Vallee: "Data is not knowledge"

I came across a quote from Jacques Vallee: "Data is not knowledge." I think I know what he meant in the big scheme of things, but, at the same time, I respectfully disagree with his comment. (Of course, I'm taking this out of context, but I was inspired by the remark to wonder…)  Data is a sort of knowledge; the more data we have, the better. I realize many a UFO researcher has lamented that collecting witness accounts is simply tiresome and non-productive. And it is a huge task of course; collecting stories. Narratives. Accounts. All for what?

Well, that's the thing. All for what. Once we have a big pile of stuff, what do we do with it? Depends on the collector. On the one doing the interpreting. You and I might have the same exact set of stories of spinning UFOs and glowing eyed Sasquatch emerging from landed craft, but our interpretations of those events might differ. And what about the witness? What's her take on it all? So now we have three different ideas on the same case.

Come to think of it, in that context, data isn't knowledge, since no theory of everything (let alone definitive answer) has been determined. All we have are arguments, debates, interpretations, beliefs, even.

Still, I argue that data is important, and analyses of data from many different perspectives is a necessary process in order to arrive at some kind of agreed upon theory, as tenuous as it might be. It's a start.

We don't have to give up or throw the baby out with the bath water. Or believe that, by following one path we've rejected others. There are many paths, and there is no rule, no law, that mandates we rigidly follow just one.

And to be clear: I have the highest respect and regard for Jacques Vallee and his work and am in no way taking him to task in any way. So chew on that before commenting, thank you.

It's the Paola Harris Show! Harris Speaks at McMinnville UFO Fest

It's The Paola Harris Show!

Paola Harris at McMinnville, OR UFO Fest 2011

I debated posting what I thought of Paola Harris’s presentation at the McMinnville UFO Festival this past May because I have nothing nice to say. This is what I emailed Deirdre O’Lavery when trying to come up with something about the presentation:

All right, well, I can't seem to write anything worthwhile about old Paola. Except that it was the worst thing ever ... but [I have] nothing articulate or insightful [to add]. I thought I had taken better notes but apparently I was so amazed I had doodled numerous semi-psychotic renderings. Hey, maybe that's what I'll say.

While I don’t agree with the exo-politics movement in UFOlogy, I don’t have anything against it. My issues with Ms. Harris’s presentation isn’t with her views on exo-politics (whatever those are; it was difficult to tell) but with her lack of coherency and her immense ego.

Harris was introduced as “the Barbara Walters of UFOlogy,” and that title was reiterated by Ms. Harris herself, but it became clear to me she isn’t that, but I will say she’s clearly the Sarah Palin of UFOlogy.

So the talk begins, and I am telling you, it was the craziest, most disjointed, manic, ego-fueled thing I've been to. It was so bizarre and surreal that it was funny.

While I’m not much for the exo-politics aspect of UFOlogy, which is what Ms. Harris is all about,  I was interested in Harris’s presentation for a couple of reasons. One, anything to do with UFOs (excluding the uber-psycho skeptics) I’m up for, and two, I was curious to hear about the San Antonio, New Mexico 1945 crash Harris promised to discuss.

The presentation began with  a montage of UFO images -- “sixty-one years of UFOs” Harris told us -- accompanied by Buffalo Springfield's Something's Happening Here. Instead of ending the introduction at that point, it continued with another slew of slides, this time accompanied by some kind of screechy space age music. Harris introduced the images by telling us it’s “sixty-one years” of UFOs but it appeared to be 108 years, since the intro slide read “1870 to 2008.”  It would have been nice to have captions of the photographs; when and where the UFO image was taken, or how the illustration related to what sighting, but all we got were slides. After slides. After. Slides. And then there were the slides.

After that overly long intro, Harris literally spent forty minutes talking about herself while showing several images of the book and magazine covers where she’s appeared in print, as well as photo after photo of her with various UFO bigwigs. “Here I am with so and so...” she announced. Over and over. Forty minutes! Literally. I timed it.

I detected an undercurrent of, not racism exactly, but a cultural ignorance or maybe it was cultural superiority. (Surprising since she has dual citizenship and  lived in Italy for many years.) She showed a slide of Israel, referencing that country’s UFO sightings, informing us that  “They talk Jewish over there.” She showed slides of  UFO researchers --  Jacques Vallee among them --  meeting with politicians in the Middle East and slides of the Muslim Brotherhood, and insinuated there is something insidious afoot about their interest in UFOs. We're  not told why this might be so. This was one of the problems with her presentations: lack of support for her case. (The other problem: her huge ego.)  Harris mentioned several times that she was a retired teacher, something I found simply astounding given her consistent rambling, incoherent, point jumping circus act. But, she did teach in an Italian private school and among her students were “Mel Gibson’s kids,” and other VIPS which Harris felt was a relevant bit of information to share with us.

After more than forty minutes of  It’s The Paola Harris Show, she gets to the 1945 San Antonio, New Mexico (not Texas,) crash. More slides of places and people but with little context.  It was such a rambling and nonlinear WTF mishmash I had no idea what she was talking about and  I didn’t learn anything about this case after her presentation. It was extremely disappointing.

There was also a video of Philip Corso; the video got stuck and there we sat, listening to audio of Corso while Harris looked adoringly on; again, how it connected to what Harris was talking about wasn’t made clear.  (I noticed that Harris conspicuously did not mention Bill Birnes.)

Harris finished with her “12 Protocols” of exo-politics which, it turned out, was really 9 protocols. Or maybe it was 7.  At that point however I didn’t give a damn how may there were. Besides, they weren’t exactly “protocols” as in: don’t use your salad fork when eating fish, but assumptions about the coming of the Space Brothers. The slide got stuck on number 1 and remained there; she either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and at one point said “It says there are 12 protocols but there’s really only 9” which is where I was afraid to look at Deirdre O’Lavery who was sitting next to me, because I knew we’d both lose it.

Glitches happen, but there were so many in Harris’ presentation I had the impression there was no care taken; just a thrown up mess of stuff at the last minute. Even those technical errors could be forgiven if Harris herself hadn't been so inept. Take your pick: her massive ego, her incoherent presentation, her rambling, her lack of cohesiveness, the lack of support for her case, the lack of editing: put it all together and it was one bad, very bad, UFO lecture. I was entertained  but that was inadvertent. It was a completely pointless presentation and absolutely embarrassing. And I’ve seen Stephen Greer speak, so that’s saying something.

Stalking the Trickster on Hidden Experience

Mike Clelland of Hidden Experience blog brings us an interview with researcher Chris O'Brien on his new book Stalking the Trickster about the trickster in a paranormal/UFO context.

I've been a fan of O'Brien's for years, having read his three books on the strange happenings in Colordao's San Luis Valley. I haven't read Trickster yet but it's at the top of my list. (I hear that O'Brien in his book refers to an article I wrote but he cited the wrong source, not me; heh... trickster!)

From what I've heard O'Brien say about trickster here and other places, I like where he's going with sort of reframing the idea of Trickster in a Fortean context. Without having read the book I can't make any comments really... just have to wait.

Anyway, take a listen!

Book: "UFOs, Time Slips, Other Realms and the Science of Fairies"

A nice review of the bookBlows Against The Empire-The ET Hypothesis Comes Under Attack In...
UFOs, Time Slips, Other Realms and the Science of Fairies, by Edwin Sidney Hartland; additional material by Tim Beckley, Sean Casteel, Brent Raynes and Tim R. Swartz, on UFO Digest by Sean Casteel. The book sounds intriguing and I'm ordering it right away. The book deals with the issue of ET vs. "fairy" or rather, terrestrial entities we assume or interpret as ET. As Casteel writes:

... there is another interpretation, one which, while it is taken quite seriously by premiere UFO researchers like Jacques Vallee, remains a definite minority point of view: What if what we are witnessing and experiencing actually originates on Earth and has been here throughout mankind's struggle to understand the strange environment he finds himself thrust into? Are the diminutive gray aliens so frequently claimed to have visited hapless mortals as they lay abed really just a variation on millennia of old folklore about fairies, changelings, elves and other forms of wee people?

That is the primary thrust of this 2008 release from Global Communications, called "UFOs, Time Slips, Other Realms and the Science of Fairies." The bulk of the book is a reprint of a much older book by Edwin Sidney Hartland, in which he offers a wonderful overview of the folklore of fairies and other mysterious creatures that frequently cross over from their shadowy dimension to enter ours.

This is Vallee territory (among others) as well of course, and I don't disagree. But I acknowledge I have a bias for the reality of ET as well, and I don't see why the explanation needs to be an either/or one. Isn't it possible there are at least two concurrent reasons for phenomena like this, one being literal extraterrestrials from outer space (whether from our own solar system or beyond)? It's also possible one manipulates the other for our benefit -- in order to deceive, which is one characteristic of the phenomena. There's also a symbiotic relationship between us and "them," -- all of "them" -- whoever "they" are, of course.

Looking forward to reading this book.

In The Green Room: Yes, Yes, Yes! But . . .

I have a new blog entry on the UFO Magazine blog, The Green Room: Yes, Yes, Yes! But . . .

Tonnies and UFO Theater

Mac Tonnies has a good piece: Reconciling UFOs and the "Singularity": Part One. He makes a lot of on the mark comments on aspects of the UFO phenomena that many researchers, and certainly skeptics, don’t deal with.

The UFO phenomena, with its craft, aliens, and behaviors, are entertaining and they like to perform for us. That much is clear. Tonnies writes that the phenomena has a “theatric flavor” which is obvious. The question, asked by so many, skeptics and researchers alike, is repeatedly asked: ”Whey don’t they land on the White House lawn?” Well, it doesn’t seem to be the point, does it; they would have a long time ago if they had wanted to. What’s the fun in that?

Something else is going on, even if there are biological entities from outer space. Tonnies makes some good points on this, including referencing Jacques Vallee.

As I’ve said many times here on the Orange Orb, there is much more to the UFO phenomena that goes beyond just a nuts and bolts theory. AND, the nuts and bolts theory doesn’t necessarily negate the other, or vice versa.