Raymond Fowler Comments on UFO Magazine's Woods/Jacobs Stories

I commented in the previous post about Jeremy Vaeni's excellent article concerning Emma Woods and David Jacobs in the current issue of UFO Magazine. In that post I wrote how discouraging it is to find that few in UFO Land and research have responded to this episode, and how, it seems, when such response is given, it's usually a knee-jerk, protective response to Jacobs, and often a dismal and slightly bewildering/scary misogynistic reaction to Woods.

But there are some in the UFO culture who aren't afraid to be vocal. One of them is from researcher (and experiencer himself) Raymond Fowler, who shared his comments about the Vaeni article for UFO Magazine's blog. (Comment from Raymond Fowler on the Emma Woods article) In that piece, Fowler wrote:

I found it incredible that he actually believed that his [David Jacobs] life was in danger from the very entities that he may have created himself. ...  Rather than conforming to the so-called party line critics  should at least be open to the possibility that Emma is telling the truth and be willing to examine both sides of the question objectively. ...Thus far (based on the contents of the article) I am disappointed in the way Jacobs and reportedly how Hopkins have reacted.

Good for Fowler for those comments which you can read on the UFO Magazine blog.

In UFO Magazine: Jeremy Vaeni's 'Aliens vs. Predator: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods

There is so much to say about the fantastic article by Jeremy Vaeni in this issue of UFO Magazine. (Aliens vs. Predators: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods.)

But for now, please, please, go and get yourself this issue, and read the article. Vaeni has done an excellent job with unraveling the seeming madness that is David Jacobs, the always precarious method of hypnosis used by some researchers to get at the submerged bits of missing time and nebulous memories of aliens, examinations, trips aboard saucers, and all the rest of "Abductions 101", and subject/witness Emma Woods.

From the beginning of this episode in UFO culture, I wondered why there wasn't more outcry from the UFO community. And yet, there still isn't; what there mainly seems to be, still, are a few stubbornly standing up for Jacobs, and misogynist pronouncements about Emma Woods' sanity, and worse. Other than that, little has been really said about this.

Web Site: Women in UFOlogy

Thanks to the amazing Skylaire Alfvegren, I was made aware of a website that seems fairly new: Women in UFOlogy. I don't know who's behind it; it's still under construction, but there's an impressive list so far over there. I'm sure there'll be more to come. Check it out here.

Blog Find: Investigating Discarnate Intelligence

Visiting the Phantoms and Monsters website, found this link to a very interesting blog: Investigating Discarnate Intelligence. Personal accounts with insightful comments. Here's some from the "about this blog" section:

The aim of this blog is to provide a platform for musings on the nature of what are often termed
"discarnate entities" or "spirits". Such beings can be contacted in a variety of ways, utilising a plethora of techniques, and have taken a central role in human life for countless centuries and across all continents.

While not necessarily taking a solid standpoint with regards to the definitive nature of such entities, the intention is to explore the phenomena associated with them as they are experienced: that is phenomenologically - what might be called an "as if" approach.

Related links:
Phantoms and Monsters (blog)

George Hansen on Paratopia -- and Nancy Birnes!

Good for Jeremy and Jeff at Paratopia for inviting George Hansen back on. I haven't listened to the interview yet; in fact, have it on now, so can't comment yet on the content. But, while the 'trickster' aspect seems obvious to me, and I've been pushing Hansen on UFO and esoteric studies all along, it seems there are those that either don't agree with these ideas (as well as anti-structure, liminality, marginalization, etc.) or feel it's too academic. Other writers that are good to read along these lines include Daniel Pinchbeck and Patrick Harpur.

Also, tonight at 9pm Eastern time, Paratopia interviews UFO Magazine editor Nancy Birnes. I'm looking forward to this one!

Darklore III Now Available

The esoteric journal Darklore III is now available. Check out their website for ordering information, also, free pdf downloads of previous articles!

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

Open Up

I commented in my earlier post about something Stanton Friedman said in the interview with Tim Binnall: that UFOlogists shouldn't be embarrassed, and should stop being apologists for the UFO phenomena, even while studying it. I embrace this idea, even though I've been an apologist myself, and embarrassed, as to my telepathic New Agey side. Oh well, but there it is. It's true, it's me, there you go. I'd be a liar to pretend otherwise, and what do I care about smarmy self-appointed UFO authoritarian stuffed shirts who might make fun? Nothing I can do about the reactions of others. So I'll crunch my crystals all I like, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, all that aside, I understand some of the need to disassociate oneself from some aspects of the UFO phenomena. Under an often well meaning but misguided sense of credibility, many believe they need to slough off the gaudy, the loud, the silly, the weird, the uncomfortable. The logical thinking goes like this: "UFOlogy has enough problems being taken seriously, we can't afford such nonsense." Sounds quite sensible.

Just below the surface we find it isn't sensible at all. The UFO question isn't taken seriously at all by the infrastructure; never has, never will. At least, that's how it appears. It's because it's actually taken extremely seriously that they work very hard at giving the impression the opposite is the case. If that sounds like frustraintg gibberish, I'll agree it's frustrating, but it isn't gibberish. It's to be expected. That Trickster element is the swirling crazy making thing that it is, and yet, there are so many UFO researchers, pundits, investigators, etc. that don't get this. And as long as they continue to ignore the fact this Trickster trait is an innate part of the UFO phenomena, we'll remain stuck.

Not that we'll ever become completely unstuck. But is that the point anyway? To get the Big Question Finally Answered? Narrowly focused on a few minute details, some UFOlogists don't have patience or time to look around. They're missing a lot. Others say "Well, I did look, and it was fun/interesting/weird, but so what. It entertained, but didn't give The Golden Answer to the UFO Problem." Maybe that's part of the problem; seeing it as a "problem." Whether it's seen as a problem or a mystery, it's still full of contradictions, manipulations, high strangeness, and so much more. Expecting to get at the truth by excising the parts not understood or liked is pathological.

Others see themselves as doing some sort of service to "UFOlogy" -- attacking others, insulting, trotting out various witnesses or researchers and ripping them a new one. And these are the ones who accept that UFOs are a reality. With friends like that who needs a Shermer, Mcgaha or Nye? "But we need to be critical!" is the logical response. Yes, but unless one has proof, and I mean solid, real, actual, and legal proof that someone is a fraud, or a liar, it's a dangerous game to play. Libel and slander aren't far off. The rest is just bullying; being a big fat poopy-head simply because you can. Wow, good for you.

Along with all this: the Trickster element, the gaudy, weird, even embarrassing, the uncomfortable, is that "the UFO phenomena" includes us. "UFOlogy" isn't just the thing seen in the sky. We're also a part of the thing we call UFOlogy, or The UFO Phenomena . . . we are not separate from it. We are not objective, we are not immune, we do not stand outside while commenting on what goes on, we're in it. The very moment we decided to get involved, for whatever reason, we became a part of "ufology" just as much as all the rest of it. Some like to parse these things, labeling the various elements and rating them; dividing the players into inside or outside, liars or weirdos. . . doesn't matter. We're still all in it.

Instead of being combative and defensive while at the same time obsequious by whimpering at the infrastructure (government disclosure movement, academia, skeptoids, big science, religious institutions. . .) we need to relax. I don't mean relax standards or critical thinking, but relax so we can think. Think bigger, deeper, more openly. Consider. Open ourselves to more. To other.

We can't do that if we have our dukes up all the time.

The End of the World As We Know It by Daniel Wojcik

NOTE: this wasn't done by Wojick; someone else did this and put it up on Youtube about Wojick's book. I have no idea if Prof. Wojick has seen this or not.

Well, this is a neat find. I was a student of folklore Professor Dan Wojick, author of this book, and my little contribution was to share my UFO library with him, for which he kindly acknowledged me in his credits. Professor Wojick is also very interested in Marian apparitions, (though I don't know or not if he shares my views on UFOs and Marian apparitions.) He was a great professor, his classes were all very enjoyable but more importantly, took a risk and addressed aspects of both folklore and Fortean type phenomena that not too many academics do.

Wojick is also interested in folkart, including folkart that has to do with UFOs, aliens, etc. Send images his way if you have any and are so inclined, or send them to me and I'll forward them.

---

Read about McMinnville UFO here!

Beliefs and The Messengers

Skeptic and atheist Richard Dawkins has a piece in the Los Angeles Times:
Gods and earthlings: the science of intelligent design is science-fiction. I'm not going to comment on the whole article, just one thing Dawkins said.

Dawkins tries to make the case that arguments for Intelligent Design by the religious are wrong (no surprise there) and they use the aliens from space argument to support theirs. As does Dawkins himself to use against them, as he points out. Naturally, it's no surprise Dawkins thinks both arguments are equally insane and irrational.

Dawkins alludes to the cargo cults, and comments that if we were to land a jumbo jet in a primitive village, we'd be considered gods, or a God. He quotes Arthur C. Clarke:

"Any sufficient advanced technology is indisitngule from magic."

UFO and abduction researcher Budd Hopkins makes this case as well in his book, co-written with Carol Rainey,Sight unseen: science, UFO invisibility and transgenic beings
What seem almost magical to us when witnessing UFOs and related phenomena is really advanced technology. And I think most of us understand that. Some of us put it all off on "aliens" and, it just might be aliens some of the time. We can't imagine that we have anything close to that technology, so aliens it is. Still, for most of us, that doesn't make them gods, or God. Then again, they could be exactly what some people think of as "God." Are aliens God, or is God an alien? Not much difference. But I'm getting off track here.

I only want to point out something about what he wrote here:

To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe.

What's wrong with this is the assumption that we know anything about what aliens are, even when disbelieving in them. This is a characteristic of the fundamental skeptic. They vehemently dismiss any "belief" of psi, psychic phenomena, ghosts, or aliens, yet at the same time have elaborate systems in place concerning their behaviors, the expectations, the mechanics of how these things work.

No, it's not that "he" (the alien) would have had to design the universe. It' that the people the alien appears to has them believing he designed the universe.

This may sound nit picky on my part, but it's an important distinction.

The Snarly . . .

Sometimes I just have to laugh. Usually I ignore silly blowhards, but sometimes the mood overcomes me and I have to play.

Today's example: the UFO Provocateur(s) blog (now there’s an unassuming name) have decided that when all those in the UFO field die off, it will be a good thing. Oh Happy Day. The “UFO palate” (oh, pleeeeeze!) shall be cleansed, they tell us. Oy.

After the elders die off, the young will swoop in with new bright ideas and new bright energy and save UFOLogy from itself.

What a load of crap. Young, old, in between, people with diverse backgrounds and experiences, skills and perspectives are contributing their thoughts to UFOlogy and related fields. It’s mostly and usually a good thing.

If UFOlogy stinks, it isn’t because it’s “old people” or middle aged people, or baby boomers. It’s not because there is a lack of some holy UFO Organization, or union, or guild, or whatever the hell some people want to get up and running. (However,UFOlogy will surely start to reek of its own self importance if the latter ever happens. Which, happily, it won’t. It’s a glad thing that UFOlogy is full of all kinds of people, of all ages and types. What kind of rational being thinks you can get all these types of people together in one cohesive thing? How long will such a thing last before a group of ticked off individuals leave to start their own UFO Guild of UFO High and Mightiness? Then what? We’re back where we started, having lost a lot of time in the process.)

In fact, UFOlogy doesn’t stink at all. People who think that are mostly debunkers; anti-UFOists, snarly little skeptics. Some are actually inside UFOlogy themselves, but for some twisted reasons of their own, don’t like that fact much, so have to qualify their presence. That includes saying things like “UFOlogy is a circus,”
and bemoaning the sad, sorry state of things while sneering at others. They’ve come to the party and eat all the appetizers and drink all the booze but keep checking their watches. And they won’t stay to help clean up.

Meanwhile, the world outside of UFOlogy goes on, whether those of us inside are young, old, baby boomers, middle aged, or whatever. The mainstream media continues to ridicule and ignore, the authorities continue to cover-up, the relatives think you’re crazy.

Nothing is going to change that either. It’s the way of things.

So you either be brave and true within yourself, and do what you do, and tell your story. You learn about others and think upon them. You express yourself, you discover. You do your best to ignore the bozos. And here’s a clue little mister, the bozos aren’t the My Reptilian Lizard Lover victims, the bozos are the ones who think they’re above it all, who believe their views gives them the right to insult, as if being insulting is a sign of intellectual superiority. We expect that from the aforementioned snarly skeptics, the debunkers and those types. But when it comes from within, it's a different story.

They’re not only ill mannered little buggers, but naive little buggers. They don’t get that nothing much will change on the outside, no matter how many Approved UFO Think Tanks are created, or how dismissive they are about UFO experiences.

Now here’s fair warning: the part where I get all Shirley MacLaine-ish. Things on the outside are beginning to change, and humans have the potential to help that change, regardless of a “belief” in UFOs or things Fortean. Our thoughts and energy affect the ways things go. Calm down, I’m not ridiculous enough to think that’s all you have to do; wave a crystal around and you’re done. But focusing your intent and holding that intent on a daily basis can only help.

You can choose your intent, your battles, where to put your focus. You can grumble and poke things with sticks, or you can snap out of it and be a bit more compassionate.

Gleaning From “Numb3rs”

Is it ironic that a “scientific” TV show, appreciated by skeptics, is also one of my favorite shows -- and that I’ve gotten so much esoteric-Fortean use out of the show?

Numb3rs is a favorite show of mine. I like the combination of mystery, crime solving, science and mysticism. It’s also set in L.A., where I was born and raised, and I like the three lead mensch-like characters.

Besides entertaining me, Numb3rs has given me a bit of inspiration three times now for my esoteric writing. Awhile ago, I wrote an article about semantics and perceptions of UFOs, and used an example from a Numb3rs episode. In that example, the main character Don Epps, FBI agent, said, of UFOs: (paraphrasing)

“We don’t know what a UFO looks like, so how do we know one when we see one?”

That line inspired me to write several articles on the topics of UFO semantics and definitions, as well as denial and debunkery. (See my American Chronicle articles for more.)

In another episodes, the character Charlie Epps (Don’s younger, math genius brother) told his crime solving colleagues to “throw on more data.” The team was not making any progress in trying to solve a case; “throw in more data” was the solution. By including more data, the character explained, more patterns, more information, will be revealed, and the agents would get closer to solving the crime. That was the inspiration for a column I wrote recently for UFO Magazine: Throw On More Data:

What got me thinking about the UFO phenomena in light of Numb3rs was what the character Charlie (young math professor genius) said to an FBI agent when the agent asked for help in solving a mystery. No matter how many times the agent went over the data he had, he just couldn’t figure it out, yet he knew he could, knew there was an answer. If only he had the right formula, or was shown some way to get at it. The math genius told him to “throw in more data.”

Throw in more data. And by doing so, said the character, we can begin to see a “connectivity” between the clues that will lead the agent to his solution.

Throw in more data. And yet that what much of UFOlogy doesn’t do. We don’t see a “connectivity” because we’re divided, we argue, -- we downright fight and attack at times (forget the skeptoids,sometimes we’re our own worst enemies) -- we pick a theory or two and stick with it. More data, especially data that throws us off, is rejected. After all this time, we’re still arguing over nuts and bolts versus an ETH, or an ultra terrestrial theory. ~ (UFO Magazine, 2007)

This past Friday’s episode, about a serial rapist, served as another inspiration. It turned out the rapist had a MRSA (antibiotic resistant staph infection) STD. One of the agents, in explaining MRSA to her co-workers, said (again paraphrasing)

“There’s only one type of antibiotic that can kill it, but doctor’s don’t want to give it out.”

That line had me thinking about my own MRSA infection, the disconnects and jangled messages from various sources -- including doctors -- and so I wrote an article about MRSA and Morgellons and this oppositional juxtaposition in MRSA and Morgellons: Jangled Messages.(Hopefully it will be up at Book of Thoth in a day or two.)

So, thanks Numb3rs for your contributions to my continued inspiration!


Notes:
Image credits:
http://www.daemonstv.com/images/cbs/numb3rs1.jpg
amazing-tv-shows.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

American Chronicle

UFO Magazine
Book of Thoth

The Clowns in the "Sorry" State

A recent piece by Frank Warren inspired me to go off on one of my own favorite rants; that of the so-called “sorry state” of UFOlogy. As Warren says, underscoring Richard Dolan's point, the idea that there's a "state" of UFOlogy is inaccurate and misses the point. You can read Warren's piece here: What is The State of Ufology? Wrong Question!


I often rant against those who call for a “new UFOlogy.” What’s wrong with the old one? More to the point, what in the world makes those who want a “new” UFOlogy, a better or a different or a cleaner or a neater or a “more scientific” (oy) UFOlogy that anyone outside of UFOlogy cares?

Who says it’s “sorry?” Because we have the expected jokers around? The Raelians make the mainstream news, not the serious, interesting UFO cases that may also contain some evidence. (Other than anecdotal.) So?

What else do you expect from the mainstream media? They’ve always been cheesy, sleazy and exploitive, that’s what they do. I promise you, if we all got up some kind of serious, somber, clinical “New UFOlogical” whatever, no one would give a damn. We would, (some of us) but no one listens to us. And then there’s this: after a short time, it isn’t too long before this “new” UFOlogy will be perceived -- and possibly turn into -- a stodgy, rigid, snooty mini-infrastructure of scientism in its own right. Before that point thought, this "new" UFOlogy will be scrambling to be accepted by those they've decided long ago they need: mainstream science, academia, the media, politics. Wow, talk about idealism! But those institutions have turned their noses up at UFOlogy; a "new" UFOlogy will have to dance real fast and real well in order to be accepted. Which means, much of what makes UFOflogy the thing that it is will have to be discarded before this "new" state gets in the door. And at that point, of course, you don't have a real (authentic) UFOlogy, but you still have a very "sorry" state indeed. Irony!

Don't you find it ironic that a diverse,individual, subjective, elusive and contradictory phenomenon such as UFOs is persistenlty being forced into some kind of stable state where everyone agrees (pretty much) and the personal is silenced, or at least told to shush?

One thing wrong about screaming for a new UFOlogy or repairing its “state” is the belief we would do better without the clowns. First, we have to acknowledge that there is a clown like atmosphere to much of UFO and Fortean events, and it’s a natural part of the anomalous. There are many ways to deal with this, depending on the situation and where the clown antics fall on the UFOlogical clown scale. (New Age clowns, Contactee clowns, Bigfoot-UFO clowns, Abduction clowns, My Lizard Lover clowns, etc.)

We can ignore them. Call them on their stuff. Expose them for the lying clowns they are. But what if they’re not lying clowns? They could be clowns for a number of reasons, but not liars. At some point, it’s subjective. Trust comes in. Intuition. Meanwhile, we’re all distracted by trying to shove out these clowns, argue over who’s a clown and who isn’t, and the actual work isn’t getting done. We’ve been too busy chasing after those we’ve decided are clowns. Talk about a circus.

Then we get back to work, feeling smug and justified that we cleaned up the mess, only to realize more clowns have sneaked in. That’s the nature of the anomalous clown beast. You just can’t get rid of them. In fact, the harder you try, the more return. Like Sisyphus, once you roll that rock uphill, it just comes back.

The mainstream media and the pathological skeptics will never avert their attention from the clown side of things, for that would mean they have to admit there is something of value and truth to all this.

(Actually, the mainstream media at times slowly turns to the light; little bits of UFO reality get by and we experience a respite from little green men jokes by talking heads.)

We can learn from the clowns. Instead of chasing after them with brooms we can stop and just watch them for awhile. What are they up to, and why? Might turn out it was a waste of time, so what? Might turn out you learned something. Maybe that clown wasn’t just a lampshade on its head bore, but a true Fool leading you down a much neglected and magickical path. You could return from that journey with something of value to share with the “sorry state” of UFOlogy.


cut and paste if link doesn't work: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=46054

From Spooky Paradigm: “The Different Phenomena of the Social History of UFOs and Other Weird Things”

There’s a great piece on the Spooky Paradigm blog:

“The Different Phenomena of the Social History of UFOs and Other Weird Things” by “ahtzib” who teaches a course on UFOs. As he points out, the problem with using academically approved type material addressing UFOs is that, well, it’s academically approved type material. (My words, not his.) These authors often are ignorant of the vast subject area of UFOs, and approach UFOs --or use UFOs -- as a pivot for their own pet field, theory, or study. UFOs are still cutting edge in academia, and you can do all kinds of things in terms of your own discipline. UFOs however aren’t to be taken seriously; not by themselves. Wrapped around anthropological theories and studies, or psychology, etc. it’s useful subject, as long as the writer "explains" UFOs away; as social anxiety for example, or post 9/11 fears.

Regarding Jung, this is what ahtzib writes:

A question I get asked all the time by academics is if I've read Carl Jung's (1978) writings (they typically haven't) on flying saucers. I have, and they're terrible. Mystical claptrap on how the saucer, being round, is a symbol of oneness in a dangerous age. Jung works largely with dreams and artwork that is only tangentially linked to UFOs. And yet because of Jung's name, this is top-shelf stuff. Saranov (1981) picks up the torch and jumbles up a bunch of vague similarities between 19th century Airship stories and various folktales, says it is all symbolic of something, and calls it a day.
The problem is in theories presented as “fact” to explain UFO sightings, rather than study those who see UFOs, and study UFOs. The problem with ignoring the latter, and focusing on the former Is:
What we cannot do is try to make those all the same people. Because if you do, your carelessness will simply muddy the water, and you'll just end up telling yourself a just-so story. These are different phenomena requiring different tools and theories to study. This happens all the time in conversation, or in informal study. Someone will put forth some vague broad brush notion to explain a social phenomenon. In this case, it might be "People see UFOs because they are concerned about some problem in society" or "People see UFOs because of status inconsistency" or "People see UFOs because of a symbolic need." But it then makes it into more formal opinion columns and essays in publications and blogs, and as I cite above, into scientific and academic articles.

As we know, this is true. It becomes a sort of meme; and often passed along by many within UFOlogy who should know better.

There is a lot more here, and it’s worth reading. His students are lucky to have a teacher who is introducing the study of UFOs from this perspective.