Sometime in 2007 I realized I was sick of hearing about "ufology."
The politics, the incessant clashes with an apathetic mainstream media, the endless discussion about inventing a research paradigm that actually works . . . not to say those aren't worthy subjects and noble goals, but they're not necessarily my goals. Ufology, as a mass of disparate disciplines operating under a single loosely defined banner, is an inherently social organism -- and as frequent readers of this blog may have noticed, I'm a far cry from social. I suppose I've come to concur with Nick Redfern's general pessimism about an organizational approach to "fringe" research, especially as the phenomenon in question appears to operate, at least for the most part, in such a maddeningly elusive and subjective manner.
I'll continue to write about the UFO phenomenon, but I don't foresee contributing anything substantial to the political dimension of UFO/ET discourse; I'll leave that to others more capable and savvy.
19 comments:
I think you're hitting on something that more and more, people who are truly concerned with Ufology and the search for non-Earthbound intelligence are realizing; the old paradigm of "Divided we stand, together we fall." While finding similar threads with different peoples' experiences, it's becoming impossible to reconcile such a varied landscape in terms of those experiences all across the spectrum of UFO/ET encounters. It's "maddeningly elusive" as you say because it seems no one man or woman can point the way forward. And towards what? More details? More evidence? More first-person testimony? The prospect of which only seems to hasten more confusion, disagreement and in-fighting.
I think the best we can do is to focus on our individual perceptions, offer a level of support to those dealing with their own experiences, and ignore the hucksters and sociopaths who only want to capitalize on the disharmony. This way we can weed out disinformation, and more easily sort the wheat from the chaff.
This is all, of course, my humble opinion.
Mac,
Side-step the silly flame wars, the highly socialized meme traps (where you have to dive in to the lukewarm, sweaty, fetid wading pools or be branded an outcast).
Heck, no revelation ever came to a committee.
In this instant, your tendency towards solitude (in the philosophical and creative sense – reference Anthony Storr’s book of the same name). is a benefit to your Fortean research, be it UFOs, Phantom Social Workers or anomalous Clowns…
Please, do not walk away from the topic.
The lone individual has always made the difference, the breakthrough…witness one fellow by name of Charles Fort; picture him on all those dark and silent nights in the New York Public Library…surrounded not by a soul but only that light which (to quote the great mystic Juan de la Cruz) burned ardently in his heart.
Keep the torch burning, Mac.
Forteana needs you – all sectors of it.
We need you.
Hey Mac,
You're a highly talented and creative individual, and there's no sense in allowing politicized social dynamics become an obstacle to your creative and inspired interaction with the material.
Hold on to the things that encourage your creative work. Dismiss anything that becomes a barrier.
Alex
Mac:
I can understand your POV. I've been getting bored with ufology for some time. After reading Shockingly Close To The Truth by Jim Moseley and Karl Pflock, it's obvious that nothing has changed over the decades. Strange incidents, a few credible witnesses, no answers, hoaxes, fights among leading "experts" in the field, a startling announcement or revelation in just a few months... it just keeps repeating itself ad nauseam.
At the same time I hope this doesn't mean that you're going to drop the subject completely, especially with your CTH book. Voices with different takes still should be heard.
Ray
I've been interested in UFO's for at least thirty years. The work of Vallee is, to me, the most compelling.
In 2nd place would be your CTH. I would like you to continue exploring this subject. And I'm sure your other readers would agree.
Good luck to you whatever you do.
He's not saying he's leaving, just giving up the political aspect. But is that something you were really into anyway?
jeremy - good point that I missed in the emotional flush of my response...
I guess it is a reflection of how much I (any apparently many others) value and appreciate Mac as a writer and an explorer.
anonymous -
agreed...I have been posting, for some time, that Mac may not be the exact theoretical analogue to Vallee; but Mac certainly achieves Vallee's unique insight, eloquence and originality.
Forteana needs Mac, pure and simple.
It has been said that all things are political and that politics is everything.
Well, yes and no. But, Mac, you will have to judge for yourself what aspects of the political in the ufological realm to avoid, if possible.
You are relatively young, as yet. You have a good mind, and a flexible perspective on many of the issues within ufology. While I wouldn't compare you with Vallee, I would agree you do have a certain insight, eloquence, and original perspective. That is very valuable, and can be further developed, with experience, to provide more light on the subject at hand than most.
I would concur with others above who suggest your way of thinking, and intelligence, are of great value to ufology, such as it is, as it can become much more if people such as yourself remain involved within it, and help separate the inevitable chaff from the valuable kernels of wheat that are, in fact, within the ufological realm.
Never quit, is my motto. It's too important. And the mystery remains unsolved, but is not insoluable.
Decide what's most important and of interest to you in the field, pursue that, don't worry too much about the ephemera, and if you can do that, and maintain objectivity, you should be OK. Take it from someone who knows.
Hi everybody,
Thanks for the kind words. No, I'm not "leaving," just opting out of the well-intentioned (and quite possibly viable) effort to "reinvent" ufology. It's just not my thing, despite my dissatisfaction.
Everyone:
Yes the UFO issue does indeed need Mac. As a free-thinker not constrained by the "UFO community" mentality his stance should be welcomed.
My own views on Ufology (as a body) are pretty similar to Mac's and I find the idea of reinventing Ufology a sheer waste of time.
I commented on this in a reply to Daniel Brenton recently re the value (or as I believe the utter lack of value) in having UFO groups and a structured community, and tghe establishment of new bodies to give direction to ufology and I am copy-pasting my original reply to Daniel directly below, for those that may wish to read it:
COPY-PASTE:
Hi Guys
Yes, much of the UFO subject is a circus; and it’s quite correct to say that, 60 years on since the Arnold sighting, we haven’t really achieved much in terms of getting definitive answers as to what really lies at the heart of the UFO controversy.
And, while I think the idea of some unified body that could transform Ufology is a good one in THEORY, I have to say that from my own perspective, I see it as a problematic one in PRACTICE - and chiefly in terms of achieving the planned and perceived results.
Here’s why:
Let’s start with the idea of having a new group in the first place. Personally speaking, I have actually sat in on several meetings in the UK (between approx 95 and 99, and 2 in the US (both in 05) where certain people in Ufology quietly suggested something very similar - namely a group that could speak for Ufology, that would try and police it and make it respectable to one and all. And that would make it a subject respectable in the eyes of the media and the public, rather than just being seen by that same public and media as entertainment and a slightly wacky arena full of eccentrics.
This is, of course, all well and good in terms of intent etc. But I have grave doubts about how it might actually work.
I want to stress that, re the following, I am NOT saying this is what would happen with this new idea/proposal, only that the following are my observations on sitting in on meetings where others tried something similar:
I have seen time and again attempts to set up groups that ended up being dogged and completely dragged down by bureaucracy and bullshit, where people spent more time discussing what titles they will be given (Assistant Director of Crash-Retrieval Research; Associate Studier of Contactee Claims; etc - I’m being hypothetical here, of course re actual title names!).
I actually - no word of a lie - sat in on one such meeting in the UK in the late 90s where a whole 4 hours was spent discussing the layout and design for the glossy laminated business cards the members would have. And I’ve seen immense egos try and work themselves in, purely because they want to be seen as a leader in some group or other with a fancy title.
To me that is all bollocks (usually hilarious and laughable bollocks; occasionally annoying bollocks; but bollocks all the same).
So, my first concern would be ensuring that the bureaucracy angle, and the “I want to be Chief of Crop Circle Studies and you can’t be,” angle do not overshadow the actual ability of a group to do things.
Second, I’m not sure how many people would want to adhere to a code of conduct, how it would be policed, and - most importantly - who decides on the code of conduct. If there are good, solid researchers in Ufology who decline to join and follow the code, does that mean they should be shunned by the group? Can people actually be prevented from “joining” Ufology?
No, they can’t; because it’s not like joining the Army, or the Police, etc. Ufology is merely a group of people who talk, meet, discuss, read, watch and listen to what’s going on re all-things ufological. It’s a fluid entity, in other words; and not a unified body. The nature of the subject, the widespread and differing beliefs, etc ensure that this will always be so.
For example, by my nature I don’t like groups, I don’t like rules or being told what to do. I prefer to do research according to my own rules and then present that data to others who may be interested.
My view is that Ufology should be far more anarchistic in nature and not the domain of groups. And by anarchistic, I don’t mean the image of brick-throwing nutters etc. This particular quote from the Oxford English Dictionary works fine re anarchy: “A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).”
And that should be Ufology: no governing body, but a group of individuals doing their own thing at a responsible level - then pooling the data according to how each person sees fit, and not according to the laws of a group who decides who can be invited to join and who can’t.
Granted, of course, not everyone may agree with me - and that’s their right as ufologists and as individuals. But, even if people disagree with me and my ufological conclusions, they know (or I would hope they know!) I don’t lie, I don’t distort things. Rather, I tell it as it’s told to me, along with relating my views, research and conclusions etc.
If I follow a path of trying to do honest, responsible research (regardless of whether or not people agree with me), then do I need to adhere to the guidelines of a group? No, I just need to exercise common-sense, as do we all.
Ufology has seen countless groups (APRO, NICAP, IFSB etc) come and go. Some of these groups had huge networks with influential people on board, but - and this is important - none of them ever achieved anything (IN TERMS OF ACTUAL RESULTS THAT FURTHERED OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT) than did/does the work of the average grounded, responsible, sensible researcher working ON THEIR OWN OR WITH A COLLEAGUE OR TWO, and then sharing their data with others via the mediums of books, magazine articles, lectures etc.
In other words, I don’t believe personally that the UFO community needs a single, influential group or body to transform it. For example, who decides who is on the committee of the group? Should a poll be placed on the Net or in the many UFO mags, journals and newsletters (both online and in print)? Which country should it be based in and why? I see questions such as these creating big problems when it comes to trying to set up a group to radically transform ufology.
What we need is individuals who will hopefully look at the subject and investigate it fairly, sensibly and with an open mind, and who will be willing to go wherever that leads and without preconceived biases and beliefs playing a role.
For example, let’s look at Greg Bishop. Greg’s book, Project Beta, is, in my mind, one of the most important UFO books - EVER. It reveals how and why elements of the official world take an interest in Ufology (although not always for reasons we imagine); it reveals how we, as a community, have been manipulated and deceived by the official world; and it reveals how the life of one man was destroyed by that same official world for his ufological pursuits.
Now, Greg didn’t write that book according to the rules, regulations and published manifesto of a group.
No, instead what Greg did was to use his own common-sense, his interviewing skills and writing skills and diligently pursued a story by traveling across New Mexico and elsewhere. Greg then reported on it fairly and accurately and in a fashion that presented every side of the story, and then responsibly provided the UFO community with the results of that story via a publisher that cared about the project and did it justice. So, no group rules needed or anything like that. Just common sense, good skills and the ability to dig out a story. And the fact is that Greg’s book ADVANCED our understanding of one particular facet of Ufology with no sign of a governing body in sight.
And personally I don’t believe Ufology needs a new group that sees the “Young Turks” of Ufology running the show. To me, that borders upon eltism, and it creates the image of a select body telling the masses: “We know better than you; abide by these regulations.” And when the “U” in “UFO” STILL stands for “UNIDENTIFIED” after 60 YEARS, believe me: no-one is any position to say they know better than anyone else what is, or is not, going on.
I don’t believe that things can ever be resolved at a huge, group level - because a lot of people would probably not join the group, those who wouldn’t join would still go on and do things as before, and the many other UFO groups out there would still exist, and still be doing their thing too.
In other words, this has the danger of becoming just another UFO body with a new name, while the rest of Ufology continues as before, amid a myriad of other already-existing groups.
What I personally think Ufology needs is a shake-up at the INDIVIDUAL level. What is needed is (A) more solid, in-depth research; (B) a dumping of personal biases and beliefs re what lies at the heart of the UFO puzzle; (C) a willingness to share data and not jealously guard it and hide it in filing cabinets, as seems to be a weird fashion among certain elements, and always has been; (D) a dumping of egos and self-importance; (E) a willingness to look at all the data and evidence and not just that which supports the scenarios that some feel happy with; and (F) a willingness to study radical theories that have been previously relegated to the fringes of ufology by those that see it as being mere superstition, occultism etc.
As for the media, such as TV and newspapers etc: well, the problem here is that because we have no ufological smoking gun to present to the media, the UFO subject (to that same media, at least) will always be a source of entertainment and nothing else - simply because other than the entertainment angle, we have not been able to provide them with anything else.
As Paul Kimball works in the TV world, but is also deeply involved with ufology, he’ll correct me if he thinks I’m wrong.
But I see things like this: TV companies that make shows for TV channels are first and foremost in the business of securing funding to make a project and earn money.
Nothing wrong with that at all, because everyone has to earn a living. And if you earn a living from making UFO documentaries, flying a Jumbo Jet, cleaning the streets, or as a heart-transplant doctor, it doesn’t matter: you go with where your skills are, and you should embrace your talents.
But, as I said we have no smoking gun to give the media. That means the media is forced (practically every time it makes a UFO program on TV) to go with head-and-shoulder interviews with witnesses, panoramic shots of the deserts of Roswell (or wherever the location happens to be) and the wheeling-on of the token UFO researcher who believes and one of the usual skeptics. That is the general theme - nearly always. The production company make the show, the channel receives it and broadcasts it, and everyone is happy.
Again, Paul will correct me if I’m wrong, but I see many people in Ufology wanting to see the media pursue the UFO puzzle as they would Watergate or Iran-Contra or the WMD issue etc (I would love that too). But the collective media don’t: for them it’s just entertainment.
Would that position change if we were able to provide some “alien DNA” or something undeniably ET in origin? Yes it would. But, Ufology’s relationship with the media will not be altered by a new group trying to forge new links. It will only be altered when we can provide the media with something substantial, ground-breaking and that will turn the media upside down in terms of their often patronizing and often skeptical view of the subject.
Then there is the issue of outing hoaxers etc. This isn’t as easy as some might think. Let’s take everyone’s usual target: George Adamski. For many of the “nuts and bolts’ brigade, Aadmski’s tales are an embarrassment and nothing but lies. And if the new group was of a strictly “nults and bolts” mindset (in terms of belief and research), doubtless he and his ilk would be cast out of ufology.
But what about those such as me and Greg who see things in bit more of a (terrible pun) Grey area? For example, I do not for one moment think Adamski went merrily flying around the Solar System with long-haired aliens with ridiculous names.
But, I DO think that the isolated desert encounters of many of the seminal contactees are indicative of a shamanic type experience with another intelligence, and of a type that has been reported since, well, since people have had the ability to report things!
Many experiences (whether with demons or angels, fairy encounters etc etc, and right up to the Contactees) have had an air of the unreal about them, many occurred in isolated locations and there was often an indication of the dream state and the Oz Factor, as described by Jenny Randles.
So, what may at first glance appear as fantastic and outrageous hoaxes may be something else entirely. And how the new group would grasp this (if at all), would depend on how open they were to perhaps more esoteric than the usual “it’s all aliens or it’s all hoaxes” angle.
But, to reiterate, I don’t believe that a new group (or an old, or a revamped, or a “Young Turk”-driven group or whatever) can change Ufology in the way that it needs to be changed.
Enforcing codes of conduct or regulations have in no way, shape or form helped to resolve the UFO puzzle AT ALL in the last 60 years.
What we need is a fundamental opening of minds at the individual level; we need to embrace and study altenate theories that the old guard stay away from; we need to get out of the 1950s and 1960s mindset that still dominates much of ufology; and we need less huffing and puffing of those giant egos that Ufology curiously attracts.
Then, when as individuals we study everything with unbiased minds, we should be sharing the info at the level of conferences, books, magazines, etc, as we are now, but perhaps with a more radical and alternative view of the subject that doesn’t exclude old-school ufology but that updates it for those that see the 50sand 60s as dinosaur-like eras that achieved nothing in terms of tangible results.
It should be clear to one and all that there is something far stranger going on re Ufology beyond just nuts and bolts aliens visiting the Earth; and researching it largely with this mindset is what has partially led to a lack of advancement in terms of finding answers.
The next generation should be immersing itself in the work of Strassman, McKenna, and in such titles as The Rebirth of Pan; The Trickster and the Paranormal; and hark back to people like Keel and Vallee.
If Ufology can open its collective mind (albeit, ironically, at an individual level), we stand to learn much more than we ever could from setting up groups, having codes of conduct etc.
In closing, I want to stress than this is in no way meant as a criticism of anyone who wants to try and advance the subject. And if they feel that the establishment of a new, cutting-edge group may do that, then I wish them the very best of luck. I just happen to feel there are far easier, and likely more successful ways, than essentially attempting (albeit in a modified fashion) what groups like NICAP did decades ago.
Cheers
Nick Redfern
In 10 years time - in 60 years time - Ufology will still be having exactly the same discussions and debates as it is having now.
The 'One Big Case' will remain forever elusive. Old cases will be exhumed for the 1000 time and reinterpreted in the light of the latest fad. Machine elves are the new fairies. Contactees are the new shamans. Blah, blah, blah.
UFO forums will still be full of people parroting aging hypotheses. "Jacques Vallee says this". "Ah yes, but Stanton Friedman says that".
A small number of writers will still be able to sell books on the topic to what will forever be a niche market. Magazines and new organisations will be launched with great fanfare and will quietly fail a few years later.
Blogs will go on recycling podcasts which themselves are recycling blogs of the podcast of the blog... etc etc.
Are we bored yet? I know I am. As for Mac, the question isn't whether Ufology needs Mac. The question is whether Mac needs Ufology. Perhaps he has greater ambitions than to become yet another clown in an aging circus.
What strikes me as the basic problem with UFOlogy is that there is really no way to TEST any of its hypotheses. Take the "hardware" hypothesis that UFOs actually are some form of alien spacecraft. As long as these purported aliens do not choose to reveal themselves to us in an openly public, "official" way. And if you take the tack that the government DOES have solid proof of this, you're still stuck with the problem that all so-called "conspiracy theorists" run up against. Unless/until someone in the know credibly "confesses" to such a conspiracy, again, verification of hypotheses remains totally elusive.
On the other hand, the more nebulous theories of "hyperdimensional beings," etc. are, well, nebulous. It's hard to see how anyone could ever "prove" conclusively that there are (or are not) such entities.
Hence, the only satisfactory approach to UFOlogy that I've found is somewhat akin to what Whitley Strieber's perspective seems to be. To wit, that the whole subject is best regarded basically as a branch of metaphysics not "science."
Mac,
You are not the joining type. Neither are Nick, Paul Kimball Lesley G, Regan Lee, or Tim Binall, and great stuff is coming from all of these people. I'd add others like Andy Roberts, Colin Bennett, and maybe even Strieber.
None of these people are members of, or head up any group telling people what to think. They all go about it themselves, and share their knowledge with others because it helps them to process the things they have found and gets the information out there so that others may follow up on it, disagree, praise, whatever.
It's not the only way to get to the bottom of things, but it is an efficient method, since no one tells these people what is right or wrong. The forum of the larger interest group, as well as public opinion (at least from people who are interested in such things) is a loose sort of peer review, and guess what? It's fine.
As Nick and everyone on this thread has said in one way or another, many of the best ideas do not come from committees. You may also notice that many of the best books on UFOs and anomalies are written by people who put everything they have into just one or two titles: Keith Thompson, William Bramley, Paul Hill, Jim Brandon and Greg Little come to mind.
Those who can turn out quality titles on a consistent basis are rare. Vallee and Keel are the standout examples, with Nick not far behind.
The point is, these people don't need peer approval. No one with anything thoughtful or even important to say ever has.
So perhaps a loose sort of anarchy is the best way to go about things as we move away from the 20th century. The internet has facilitated this, and will continue to affect (and effect) the way we look at mysteries as a "group."
Mac,
If nothing else, your post has elicited two brilliant pieces of commentary by Messrs. Redfern and Bishop.
Agreed, Gentlemen, on all counts.
Cliff, as for Mac having "greater ambitions than to become yet another clown in an aging circus." - of that there seems to be little doubt.
But after you let the smoke clear, there remains a mystery that may speak to our identity as a species. It may or may not be ET- based, but is almost surely cosmic and numinous in its implications... and that is why Mac's continued involvement is needed.
Like Robert Neville in "I am Legend," Mac wanders the streets of a derelict reality and has the fortitude and the courage to go it alone and report from the field.
Cool. Since Mac's "I'm opting out of politics" thread has morphed into a political thread, let me clarify something:
The proposal Daniel Brenton & I have been working on has nothing to do with telling people what to think or policing the community. It's about 2 things:
1.) Cross-referencing data from various applicable fields of study to see what there is to see. Ghosts, UFOs, crop circles, fairies, ancient "accounts" of gods, space people, angels, demons, DMT research, shamanism, contactees--the whole gamut.
2.) Being presentable in a credible way to mainstream media.
YES, our theoretical umbrella corp. would have criteria by which we would choose or allow sources into the fold, but our research would be readily available to all.
Underlying this is the hope that we'd end up leading by example and become the standard by which others would WANT to do research. Why is that so bad? Why do you want to live in this UFO ghetto where a Nick Redfern is on equal or lesser footing to a Steven Greer?
Why would you choose to keep the status quo of playing to incestuous, dwindling crowds and scraping by instead of stealing back the guffaws from the mainstream and contributing to a larger holistic experiment that, if its findings are kept out of scientific journals, it's the fault of the editors and not the research?
It may not work, true. But why would you not want to try? I just don't get how some of you don't see the problem with your dedication and hard work being equated with huxters, egomaniacs and cult leaders. Is that really what you want? Because that's what you have.
I think even if it fell apart at the seams the symbolic gesture of saying, "We're united in this and serious about finding the truth" will grab people's attention if the PR push is right.
To those who say nothing is worth trying because this enigma will never be figured out, I want to say "Then why are you here?" But instead, here's a fresh perspective:
Let's say you're right. Well, one option for why you're right is that we're dealing with an intelligence (or two or three) that hides its true nature in the imagery of our times. Right now it/they appears as aliens, or perhaps crypto-terrestrials. Prior to that fairies, prior to that demons or what have you. So what happens when we consciously and in one voice say, "Alright, enough. I know that I won't get this so I'm going to study the available data with zero hypothesis in mind because you may just accommodate whatever I dream up."
Does the game change? Does the game stop?
I have a friend who is a free diver in Hawaii. He told me that he decided to swim toward sharks instead of fleeing from them just to see what would happen. What happens is, this unheard-of confrontation forces the shark to think outside of its "must eat organism in front of me" instinct. The shark will inevitably brush up against him or flip head over tail and retreat. It will do everything except what it's used to doing.
There's a metaphor in there we should be seizing.
Jeremy,
I don't think you or Daniel have any intention of telling people what to think or acting as gatekeepers of what is acceptable, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.
As Nick has written, what many people are afraid of is the inevitable tendency of any organization to become a haven for power struggles and infighting, clouding their original, noble purposes. My quote is "All political systems are perfect until people get involved."
That said, I don't want to appear to want to quash such a great idea before it's even started. Early on, I even said that I'd be willing to help. I couldn't agree more with your goals and stated methodology.
What I was trying to get across is that some people do better outside an organizational framework, at least most of the time. Just because someone isn't on a letterhead, doesn't mean that they can't contribute to the success of a well-run group with clear goals.
I don't know how Mac, Nick, and others feel about this, but I have no problem with your ideals and ideas. The issue is more personal: I don't always trust a group dynamic. That's just my own problem, and I'm willing to overlook it occasionally in the pursuit of a greater good. Maybe I'm just selfish. Perhaps one of your biggest problems would be juggling a bunch of individualists!
I've written more on this at ufomystic, and plan to post it soon, unless you would like to keep it quiet for now.
Hi, Greg:
No-no, definitely post whatever you want to post, it's good to have this dialog out in the open, methinks.
I get what you're saying. I just think this would be the antithesis of that power-struggle dynamic because we'd be a ragtag band of people sick of power-grubbing groups. Sure, eventually it would devolve into that, years down the line when we've forgotten our roots. But by then we'd already be defunct :)
Well maybe it could work in a way that would let everyone stay in their comfort zones. It would require, still, a central depot where we'd donate our research/information and volunteers to sift through it to categorize correlations and outliers, something like that. (And wouldn't it be interesting if the real pattern was found in the outliers?--so we'd need someone to look at that too.)
See? This could work like the League of Superheroes: individual heroes banded together to fight the forces of evil. Hell, Superman and Batman don't even like each other. Aquaman is nearly useless--the spell-check doesn't even recognize his name. Gleek and The Wonder Twins are a liability. But none of that matters in the face of the greater good.
Plus they had the Hall of Justice. We'll need to get us a Hall of Justice.
Jeremy:
I would say I'm in total agreement with Greg here. If you feel that this is a venture that will be of benefit to Ufology, then of course I would say definitely give it a go, and I would encourage you all the way.
But Greg is quite right about me: Having been in Ufology for 20 years, and seen the "behind-the-scenes" bullshit that goes on re UFO groups, I have concerns about UFO groups, because very often the "I'm in charge and you're not" factor comes into play. You get internal politics, egos and more surfacing.
Of course, this isn't just relative to Ufologists - it's because we're human and that can happen in the board-room, on the football pitch or anywhere!
My own view is pretty simple: the only thing that will transform Ufology is if we find startling proof - in the form of hard-evidence - that UFOs exist.
So, my view is that we need to concentrate on looking for answers and hopefully find them.
It doesn't matter how respectable a group is, how good its intentions are, or how many letters after their names the members have, the unfortunate reality is that without proof, no-one outside of our little community will ever take us seriously, or even bother with us - apart from when the usual TV channels want a few head and shoulder interviews/quotes for the next documentary on the subject.
So, that's how I see it: answers and evidence will transform Ufology in the best way possible.
I understand your ideas totally, and as I said if you feel this venture would work then I'd give you as much publicity as I could.
But groups (powerful groups, like NICAP and APRO) have come and gone. In terms of actually resolving the UFO puzzle, despite their membership, despite their good intentions, despite their actions, they achieved nothing solid and are today almost certainly utterly unknown outside of our small band of wandering souls.
Groups come, groups go, groups have good intentions. But none of that will matter to anyone - ever - if we don't find Ufological proof. That's the only way to transform Ufology: find proof.
And it's been my personal experience that the usual political bullshit, egos, the tiresome "I want to be the Director of Alien Encounters Research and you can't be because I set the group up" aspect that goes along with groups inevitably hampers the investigative process too - that's a big concern of mine. And very often it's just due to red-tape and bureaucracy issues.
And I do want to stress that this IS just my own personal experience. A new group may work. But it needs to do something radically different to anything that has come before.
Post a Comment