Saturday, April 29, 2006
John Harney appeals to "al Qaida"...
Casting about for comments, Harney attempts to compile some sort of dossier to disprove the validity of UFO research, and presumably to discount ALL UFO sightings as the old swamp gas, venus, balloons, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
While UFOlogy creeps forward, accruing a new compelling case here or there, Harney and his ilk are stuck in the 50s, with no useful new information to dispense, and little more than a romp through debunking history.
If Harney truly believes UFOlogy is a waste of time, what does that say about his wasting blog-space to explain WHY it's a waste of time? What a pathetic purpose, indeed.
Why don't you just pack your toys and go home until you have a new trick? When you've found the smoking gun that explains ALL the questionable cases, I'll be all ears.
Do you honestly have anything NEW to say on the subject? Didn't think so.
At least al Qaida ("the base") can rest easy knowing the pundit is alive...and excreting. :)
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Greg Boone posits that we might be less bigoted today than back in the 40s. His example is a dark-skinned alien landing in the South of the 40s, and the likely trouble in which he would have found himself...
Well, discounting the possibility that even the most primitive 40s alien might well have been armed and amply able to defend himself, I wonder if Greg is right?
I wonder how long an alien would last if he landed his saucer on the White House lawn tomorrow afternoon and emerged with brown skin, a beard and a scarf on his head? My guess is he'd not make a third step, unless he was armed and amply able to...well, you get the idea.
Perhaps we've not changed quite so much after all?
James Smith continues his seemingly futile arguments for hanging it up on getting truth from power, and using our own collective power to investigate the UFO phenomenon with a civilian monitoring program.
Rob Kritkausky chimes in with news that inadvertent data had in fact been collected by such field monitoring equipment, albeit not purposed for UFO monitoring.
First, I find James to be quite accurate in his appraisal of getting "truth" from the government. Even if the Preznit, the cabinet and the Joint Chiefs got on their knees with bibles akimbo swearing that aliens are here, I'd still first check to see where we were in the news cycle, the status of imminent elections, and current severe weather updates. In other words, I wouldn't trust them...for one second...out of hand. I'm utterly done with that. Pete Townsend said it well..."We won't get fooled again".
Secondly, I think Rob's report lifts up another very interesting point, perhaps unwittingly.
If there are field research vehicles and stations out there...for non-UFO purposes...that are, as a by-product of their monitoring, getting useful or at least intriguing data useful to UFO research, does it not follow that a large-scale civilian effort along the same lines but targeting UFO activity specifically would have a fair shot at collecting useful data?
One thing is for sure...if we do not undertake such an effort, we surely will never know any more than what we pry from the military/government, which we already know we cannot blindly trust. Those that are getting the intriguing data now have no incentive to publicize, lest they be branded as UFO whackos or some such. Remember they are NOT UFO researchers. And if todays UFO researchers continue to do what they have done up to now, what can reasonably be expected to change in the field beyond the occasional questionable document or new theory on an old case, and the passing of more venerable researchers? Not much, unfortunately.
The legacy we pass on does not have to be...nor should we want it to be...simply the furtherance of the same old cases. That has its place, but it cannot remain the sole plank of the UFOlogical platform, because it is incomplete, and inevitably unsupportable. There must be an evolution...a shifting from the more simple to the more complex, as in any system. Stasis is death. We should encourage and foment the remaking of the field...a field inclusive and respectful of its past, but incisive and expansive about its future. Taking that "next step" toward acceptability, and ultimately legitimacy.
So, who to man such an operation? Only the thick-skinned researchers who have already numbed themselves to the "taint"...and/or their protege/interns are suitable. Think younger Stan Friedmans, or Dick Halls...the next generation?
Imagine having these guys do a series of talks at the conventions, but aimed at younger audiences. A program designed to get kids hungry for the research, solving the mystery, showing them the past, the present and the future of UFOlogy...as it could be...with their involvement and interest. Wanna legitimize UFOlogy? Get kids interested in the field in a tangible, tech-y way. Home-brew Doppler radar? Low-tech spectrum analyzers; clustered, networked, real-time communication grid; instrument kits for electronics students or science fairs; etc...all can be catalysts for change in the field.
In the end, James' larger point is that re-investigating old cases does little to advance our knowledge or progress to the truth. I am not sure that this is so, but I AM sure that if it is the ONLY approach UFOlogy will utilize, then James is destined to be correct eventually, if not already.
As a collective, we can only look at, review, rehash, and re-examine the past. But we can CREATE a future...the future we want, as a collective. We can legitimize UFOlogy through actual hard, instrumented science aimed at the sky, and by channeling our intense curiosity into the future of the field...as well as the past.
It's really not a money issue. A few salesmen, a truly comprehensive arrangement of instruments for the stations (mobile or fixed-location) on a strict diet of low-cost, high efficiency gear, and some willing zealots to monitor same, is doable, marketable, fundable, and ultimately supportable. People really want to know the truth, and will spend a little of their money to help if they believe that the cause is real.
Anyone who thinks otherwise just isn't paying attention...and should probably focus on rehashing and re-examining old cases. It's a big pool, and some rightly stay in the shallow end. :)
Oh, and the Alien Autopsy hoax was finally confirmed by the perp, as if there was really ever any doubt. As a student of special makeup and optical effects since 1976 vis a vis going to high school with twins Bret and Bart Mixon, and being transfixed by Rob Bottin's work in American Werewolf, and Rick Baker's, Doug Trumbull's and Tom Savini's work, the AA body never looked like anything more than rubber to me. Every effects artist who's seen the footage concurs...and for the same very basic reasons.
But now we get the real story, and finally all is mum now since Errol quashed the thread. Excellent decision. It really has nothing to do with UFOs, after all. :)
Ta ta for now...