Several UFO enthusiasts (besides me) are speculating that ufology is kaput, down and out.
That isn’t exactly the case but the impression that ufology is dead or dying is palpable.
The “Roswell slides” debacle has created a nadir in UFO interest, for UFO aficionados.
(The public is currently enamored of other things; UFOs never being a serious interest of the hoi polloi.)
I’m noticing a superficial examination of classic UFO cases or sightings. (Kevin Randle’s blog and Frank Warren’s hodgepodge site example that.)
The old exercises of examining UFO events piece by piece – by Bruce Maccabee or Robert Sheaffer – no longer occur, pretty much, by the present UFO curiosity gang.
Facile examinations of UFO sightings, past and present, are rife as one can see by an internet search.
Research of UFOs has always been a sop, employed by persons pretending to be “researchers.”
David Rudiak has delved into UFO accounts (especially Roswell) as rabidly as anyone and has approximated a research methodology, but even he takes a cavalier turn because he starts with the premise that UFOs have an extraterrestrial origination.
That’s not objective or scientific by a long shot, but it’s better than most ruminations cluttering the internet and the venue known as the UFO community.
Ufology is a joke, as French skeptic Gilles Fernandez often intimates.
And when Frank Warren, who has put his life-style fully into UFO hoarding, but now writes that ufology is dead (or dying), the UFO interested should take note.
The “Roswell slides” brouhaha has put a nail in the UFO coffin, one that seems likely to kill ufology for a while.
Yet when Chris Aubeck and Martin Shough see something worthwhile in a old odd aerial event (April 8, 1665, Barhöfft, Sweden/Germany), there is hope that a few of the UFO curious, like Michael Swords, will continue to rake the coals of ufology for embers that might re-ignite the intriguing UFO topic.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment