The Skeptic in All Those Shows...

I haven't seen National Geographic's Chasing UFOs yet, since it doesn't air until tonight. Only those in the "industry" got a preview. Responses from those who have seen the show seem to be miffed there isn't enough skepticism; while others are miffed the show exists at all. In most paranormal and UFO shows the skeptic is included. For "balance" it is said. Nope. It's for ratings and action; that American brand of competition. Everything's a contest. Anyway... With UFOs, we can debate forever about what they are, where they're from, what it is people are "really" seeing. (Wait, we are debating that.) Focusing on strictly observations of craft for the moment, what use is a so-called skeptic? A WITNESS SAW SOMETHING. Is that debatable? Skeptic, schmetic. What you need, always, are those who can help -- as in assist -- with observations. What wondrous and strange forms clouds can take. Astronomy. Aircraft. (Ours. That we know of.) I know, I know, the moon's been mistaken for a UFO, Venus has been mistaken for a UFO, pranksters like to float up night flying kites and balloons ... sigh. And while the strict observation of a craft is straightforward, there's more. The researcher has to take into account more than just the sighting. If the witness describes feelings of disorientation, anxiety, yipes, missing time even! -- that has to be taken into account. Has to. None of this means that the thing seen is an alien craft piloted by space brothers. That's assumption and while it could be true, we can't prove that. We can prove someone saw something. And we can prove, in many cases, the physical, emotional and psychological effects of a sighting. Aside from the idea that aliens exist and are, indeed, often responsible for UFO sightings, is another idea. One not often brought up; especially not by the "skeptics." That is covert human activity. I mean deep dark ebony black shadow human factions. Often the closet acknowledgement of UFOs being human made is an almost glib explanation that it's "just" military. Just? Not if that "just" is an insidious creation that, whether intentionally or not, causes adverse physical effects upon the citizenry. Or afffects the weather or envirnoment. Or is a cover for spy operations. Etc. Once it's shown that a UFO is now an IFO and a human made object, the job is not always over. Not in cases where a lot of strangeness has occurred.

Meanwhile, UFO sightings continue. Explaining one away, be it the moon, Venus, classified military or a producer's classist take on a witness ("red neck," "hillibilly," "hippie", ...) leaves thousands behind.

What is the beef, the thing that bugs, these skeptics when it comes to UFOs? (Oh and oh god, please "skeptics" that's a rhetorical question) Shows aren't doing the topic of UFOs any favors, except for Ancient Aliens, which, thankfully, has avoided the trap of having skepti bunkies on every two seconds to give their two cents. It's show biz, it's distraction, it's playing into the culture of "vs." And it keeps us spinning inside the wheel of nowhere.

The Mentally Deranged Card

We expect the pathological skeptics to label anyone who insists they've had a UFO or anomalous experience mentally ill. The infrastructure does pretty well in that regard as well. General culture, mainstream media. And if therapy is sought and you're not fortunate or savvy enough to get yourself a Jungian therapist --  who might understand, even if interpreting the experiences as non-literal but nonetheless profound --  you might find yourself not only so labeled, but prescribed meds or worse.

I expect that crap from those groups, so when the Dr. Posners of the skeptic world pontificate, I'm not surprised. I do find it surprising  when I come across it within the filmy walls of UFO Land. (And not a little misogynistic, for it seems that the labels are more quickly applied when it's female experiencers that are the subjects.) Emma Woods has been called many things by some within UFO Land. The vitriol is astounding. Among the things she's been accused of: being "unstable," mentally ill, emotionally unbalanced. And much worse. A visit to just about any UFO forum will prove that. One forum and podcast in particular that I will not link to, that likes to promote itself as being of the highest caliber of metal is notorious for such insults.

Neither Jacobs, the UFO researcher and author who happily used Emma Woods as one of his subjects, nor those attacking Woods are shrinks. And even if they are, armchair psychoanalyzing is just that; hardly a diagnosis that's worth taking seriously. What often accompanies such easily thrown out labeling is a heap of nastiness with a topping of misogyny. Positive sneering, and a weirdly gleeful sneering at that.

Recently, Leah Haley came out with her perspectives on the alien abduction phenomena. Her current take is that there is no such thing as literal alien abduction. After years of experiences and her own research, she's decided the alien abduction scenario is a staged event, controlled by humans. Mind control. MILABS. This is her opinion. She's entitled, certainly, and it's highly interesting. She could even be right. (Wow, how about that!) I have no idea if she is or not. I have long suspected humans are involved in what we loosely call "alien abductions." The point here isn't if Haley is right or not; but the reactions her announcement has invoked. An example from the above mentioned forum:

What would I call it?....uhhh.....errrr...nutsy monkey-batshit koo koo?
Ya know, I normally like cutting edge people and ideas, but this isn't one of them. This is mental dysfunction of the kind that doesn't let you process your sensory input without it going through a "I'm Nucking Futz" filter.

From the same message board:

But, I think she may be suffering from a mental illness.

Calling Haley mentally ill because she thinks human created mind control is the cause for abductions doesn't even make sense. I understand not agreeing with that opinion, but deciding it's a mental aberration? The U.S. alone has a long history of mind control experiments; why is the idea of mind control with an alien/outer space theme so outrageous for some to accept as a possibility?

If one is mentally ill, then they need support and compassion. So why the threats, insults, and stupid jokes at the expense of those UFO witnesses whose opinions you might find yourself in disagreement with? It's not as if those witnesses are being "mentally ill" on purpose.

What is the purpose of rejecting witnesses with sometimes glib, sometimes nasty (and not a little threatening) statements that they're lunatics? I've answered my own question: by stating (almost always with a false authority) that witnesses are mentally ill, the rest of us don't have to consider what they have to tell us. Nothing to think about here, move on.

But of course, neither Woods nor Haley are mentally ill. Not in the sense their critics mean. Vulnerable, anxious,obsessive possibly, even paranoid, -- all those are on a scale from "a little bit," to "hell fucking yes!" Who wouldn't be some of those things, at some times, given missing time, screen memories, encounters of non-human entities, sightings of strange objects, and other anomalous events?

There is also a bit of irony here; those inside UFO Land who otherwise align themselves with experiencers/"believers"/witnesses have no problem accepting UFOs and aliens exist -- which skeptics, etc. would easily call them "mentally ill" -- but bring up mind control, or MILABS, or "obsess" over being manipulated, used and sexually harassed, and you're mentally ill. Aliens: sane. Tell your truth: insane.

It doesn't work that way. None of us knows what's going on, and we can only listen and share. Sometimes it's hard to listen, and certainly it's hard to share. Attacking others as being sick in the head because one has a hard time listening makes it even more difficult than it already is for others to tell their stories.

Personal interpretations are open to debate. We all have our buffers and our beliefs.

Grass Roots Welcome Committee

The latest scandal in UFO Land -- Phil Imbrogno's lies about his academic and service background -- is still being discussed. I'm not supporting Imbrogno's lies, nor defending him for doing so. His ideas about things UFO -ish are still interesting, and, while not new, still worth exploring. I had respect for Imbrogno and am sorry this happened. But, it does seem clear it did happen. Which made me wonder: why would someone feel the need to lie about his or her background, when it comes to UFOlogy? Phil Imbrogno isn't the first person to have been exposed for lying about his credentials, and realistically speaking, he probably won't be the last. Yet, why do some people feel they need to lie, in the context of UFOs?

UFO culture is a grass roots culture. Anyone --- despite the UFO Police and snarky researchers who dismiss whatever, or whoever, they don't agree with -- can live in UFO Land. (Well, except scofftics.) Anyone. It doesnt' matter if you have degrees or not, or what those degrees are in. Degrees do not denote intelligence; oh, they point to a specific type and tell us the degreed person has focus and perseverance in order to receive that degree. Don't misunderstand me, I am not "anti degree" and I have one myself. [Sidebar: full disclosure in case anyone tries to out little ol' me: I have an Associate Degree in Early Childhood Ed, a Bachelor's in English lit with an emphasis on Folklore, a Certificate in Ethnic Studies and Folklore, and two years of grad school. ] Does this make any more or less qualified than anyone else? Nope. Not a damn bit. I'm intelligent if discussing Beat poetry or folkloric applications but a goddamn dummy when it comes to math, business or 12th century military history.

So why do some feel the need to lie or exaggerate in context of UFO research? I have a theory. Ahem.

It's the damn debunker skeptoids. As well as those within UFOlogy, many of whom are in the UFO Police camp, who drone on about being "scientific" and academic and all kinds of -ics. No, I'm not implying science is useless, of course it isn't. We need it all in UFOlogy. But because someone holds a degree in the sciences, or at the least, in academia, does not make them any more qualified in any way to research UFOs. Not one damn bit.

In this culture we place a lot of esteem onto those who have college degrees. We automatically think they're smarter and better than the rest of us. Studying UFOs is a fringe thing to do, a kooky, silly thing to do. You're not serious or smart if you consider UFOs to be anything more than a curiosity. (I know, some co-workers and acquaintances think I'm not as smart as they thought I was, once they find I'm "into" UFOs. Surely someone intelligent wouldn't waste their time...) Some think that having a degree gives a little bit of legitimacy to an illegitimate field.

But there's no need. No need to lie about your background, whatever it is. As long as you're using your head, are truthful and honest and following your own voice, you can't go wrong. Despite what some others might say to you about that, the research and the work will stand on its own. And that's all you need.

Triangle Manipulations

This is a pic of a drawing I did a few years ago of the giant triangle UFO I saw several years ago in Dexter, Oregon. I was just having fun with some computer manipulation of images. I did the little sketch in pastel crayon, than played around with the color, etc. on the computer.

The triangle sighting I've posted about before on-line; briefly, it goes like this:
Outdoors at a large gathering in a rural area in August; about five of us standing under a small tree, something, don't know what because there was no sound, made me look up and I saw the huge triangle. No lights, but the shape was definite, and blended in with the night sky. It was still light-ish, not yet totally dark. The triangle blocked out the stars, etc. so you could see a giant triangle shape of dark blue something, not sky, and the surrounding sky was a bit lighter, with stars, etc.

I told everyone with me to look up, they did. We made silly jokes about missing time and checked our watches (there wasn't any) and we just stood there, looking at it. We even commented that we should go tell people, but we couldn't move. Also, sound seemed muffled. Cris and Mark Bales, who had an incredible triangle sighting in Idaho and gave a great presentation on their sighting at the recent McMinnville UFO Fest, said that it was as if a giant blanket had been placed above them. That explains the feeling well.

The triangle left; it just zoomed/slid off, very fast, and very silently. How something so damn big can move so fast, and so quietly, ... very weird. As soon as the thing left, that ears stuffed with cotton ball feeling was gone, and we felt our normal selves again. That sense of apathy and physical sluggishness was gone.

We told others what we'd seen. Just about everyone thought it was interesting, the owners of the property were almost jaded, saying they see stuff like that "all the time around here."

One person was very rude; off the wall rude. He actually, literally made the "you're crazy" motion with his hands; I mean, who does that, as an adult? Then he made a comment about how much beer I'd had; when I told him I hadn't had any beer, since I was the driver, he then said I was smoking too much pot, or on something, for sure. No to all that as well. So then he just said I was lying. Okay, that's when I got pissed off and called him on his calling me a liar, which made him mad, and he walked off.

Anyway. The triangle sighting was different in many ways from other reports; it really wasn't visually as dramatic. It wasn't even black. And no lights. But it was still something else, indeed.

Shermer's Gorilla Suit Man

Michael Shermer, uber-skeptoid and professional debunker, did an experiment at the recent 2009 Science, Technology and Research Symposium in Charleston to show that Mothman (which he admits to knowing nothing about), Bigfoot (to which he says he does) and other paranormal/Fortean/esoteric/anomalous phenomena are figments of over-active imaginations, but more than that,illustrations of why we lie:

We already know that people lie; that happens all the time. ... The more interesting question is why do people fall for it," he said.

In other words, people who speak of witnessing UFOs or other strange events, are lying.

Sure, people lie about their experiences. They elaborate, embroider, exaggerate and outright lie. They hoax and they pull pranks. They're delusional and mentally ill, they're alcoholics and drug abusers. Some people. And for some people in that category, they present to the world tales of UFOs, strange creatures, aliens and visits to Venus.

Those aside, thousands upon thousands more people without that baggage -- and even with some of that baggage, does not automatically exclude the experience of such phenomena or cause it -- have encounters with the weird that cannot be explained by tired exercises into so-called rationality. Such as Shermer's. (Warning: ad hom ahead. "Smirking Shermer" as I like to call him. Come on, the man smirks for crying out loud. He's so taken with himself.)

Shermer instructs an audience to watch a video of basket ball players, watching for:

the number of times six young people passing basketballs, three of them in white shirts and three in black shirts. He asked the crowd to count how many times the three in white shirts passed the basketball to each other.

Afterward, Shermer had the crowd call out answers. Then he played the video again, telling everyone just to relax and not worry about counting passes this time. And to the amazement of many, about halfway through a person in a monkey suit walked from out-of-frame into the middle of the scene, paused, gave a friendly wave and then promptly walked off screen.

This proves, says Shermer, that people see what they want to see. Er, that means we don't want to see a man in a gorilla suit at the Lakers game?

What it says to me is this: when something weird and unexpected happens, especially in the midst of a mundane event, like a basketball game, we don't notice it. Which then means , that the weird, the unexpected, like say, a Mothman or a Bigfoot, even a UFO, goes right by us. It literally can be in front of our noses and we won't deal with the strangeness. In fact, when something highly unusual is going on, and the one or two people who do happen to be aware of it point it out to others, most people refuse to even look to see for themselves.

Shermer had his own out of body experience. Under laboratory conditions, don't you know. Which proves that no such thing as astral projection and OOBEs occur, since it can be recreated in the laboratory:

Shermer said he once had an out-of-body experience successfully recreated under laboratory conditions. It had nothing to do with his consciousness actually leaving his body.

This is another standard, and very tired meme of the uber-skeptic: that because something paranormal/anomalous can be recreated in the lab, it doesn't exist. Rather, it doesn't exist paranormally; of course it exists, they just recreated it! (The same is said of hoaxes, as the recent hoaxed UFO lights showed: to the skeptoid, UFO hoaxes "proves" that UFOs don't exist.)

Why do we insist upon "believing weird things" as Shermer so often phrases this conundrum of human existence? It has to do with evolution:

As for the reason people believe strange things, Shermer said it is rooted in humanity's evolutionary history and its psychological drive to connect invisible causes to the events around them. That movement in the grass may be the wind or it could be a predator.

Or fairies! It's fairies!

If we think of the movement in the grass as a predator, we're good ... Shermer concludes that if we think the worst: "better safe than sorry" then we believe that forces control the things we can't explain. Like a lion in the grass? Huh?

Shermer's presentation didn't prove a thing, but of course, the choir he preaches to think otherwise.

Soure: Science vs. ESP: Skeptic Ponders UFOs, Mothman

Things

Snarly Skepticism
Lots going on at Snarly Skepticism. I had to change the comment settings after getting a few nasty comments (ah yes, the ad homs and the skeptic!) so sorry about that, but there's three, four at least new items up there.

Vintage U.F.O.
I have something about creepy clowns on Vintage U.F.O., which fits in a bit with my Trickster's Realm column on Binnall, which will be up sometime on Monday. That column is about "MIBs, Clowns and Helicopters," inspired mostly by Tim Beckley's The UFO Silencers, but also Chris O'Brien's Mysterious Valley books.

James Rich, Artist
I've been shamelessly promoting my husband's work everywhere. He's finally finished taking images of his paintings and finding a good art hosting site at Yessy.com. He has literally hundreds of paintings, so be sure to check it out regularly; he's putting up images daily.

Lulu.com: E-Books
So are, I only have one little thing up there; a collection of articles on the Trent UFO case and the McMinnville, UFO Festival. I'll more things up there in the weeks to come. You can see what's available on my Lulu Storefront.

Catastrophes and UFOs: It's Not a Contest

Recent catastrophes; earthquakes in China, cyclones in Myanmar,tornadoes in the U.S., have caused some to once again demonize UFOs, or at least, those who choose to explore the mystery of UFOs.

Why the two would have anything to do with each other is beyond me, but the supposed thinking of those who use these tragedies to support their peevish anti-UFO stance makes sense to them, obviously.

Skeptics of many varieties (including, paradoxically, those who acknowledge there are UFOs) don’t like most UFO researchers. That aside, they don’t like UFOs much either. They're always pissed off at them, because UFOS aren’t doing anything. The UFO phenomena’s continued behavior of remaining elusive is maddening, torturous in its contradictory, slippery manifestations. And yet, for all the years the UFOs have been around (centuries, really) for all the evidence, they haven't done anything. At least not in a grand, showy way; pulling off some mind blowing trick like turning mountains into ice cream sundaes or finally delivering those flying cars.

They haven’t fixed anything, saved anyone, cured any diseases, solved any of the world’s problems. They didn’t prevent the recent tragedies, or past disasters. They didn’t warn us. They haven’t stopped war. Racism, ageism, sexism, classism still exist, relgious hatreds and wars continue, people live in poverty. The aliens and UFOs haven't fixed any of it.

This makes some people downright mad. Instead of getting mad at a god, God, Jesus - they’re mad at UFOs. And they're madder still at people who study UFOs. The message seems to be that it’s somehow all our fault that tragedies happen. And if it isn’t our fault, exactly, and/or the UFOs, we’re still guilty by association just for seriously thinking about the subject.

I get the feeling these brands of skeptics (and beware; many of them insist they are not skeptics at all and are, in fact, in with the in crowd of UFO researchers) have a whole lot of expectations on what UFOs should do, and what they shouldn’t do. Which is ludicrous. They accuse us of being like children; frivolous children who chase after the fleeting, fragile UFO, when it’s they that are stuck in magical thinking.

Sure, I “believe” in aliens. Rather, I believe they exist. I believe aliens from other planets, as well as other entities, are all around us. I don’t believe in them, however. I don't pray to them or expect them to do anything.

I don’t believe every UFO is from outer space, piloted by ET.
I don’t believe ET, aliens, entities, Mothman, Bigfoot, or Lizard Man are going to save us, cure us, fix us, heal the planet, or teach me how to parallel park.

I don’t think only some should study UFOs, and others shouldn’t, and I don’t think anyone should, or, shouldn't, just because I said so. Or because anyone else said so.

I don’t care who’s who, or why, or what they do in their private life, (naturally there are some boundaries here, Christ people, use your common sense) if they party too much, or not enough, -- they “get to” delve into the mysteries of life as much as anyone. In fact, god knows, we need more people getting deep into this stuff!

Using the very real horrors of this world to bash UFO or Fortean research is dishonest. It’s disingenuous. It’s lazy. It distracts from both the world’s cruel realities, as well as anomalous research.

The two aren’t in a contest with each other; don’t make it one. Don’t pit one phenomena against the other as some sort of moral barometer of any given individual.

Random Things

Women Of Esoterica on Untamed Dimensions
Richelle Hawks and I were interviewed by Adam Gorightly the other night for his Untamed Dimensions podcast. It was fun. You can listen to it here.

Texas UFOs
I haven't commented too much on the Texas UFOs, what's there to say? Everyone else is saying it. I did comment a bit on it on my recent Trickster's Realm column for Tim Binnall's site.

Binnall of America
Speaking of Binnall of America, I wore my UFOs Are Real; Get Over It hoodie sweatshirt today. Nice and cozy for a cold rainy Oregon day. No one commented though; however, this is Eugene, so not surprising. You can order cool things like the sweatshirt at Binnall of America. If you do, you'll be supporting the site! (No, I don't get a damn penny from them!)

UFO and Fortean Entertainment
Glad Torchwood is back for its second season. I love that show!

I didn't see the Sci Fi UFO Hunters; did watch the other one on History channel though. I thought it was interesting, but my first thought was "where are the women?" and the program's getting some criticism. I haven't delved into that much but whatever they may have exaggerated, or whether or not the entire thing was a hoax (hmmmm...) there are some very suspicious connections concerning the entire case. Typical UFO Trickster stuff to be sure.

Bigfoot Threads
What is it about the JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) and Bigfoot threads? They have something like eight seperate threads about Bigfoot. I comment here and here about the Bigfoot thread wackiness.

Books
I don't know if it's menopause (oh, grow up!) winter, working too hard or what, but lately I've been coming home and finding I'm asleep by 9:00 pm. I hate that! I have several books I'm reading, or trying to, but am slow at it because I fall asleep every night. Last night I fell asleep in Red Moon. That's the book written by David Michaels and Daniel Brenton. (Daniel has the blog The Odd Little Universe of Daniel Brenton.) It's well written and very enjoyable. Lots of twists and surprises. I also have some Mothman books I want to get to, as well as contactee Dana Howard's book Beyond the Valley. I'd like to finish them soon. Maybe I need more vitimins.

Joseph Capp: UFO Caste System

Joseph Capp, of Media Matters blog, has a very good piece on classim and the RRR Group's Trent photo stunt: UFO Caste System. I commented over there, and left links to my responses about the Trent Photo antics. Joseph had also commented on that back then.

Non-extraordinary Reactions to Extraordinary Things

Regardless of the cause behind the UFOs, the fact is the UFOs exist, and we have every right to talk about our observations and experiences.

That's a quote from me. Yes, I'm quoting myself. My recent piece on UFO Digest, on the orb/UFO sighting of the Lafuers in Albany, Oregon and chronic skeptics.

I Know, It’s A Waste Of Time . . .

But I do wish the following would forever disappear from the culture:

“Do you believe in UFOs?”

"Are UFOs real?"

“Do you believe you’ve seen what you thought was a UFO?”

“Aunt Millie said she’s seen a UFO; do you believe her?”

“Do you believe UFOs exist?”

You get the picture.

I know, I know, it’s “only” semantics (a phrase that drives me wild) and it’s a ridiculous battle. No chance at all of ever winning, or even coming close.

Still, every now and then I just have to rant about the use of UFO as an: idol, an idea, a concept, a entity, an alien -- make that an outer space alien -- a mirage, a hallucination, a fantasy, a lie, a drug or alcohol induced event, a mental aberration, a religious figure, a God/

Instead of what it is: a weird object/craft/machine/light of unknown origin and purpose. Nothing to “believe” in at all. Do you “believe” in your microwave? The point some make that “we know what a microwave is; we don’t know what a UFO is” is a nonsensical response. Yes, yes, we know about microwaves, and we don’t know the whats, wheres, and whys of UFOs, but that’s what UFOs are. In that sense, we do know what UFOs are: we don’t know what they are. (heh.)

Putting all this other stuff onto an unexplainable light/thing/machine in the sky only reveals the issues of the individual doing the interpreting. Including the thuggish (or disingenuous, depending) response of the pathological skeptic who insists that “everyone knows when we say UFO we really mean aliens from space.” Speak for yourself there Mr. or Ms. Pelican Head.

I have ideas, theories even, as to what some UFOs are, but that doesn’t mean they are that.

I’ve seen several UFOs in my life. (Some with some high strangeness thrown in.) And while I won’t deny or try to explain away, nor rationalize in any way, that I’ve seen UFOs, -- because I have -- neither will I say I “believe” in them.

Duh! I Could Have Had a Book Deal!

There's a skeptic who warns others on his website not to "buy what I'm selling." True, he puts "selling" inside quote marks, to presumably make it clear I'm not literally selling anything. (as if, if I were, that'd be a bad thing.) The implication is that, while I'm not actually selling something to make money, I'm up to no good. I'm some sort of huckster, a con artist.

Others, both a handful of the pathological chronic skeptic crowd, as well as the non-skeptical, continue to state that I believe I've been abducted. I've never said that, but that fact doesn't seem to matter for some people.

It occurred to me I've been a real idiot. After all, even though I'm not selling anything, some prefer to think that I am. Others seem to think it all right to post on the internet that I'm an abductee. Facts don't matter, but apparently saying something is so even when it isn't so does. All this time, I could have just come out and said I've been abducted, written a book, gone a book tour, do some UFO conferences, appear on C2C and Out There TV, and get up a flashy website pushing my book.

Mavens and Wags: Terms of Enjeerment

Semantics is not “just semantics” it’s a purposeful method. We use terms and words for specific reasons: to trivialize, to support, to cast aspersions in covert ways, to bring light to ideas. The sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious ways we shade our meaning with words has everything to do with what we’re saying, and why we’re saying it.

I do it. You do it. We all do it. For example, the reason why there are so many terms for the umbrella “skeptic” is that there are dozens of variations of the meta label “skeptic.” A Pelicanist is not always a skeptic, a debunker isn’t always a skeptic. There are chronic skeptics; in the same small ballpark as the pathological skeptics, skeptoids, etc. but they’re not always one and the same. A lot of people who use these terms are aware of these different notes in the music of description, and so, we have fun using them, and know why we use them. But, I’m not here to discuss skeptics. Well, I am, kind of. Those who have all kinds of terms for UFO researchers.

In this context, rarely are the terms “ufo researcher,” UFO investigator,” used with a straightforward intent. Instead, there are terms like “would be UFO investigator,” or “self-styled UFO investigator” which immediately does what it’s intended to do: trivialize the individual researching UFOs. By modifying the term “UFO investigator” or “UFO researcher’ with words that cast doubt, the individual UFO investigator is immediately cast as non-credible, something rather shabby and seedy. Don’t trust him/her, is the message.

Some of those who use these terms have hard ideas about who is, and who isn’t, a valid researcher. They hoard data and keep information to themselves, releasing in secret the holy UFO papers to only those that pass the test. (Assuming they really have what they say they have.) Or, they refuse to make public their years of study and research because it will be “misinterpreted,” and “fought over,” and the “unwashed masses” will get ahold of such sacred data. No doubt. So what? It’s a given in the fields of UFO, crypto, and paranormal studies. As I’ve argued in the past, it’s not only a given, it’s an innate part of what makes Forteana (including UFOs) what it is. It wouldn’t exist otherwise. So let them at it, and the good ones will bring to light the good stuff, and the others will do what they do: provide entertainment, distract, distort and eventually go away. Even if they don’t, it doesn't matter. We can choose to ignore them or spend time arguing about them. Their inevitable presence does not justify the withholding of information.


There’s the term “bona fide” researcher. Exactly what determines a “bona fide” researcher is unclear, other than the obvious: whoever they decide it is. I assume a “bona fide researcher” is someone who’s published books by a “bone fide” publisher, and done extensive clinically inspired investigations into various UFO cases. All the while studiously avoiding any mention of paranormal, supernatural, mystical, or Bigfoot/cryptid phenomena, of course. As soon as you bring up the subject of paranormal Bigfoot, you’re no longer taken seriously. (And that’s from within the small world of UFO/Fortean research. Imagine what it’s like outside this peculiar world of esoteric studies.)

Watching the National Geographic disaster, er, program, on Roswell recently, (The Real Roswell) the narrator mentioned something about a researchers “UFO campaign” as if the researcher was up to no good, out to recruit unsuspecting citizens into a cabal of UFO studies.

There are terms like UFO enthusiasts, as if we’re all rabid NASCAR fans. UFO mavens, which on the surface sounds okay, since “maven” means expert. Maven is also something of a quaint word, invoking an image of something homey and old fashioned; harmless, maybe even sweetly goofy, but not to be taken seriously. Sometimes this is prefaced with “self styled ufo maven,” which of course is patronizing. Like the “self styled UFO researcher” the modifier “self styled” is used to cast doubt on the researcher’s character and credibility.

There’s “UFO devotee” which brings to mind some sort of religious nut, or at least a dopey cult member. It puts the entire UFO phenomena into a religious (therefore, not serious) context, for anyone spending much time at all studying UFOs is a nut. A religious fanatic, a cultist, a kook.

We have “UFO buff,” which is like the “UFO enthusiast.” And vaguely illicit, you can’t help juxtapose buff with nude and naked, no matter how subconsciously the imagery. That’s how it works. So you have sex crazed UFO researchers running around, and that’s no good. This despite the fact UFO lore is rife with tales of sexual unions with strange beings, breeding, kidnapping and capture, nightly bedroom visitations, examinations involving genitals, ova, sperm and other intrusive probings, hybrid babies, and phantom pregnancies.

We have “UFO hobbyists'” which could be put in the same category as “enthusiast,” “maven,” and “wag.” A bit old fashioned, and conjures up images of a harmless, but eccentric individual, tinkering away in their garage or den, spending hours on such silliness as UFOs. Replace UFOs with stamp collecting or cataloging your Star Trek figurine collection and we have an image of a nerdy, slightly antisocial misfit.

There’s “UFO wags” which is a bit like “UFO maven,” bringing to mind some old dotting absent minded eccentric blithering away in his (or her) overstuffed library of ancient UFO books.

Of course there’s ‘UFO believer,” which is worse than the vague ‘UFO devotee,” since it implies that one believes in UFOs.

Sometimes flying saucer is used instead of UFO. I use flying saucer myself a lot but for different reasons. Like Stanton Friedman, who uses the term freely, the use is a political statement; take back the flying saucer! For the smugly skeptical, the term “flying saucer” is used to further trivialize and marginalize. No one uses flying saucer anymore in a serious context, and like “maven,” it’s a bit old fashioned. It paints the UFO, er, flaying saucer researcher as a nut, chasing after little green men in astounding machines from outer space.

Other words are used as well, “woo” is the ever popular favorite to describe everything from a “believer” in UFOs to people who say they’ve seen a Sasquatch. There isn’t much hiding here; woo is self - explanatory; it’s clear the meaning is “you’re an idiot.”

There’s also the “true believer” to denote those who, presumably are fanatical about their experiences -- believing the messengers, or insisting they have the truth. And the even less polite “true ‘bleever.” While there are those individual who’ve had anomalous experiences insist what’s happened to them is “the truth,” and their own interpretation is presented as the truth, there are countless others (like myself) who know two things for sure: 1. Something really damn weird happened, and 2. I have no idea what that damn really weird thing was. The use of the terms “true believer” and “true ‘bleever” as well as “woo,” and “woo woo” etc. don’t address the phenomena; they simply reject the individual and the experience. They’d love for us to shut up and go away. If we can’t, or won’t, accept their explanations, then we’re, at best, “woos” and worse, “true ‘bleevers.” (And “willfully ignorant.” )

The lines blur; you have someone with anomalous experiences, and you have religious fanatics, whether they’re Christian fundies who want creationism taught in schools, or the some other brand of religious fascism. To the “skeptic” however, it’s all the same: crop circles, UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. Use of these cute little phrases like “UFO fanatic” only shove the subject into the abyss, which, of course, is the intent.

"Lost" Trent Photo?

While I don't like to give the non-issue so-called UFO bloggers like the following any nods of recognition, hey, a scoop is a scoop.

They have a "lost" photo - a third photograph - of the Trent/McMinnville Oregon.

According to them on their blog, the photo came from someone in Arizona and it shows that the whole thing was a hoax. Naturally there are all kinds of questions around this: who's this "SMC" person who provided the photo, why, under what circumstances, has any analysis been done regarding the photo, and so on.

The blog promises "more to come." And of course, at last check, there were 11 comments.

I can't help myself but notice the juxtaposition with this and the "hoax" posts by the Andreasson-Luca step-son.

Standing by . . .

More Skepticism Pieces

Seems that a lot of bloggers are writing about skepticism past few days; here’s something from the Doubtful blog: Poor Professional Manners. A lot of us have been blogging about skepticism and I’ve noticed we’ve been saying the same things, in one way or another:

Be nice

Skepticism is good and fine and of course, neccessary, however:

There are many who say they are skeptics, and they’re nothing of the kind. (And to make the distinction between true skeptics and the fundies, we use various descriptive labels to make those distincitons)It is those types we have an issue with

Update to Skepticism vs. All The Other Kinds of Skepticism

'Crazyhoarse,' author of his (or her) blog over on The Daily Grail, wrote a piece on skepticism/pathological skepticism. SKEPTOPATHS, SKEPTOPATHOLOGY and O'HARE. In particular, Crazyhoarse addresses vehement skepticism in relation to the O'Hare sighting.

Skepticism vs. All The Other Kinds of Skeptoism

Hey, that’s it! Maybe. ‘Skepto’ to denote the rabid, pathological, fundie,mondo, irrational skepticism, and to separate it from normal, everyday, “real” skepticism.

While we do have skepti-bunkies, skeptoid, etc. that seems to offend those that wear those shoes (tough) and confuse some others.

I like Colin Bennett’s chronic and cultural skepticism terms, but that may be too esoteric.

Whatever term you use, and I’ll probably keep on using various forms of rabid-pathological-fundie myself, the point is: there is skepticism, and then there’s something else entirely hiding behind the goodly term of skepticism.

When it comes to UFOs, it’s not that I’m skeptical. As I’ve asked in the past, skeptical of what, exactly? That UFOs exist? Of course I’m not skeptical. That’d be stupid.

It’s illogical, and, well, pathological to hold yourself up proudly as a “skeptic’” and state that you “don’t believe UFOs exist.”

UFOs exist. People see them all the time. Whatever in the world is there to dispute, dahlings?

Personal interpretations of what those UFOs are, now, that’s a different matter. And stating, as fact, that they’re aliens from Mars, is not one bit skeptical. To be skeptical that UFOs are from other planets is a good and true thing.

This doesn't mean, however, that they couldn’t be from Mars. It’s possible. And in my opinion, it’s very likely they are. Or from somewhere. I suspect they are, and that’s my opinion. It’s not a fact, for no one knows. (Well, possibly “they” know, you know, “them” -- but they’re not telling.)

I’m very skeptical alien abductions are: A) carried out by aliens, and B) literal abduction events. I’m also equally skeptical alien abductions are merely road weariness or product of a sleep disorder.

As much as I respect and admire Stanton Friedman, and I do, I am skeptical of the veracity of MJ-12. I think he has been the ongoing target of a disinformation campaign, but I could be wrong. I hope I am. But the history of the source, or his leads, and of UFO disinfo itself, causes me to be skeptical.

Surprising as it may be to the anti-UFO “skeptic” there are skeptics within genuine UFOlogy as well. I remember many years ago, when I was involved in a local UFO study group. I voiced my opinion on abductions; how I think much of that is staged “MILAB’ stuff. I was almost run out of town on a rail. One person told me he didn’t want to be around me; he couldn’t bring himself to associate with someone like me who was “that paranoid.”

At a local UFO conference once, I was disinvited to speak, because I was too “negative.” My message? Beware the messenger. Too “negative” and they wanted to keep things upbeat. Christ, you would have thought I was talking about the Reptilian Overlords and vats of human body parts in Dulce from the way the conference facilitator carried on.

Anyway, I could go on and on, and I will at some point. Meantime, just know that there are those out there who are no mere skeptics, but a completely different breed altogether, wit no only a bias, but an agenda. There are levels and varieties to these types of course, from the hapless dupes who gladly grab onto the latest meme of anti-UFOism, to the intentional disinformation agents who put the latest anti-UFO meme out there for the dupes to pick up, gossip over, and pass along. There are the debunkers, and the pathological, the rabid, the irrational rationalists. There are the ones with the big egos who pride themselves on being educated and intelligent -- as they never fail to tell the rest of us , implying that many of us are not -- and carve out a niche for themselves as skeptics. Finally -- and this is based on my personal experience and observation -- those who are given to sarcasm and sneering ‘tudes, just for its own sake , seem to gravitate to the rabid skeptic side.

There are also those who I find particularly intriguing, though at the same time unctuous and nauseating, and that’s the mega-rabid anti-UFOist. So obsessed they are! They despise UFos, UFOlogy, UFO experiencers, UFO witnesses, UFO researchers, UFO “enthusiasts” so much, they write virtually daily on UFOlogy, and why it’s bad, evil, silly, stupid, dangerous, sad, pathetic, a waste of time. Why, they even lie at times! I know, it’s positively astonishing, isn’t it?

Well, I kind of went off there on a tangent, but nothing new there. Aside from my own brilliant insights into skepticism, there have been some very good entries on the topic by other bloggers as well lately. Greg Bishop, on UFO Mystic, and
Dustin of Odd Things. Dustin mentions Mac Tonnies; with a link to Wikipedia on Tonnies’ essay on Skepticism. Nick Redfern has also written something recently on UFO whistle blowers, and the need for skepticism.

One thing I’ve noticed about “skeptics” and UFO people -- and of course this is a generalization, based on nothing but observation - but it seems that the anti type of skeptic isn’t questioning. Unless, of course, they’re calling into question one’s sanity, character, and innate state of truthfulness. Compare that to the questioning of the UFO witness, or researcher. Most of us are doing nothing but questioning. The “true ‘bleevers” aside, most of us question quite a lot, while the fundie/rabid/pathological etc. “skeptic” does not. They believe there is nothing to question. They’re far from any honest, open “inquiry” they’re about denial, derision, and even a sort of cultural cleansing. Rid the world of “woo” -- in this case, flying saucer woo -- and let the questioning end, seems to be the goal.

'Two Questions' comment on CSICOP

Comment on Ray's X-Ray Blog on the new look of good old CSICOP, now known as CSI. Yes, CSI. They've gone Hollywood, I tell you.

An Open Letter to the UFO Community

From Daniel Brenton's 'Meaning of Existence blog.' As I said to him the other day, he says it well and clearly. And the more UFO bloggers that say this the better. (I also told him I say similar things all the time here; I'm just usually crankier.)

An Open Letter to the UFO Community.

THE DANCE WITHIN THE BUBBLE

My UFO Philosophy Bubble Thing, Part I

Theories, ideas, musings, hypotheses, thoughts, anecdotal evidence, we’re all just trying to figure it out. Some are brave and fresh and daring; Nick Redfern’s book on Roswell Body Snatchers in the Desert, (with a review by Stanton Friedman) or the current discussion over Mac Tonnies theory on ‘cryptoterrestrials.’ Others are almost quaint; for example, the idea benevolent Space Brothers who are here to help us vibrate to a higher level, or, something.

Hundreds of theories. There’s no lack of theories on what UFOs are, and there’s a good handful of theories about UFOlogy itself.

So I’m going to jump right in and present little theory; the Bubble Theory. The bubble doesn't mean anything, it was just a quick and convenient way to graphically organize some thoughts. But in thinking about it, I found that the bubble is a good image. It ‘s reminiscent of the bubble in The Wizard of Oz: the one that was small at first, only to grow bigger . . . and bigger . . .until it “landed’ and the Good Witch appeared from within. The bubble is a sphere; many a UFO has been described as being sphere shaped. Planets are sphere shaped. The circle itself is a spiritual and holy symbol. the bubble fits, it’s simple yet elegant.

My little Bubble of UFO Philosophy contains two key points that I think many do not consider when it comes to UFO theories. One, there is an inherent Trickster energy in the paranormal and Fortean realm; and this includes UFOlogy. Two, the Infrastructure -- science, academia, politics/government, society,the media and to a lesser extent, religious institutions -- cannot, will not, treat UFOlogy with “respect” or seriousness. It can’t. Expectations of science taking the subject of UFOs seriously, of embracing the topic with good intent is ridiculous, Expecting any of the ‘departments’ within the Infrastructure to do so is futile. That’s why full disclosure will never happen, etc.

“The Trickster” is not a person, or some sort of comic book character. Rather, it’s an energy, it’s a force. It’s manifestation. “Trickster” simply is an easy to hold, easy to use symbol to express this idea.

The same with ‘Infrastructure.” It’s not an actual building (as one skeptic , in all seriousness, asked me eons ago on a forum) it’s an idea, another manifestation of systems at work. Individual journalists, scientists, academics, religious leaders, politicians, may very well be sincere in their attempts to discover the truth within the UFO phenomeana. But as a whole, and as a force that can be addressed within our culture (and the modern world in general) we can accurately say that this Infrastructure has been diligent in doing what it does; keeping the mundane world mundane, and keeping the anomalous world out. That’s what it does.

I think another thing that is often “wrong’ with UFOlogy is the expectation, or belief, that there is to be one explanation, one kind of witness, one kind of government response, one kind of research approach, etc.

Sometimes it seems that researchers shouldn’t change their minds in regards to theories, or are given the room to safely say they don’t know yet what to think of a thing; they’re still considering.

Surrounding these two key points are the things I think are vital to unraveling the UFO enigma. they’re not in any particular hierarchy, because we need all those things at the same time in order to gain a better insight into the phenomeana. It’s a juggling act all right but it’s necessary. Or, consider it more of a dance. (Hey! The Bubble Dance!) Not just the steps, but the dancers themselves. Some move up to the front, some move to the side or back, some are doing better than others, some, even if not as good as the rest of the troupe, are at least doing some innovative steps.

Also within the Bubble are the folk, the witnesses, the researchers, the skeptics. All of these things make up UFOlogy, and UFOLogy is a part of the UFO puzzle. It’s a symbiotic system. It's not just the 'study of UFOs,' it's also those who study UFOs.


I’ll post Part II at a later date, where I’ll define the terms within the bubble.