Jerry Springers in UFO Land

Erik at his blog Contact had a great post the other day about UFO researchers leaving the field, ostensibly due to what they say is a disgust about the loony fringe. Erik has another great post now about "personality driven" UFO study: Personality Driven UFOlogy: the Id vs. The Phenomenon (which isn't any kind of study at all, but a bash fest, whether it's overt, or more sublte, like the "new thugs" I wrote about a few years ago.) He writes:

Since when did phenomena take a back seat to the individuals studying it?  What happened to the awe of the subject matter?  Has society become so petty and egocentric that it finds the figures investigating the unknowable more fascinating than the topic of investigation itself?  It would appear to be so.  And how sad it is that not only has Ufology's prominent figures become celebritized, they now seem to be so desperate for the status and attention their celebrity has brought them, they will attack  fellow researchers or investigators just to keep the lime light.  Where is the Ufology in this?  Apalling, sophomoric tactics and innocuous accusations are blinding them, if not everyone, to the actual study!  The actual phenomenon!  No wonder a lot of folks want nothing to do with this field of study.  It's not because it is not interesting or compelling but because its progenitors with all manor of antics have driven them away.  It's a dog eat dog mad house.

I think part of this infighting --  which isn't new really, research has always been this way in many ways --  is due to a trickster effect. It's part of the game; distractions from what's really going on. You can't have one without the other. But that aside, it's still sad, still stupid, and still annoying as hell. It's a given the trickster effect likes to cause mischief, but that doesn't mean it's to be encouraged or condoned.

I don't understand a lot of what goes on in this regard, but one thing I really don't understand is the name calling and attacks flung at individuals who are just trying to tell their story. The stories may be bizzare and hard to believe, at least literally, and the person may be confused, or misinterpreting events, or . . . but if we're in this field out of a geniune sense of getting at things, we wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those things that offend us, at first meeting, because of their surreal nature. Isn't that what  research is about? Instead of calling someone an idiot or moon bat because they insist they saw Bigfoot carrying an orb of light, heading towards a landed UFO, some authentic investigation into the event is what's needed. Not sarcastic jokey throw away antics like decreeing these individuals belong in some kind of moon bat file.