I sit at the sidelines on witness testimony is no reason to say I am off in "lala land." If someone can't legitimately comment on any issue in which they have more than a passing interest, we should ban most talk radio and all forms of criticism.

Finally, the "aliens from other planets" idea flatters our cultural prejudices, yet there is no objective evidence that this is where the phenomenon originates. Therefore it is one explanation out of many possible scenarios, none of which we can prove any better than the others. The fact that is is the only currently acceptable one is where I have the problem. Also, I'm trying to get airtime for other explanations, even if I don't fully agree with them.

Best,

Greg

7:07 PM
Greg Bishop said...

Mac,

Thanks for puting up the link! You rule.

7:08 PM
Paul Kimball said...

Mac rules?

I put it up first, you ingrate!! :-)

12:50 AM
Anonymous said...

Greg,

Thanks for your reply and level headed patience. I know what it's like to get criticism online and well...sometimes it sucks ;)

I guess my disconnect comes to play because I fail to see how peoples subjective feelings would help us to find meaningful answers. Sure it would make an interesting study but there are plenty of absolutely worthless interesting studies out there. A more pertinent area of study would be to focus on almost 50 years of abduction related research. You want subjective feelings, I can think of no better source.

Although the "Aliens from other worlds" scenario is the most common, there is good reason for it to maintain its footing. You can't just blow off available research (some of it very good) because it doesn't follow some trendy Mckenna'esk thought experiment http://shout.i-am-that-i-am.com/?cmd=listen&mp3=%2FTerence_McKenna%2FTerence_Mckenna-Angels_Aliens_Archetypes_rc.mp3&dir_id=0&file=filename.pls . We can only really follow and explore what we are told from insiders, official documents and direct contact witnesses.

Looking at core research, overwhelmingly the repeated message is that these beings are "living in the neighborhood". Even their intentions to some degree have repeated answers across many forms of documentation and research. I just think ignoring that because it's "old news" or somehow thrown into a popular consensus trash bin is a bit odd.

I guess what I'm saying is sure, do the thought experiment but don't expect to find meaningful answers. The answers are already there for the taking.

Denny

3:35 AM
Greg Bishop said...

Paul,

I linked you from my site. I thanked Mac for putting up a LINK. You of course rule over Mac..for now.

2:56 PM
Greg Bishop said...

Denny,

Your sort of civilized debate is rare, especially on the net.

I wasn't proposing a thought experiment, I suggested that researchers should actually ask these questions. I agree that there is very compelling evidence (from official quarters, anyway) that UFOs and their occupants are exactly what most people think they are. But, since we have no objective proof of anything as yet, we should explore other avenues of understanding.

I used our little discussion as the basis of a post over at ufomystic.com, if you care to take a look.

Best,

Greg

3:23 PM
Anonymous said...

Ouch!!! I knew that "Lala land" comment would get me in trouble ;)

Honestly though Greg, I'm honored that you would even make reference to this conversation over there.

Thanks for hearing all sides even if you disagree with them.

Denny

1:56 AM
Mac said...

I just posted a response to Greg's UFOMystic essay. Looks like we have a ufological "jam session" on our hands!

2:29 AM
Mac said...

Ouch!!! I knew that "Lala land" comment would get me in trouble ;)

Actually, it was entirely accurate and appropriate: Greg lives in LA!

2:37 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)