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.

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

Snarly Skepticism: Bill Nye, the Bow Tie Guy

Bill Nye, The Bow Tie Guy, over on Snarly Skepticism. I know, me and everyone else has been yakking about the Larry King Roswell program but I just couldn't help myself.

Quote of the Day

The Regan Lees, Frank Warrens, Don Ledgers, Moulton Howes, Steven Greers, Chris Rutkowskis, et al. are the UFO proletariat; they don’t count or matter. ~ UFO Provocateur(s)

Heh. Hey, I made it first on the list! Hooray for me.

Proletariat: pro·le·tar·i·at (prl-târ-t)
n.
1.
a. The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labor.
b. The poorest class of working people.
2. The propertyless class of ancient Rome, constituting the lowest class of citizens.


All their other nonsense aside, they sure are a snooty bunch, aren't they?

Around the Orb

Thin Skinned Skepticism
A new post at Snarly Skepticism. It's a repost from Jan. 2007 of my blog entry on my Daily Grail blog, which I rarely post to, but now and then I do. Truthfully, I forget I have that over there! Speaking of The Daily Grail, if you haven't already, be sure to check them out for great links as well as commentary.

Remote Viewing
My new Trickster's Realm piece for Binnall of America will be up sometime tomorrow. This week I write about the government's "non-involvement" with remote viewing. As always, be sure to visit the forum and read all the other great articles there. And don't forget that Tim Binnall does an amazing job interviewing some great people in the field; you can listen to the podcasts for free.

Beeping Weirdness
I'm working on something about the electronic beeping sounds many UFO and Bigfoot witnesses experience. I've had this experience myself. I'm not sure where I'll post it, UFO Digest or maybe my Bigfoot blog Frame 352. I'm almost finished with it; should be up later today.

Speaking of beeping Bigfoot and high strangeness, Joseph Capp has an interesting piece on a Colarado ranch:

High Strangeness on a Colorado Ranch
Capp writes about Skinwalker Ranch type high strangeness in The Other Skinwalker Ranch: Contact. Capp points out that the ranch was near a military base, and, there were personal connections with some family members and military. Something I've thought of as well; and as Andrew Colvin mentions, among others, there seems to be a faction of covert military ops manipulating paranormal forces around humans -- and at humans. Paranoid? Maybe. But you know what they say . . . No doubt there are all kinds of variations on this idea; ultra classified psy ops projects, what better place than to experiment, and test them out, than in remote places, like the deserts and isolated ranches?The fact that often these places have a history of paranormal acitivity going back hundreds of years supports the theory that military factions have tapped into this in some way. Who's going to believe the residents of a ranch, or some rural area, when they come out with these kinds of stories? No one has yet; no one that counts that is.

On WOE: Alexandra "Chica" Bruce
(I love that name!) Lesley has a new post up about Chica Bruce, esoteric authoress. Bruce is also interviewed by Adam Gorightly; take a look over there on WOE (Women Of Esoterica) for links.

MUFON, The Brew That is True, and Other Things . . .

Okay, everyone back to what they were doing. The circus is over.

As I said, now and then it's fun to play along, and it's good fodder for inspiration. Which makes it all the more delicious, since we all know that wasn't their point.

I will share the lyrics from a scene from one of my favorite movies; The Court Jester with Danny Kaye. I loved Danny Kaye when I was a kid; still do. As I was searching for images to go with the previous humor piece, I came across the poster to the movie and used. (See post below.) For some reason, the lyrics remind me of the UFO/Fortean vibe surrounding our bouncing ideas and words; we think we have the magic key that will get the Big Question answered and we pass it on to someone else who theorizes it really means this when it could mean that...oh never mind.

Griselda: Listen. I have put a pellet of poison in one of the vessels.

Hawkins: Which one?

Griselda: The one with the figure of a pestle.

Hawkins: The vessel with the pestle?

Griselda: Yes. But you don't want the vessel with the pestle, you want the chalice from the palace!

Hawkins: I-I don't want the vessel with the pestle, I want the chalice from the what?

Jean: The chalice from the palace!

Hawkins: Hm?

Griselda: It's a little crystal chalice with a figure of a palace.

Hawkins: Th-the chalice from the palace have the pellet with the poison?

Griselda: No, the pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle.

Hawkins: Oh, oh, the pestle with the vessel.

Jean: The vessel with the pestle.

Hawkins: What about the palace from the chalice?

Griselda: Not the palace from the chalice! The chalice from the palace!

Hawkins: Where's the pellet with the poison?

Griselda: In the vessel with the pestle!

Jean: Don't you see? The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle.

Griselda: The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!

Jean: It's so easy, I can say it!

Hawkins: Well then you fight him!

Griselda: Listen carefully. The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.

Hawkins: Where the pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.

Jean: Good man!

Griselda: Just remember that.

Back to our usual programming.

MUFON has archived some of its early data.

Greg Bishop on UFO Mystic has a very nice post about his relationship with the late Dr. Karla Turner; his interviews with her, etc.

As you can see, I've changed the templates on The OrangeOrb, also on a few of my other blogs. It's springtime! Time for a fresh look. I wish Blogspot had more template choices, but I'm okay with what I have.

As usual, a plug for my other blogs: Vintage UFO, Women Of Esoterica, Frame 352.

UFOs, the Trickster and Humor

The Trickster is an inherent part of Fortean phenomena, including UFOs. That’s why, as I’ve said many times, things like the so-called UFO circus, the Raelians, ironies and synchronicities, surreal juxtapositions, the stonewalling by the infrastructure in regards to UFOs, the maddeningly elusive quality surrounding the indisputable authenticity of photographs, samples, castings, and recordings,hoaxers and pranksters, and the petty in-fighting will always be with us.

Which brings us to humor. Humor, like all things, has a range of styles. Some humor is barely humorous. There’s lame thick headed boorish humor, fart joke humor, cruel humor (laughing at people getting hurt, especially in the genitals) witty humor, cutting biting sarcastic humor, vaudeville humor, sex humor, all kinds of humor. Some humor isn’t funny. Some is hysterical.

Everything contains elements of humor. The Trickster knows this. Sometimes Trickster’s humor is playful and a bit of a tweak to us to remind us of things. Usually it’s to lighten up and not take ourselves too seriously all the time. Other times its humor is downright dangerous. But trying to think of the Trickster as without humor is ridiculous; the Trickster is all about humor.

The mistake some people make is in thinking that, because one laughs and sees the humor in things, the importance of that thing is trivialized. Depending on the type of humor this could be true. All those stupid jokes about “anal probes” - - enough already!

Encounters of the strange, whether it’s with aliens, UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, or Mothman often are very scary. There’s nothing funny about them.

Nor is the research itself a light hearted romp through curious minds.

But having fun at times, being funny, and seeing the humor in things is not hurting research, the self, or others, as long as you’re not making fun of.

The question is, are you having fun at your own expense, or others?

My husband and I make jokes all the time about UFOs and aliens. Don’t you think we both struggle with the weird things that have happened to us throughout our lives? Do you think it’s at all comfortable for us to know that we’ve experienced hours of missing time on two different occasions? That’s damn scary. It’s weird. It’s unpleasant to consider what the possible explanations are; from mental illness to government experiments to actual aliens from space. And yet we make jokes all the time. We have to.

Seeing the humor in things is a good thing, and often a healing thing. How many times in your life have you been in a crisis, and something, or someone, makes you laugh?

I’ll share a personal story that has nothing to do with UFOs or the weird. But it’s an example of humor in a seemingly inappropriate place. We went to the funeral home to my father’s memorial. Now, none of us had any money, including my deceased father. We barely scraped up enough to do what we did. My father was a riot, one hell of a funny man. He appreciated the funny goofy ironic things in life, the surreal, the absurd. So here we are, solemn, sad, in the little chapel, and here comes the funeral director, wheeling my dead father out on a trolley thing. Not the most delicate or classy of arrangements. Okay, so Dad was covered up with a sheet, but still. Now my Dad was a big guy, 6 feet 3 inches, and here he is, barely on this rickety metal table on wheels. And he starts to slide off! And the poor funeral director is trying to not notice it, but also trying to fix it, and my Dad’s body is sliding off. And you know what we all did? We started to laugh. We laughed so hard we cried. And laughed again. We laughed our asses off. Which mortified the funeral director. Which made us laugh even more. Sick? Not if you knew my Dad. (I love you Dad. . ) The point is, humor has its place in the world.

You have to see the humor in things, or you’ll go insane. Remember the television series M.A.S.H.? All that dark operating room humor. They weren’t making fun of patients, or the medical profession -- in fact, they took the work damn seriously. When it came to saving lives and helping others, they did not mess around. They knew very well the seriousness of the situation. I know M.A.S.H. was just a fictional television series and nothing like real life, including UFO real life, but it’s a good illustration of my point.

Who were considered the most useful, and immune to punishments from the ruling classes? The court jesters.

The point is the use and benefits of humor. Humor is like anything else; it can be abused, misused, misunderstood, certainly.

But to suggest that those exploring UFOlogy or other Fortean topics should not have fun at times, use or see the humor in things, is at best terribly narrow minded, and at worst, ignorant.

Besides, if you can’t see the humor for what it is within UFO studies and Forteana, you’re missing a huge part of what those are. There's nothing funny about that.

Around

On Tim Binnall’s site, BOA (Binnall of America) for my Trickster’s Realm column: Why Did I Lie? about my defensive response to alien abductions.

Be sure to read the other columns: Lesley's Grey Matters, Wrath of Joe, etc. and listen to the great, free, podcasts of Tim's interviews!

On UFO Digest: The Fortean Pinball Machine, about my theories on no theories, or, no theory about all those theories. Or maybe my theory is that it’s all very weird. Which isn’t a theory, it’s a given.

Sign up for the UFO Digest newsletter while you're there; it's free, and it's good.

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.

“Mock Them As Barflies From Venus and Mars”

Alfred Lehmberg, of An Alien View blog, has written another great piece, this one on the perception by chronic skeptics who spend large units of time sneering at abductees. No understanding, just the lowest and easiest form of attack. I also saw this piece as a metaphor for other issues, including non-UFO ones.

“Forget that the saucers still fly in your skies; forget the abducted, and pretend that their cries... are musings of idiots, cretinous loons who scratch at your wallet then howl at your moon. But it's you, not *abductees*, "out to lunch" here today! It is YOU, and not them, sopped in naiveté!”

What is so often missed in all this craziness and high strangeness, is what it does to all of us, and why. I don’t pretend to know the “why,” and often am unaware of it doing anything at all to me. We need these experiences, whether it’s us that’s having them, or someone else. Among other things, these abductees, and encounters with entities, and all the rest of it, are gifts. Not just for the individual experiencer, but everyone. These “gifts” are not often appreciated, wanted, or even good ones -- give it back! But they are gifts, of a kind, reminding us that it’s not just us solid citizens out here doing the hard core reality thing.

These events have been going on for thousands of years, and we’ve been trying to figure them out -- or suppress them -- for just as long. Doesn’t seem we’ve gotten anywhere, and insisting that those that experience the anomalous are money hungry, emotionally needy, lying fruitcakes with mental diseases is getting a bit tired.

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.

Sex and UFOs

Before you say "Hey, not you too, I just read at least two other blogs that wrote about this" I say:

You all heard it here first dahlings!

Sex and UFOs (Don't know why the image is broken, sorry for that.)

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.

TIME: A SOMEWHAT CRYPTIC AND PERSONAL COMMENT

Hmm, in my universe, "three weeks" does not equal fifteen months. Oh well.

I’M BORED WITH THE BORED; BUT HAPPY NEW YEAR ANYWAY

One observation I’ve made while journeying through UFO Land is that there are a handful of active, yet bored, anti-UFOists. Yes, they’re skeptics, but it’s more than that. Some are ex-UFO investigators/researchers themselves. Years ago, they started UFO newsletters, magazines, journals, groups, meetings, presentations. They investigated local UFO sightings. They researched UFO history and became familiar with the UFO cases and participants. Others never were so involved; that was, and is, beneath them. This never stopped them from commenting on UFOs, even writing books about them. While there are differences between these two; the skeptic who sneers at it all, and the ex-wonderer/wanderer who now sneers at it all, they have some things in common. And that’s boredom, with a capitol B. Bored, bored bored. They are so damn bored.

They’re so bored, they have to write about how bored they are, and tell others about how bored they are. They have the need to express their ennui with UFOlogy to others; but that’s not enough, they have to try and get others to come over ot their side. They have no qualms about being insulting to pro-UFOers. They think it’s okay for some reason; probably because, aside from being bored, they’re arrogant. They’re arrogant, because in their mind, they’re right. Their rightness gives them the right (heh) to be obnoxious towards others they deem unworthy. Those that haven’t yet turned toward the UFO side are ripe for picking; aiming their pleas at the neutral, the undecided, the newbie, the Bored ask them to come on over and join them in their anti-UFO, fanatical rationalism.

These bored types respond to anything UFO-ish with a big yawn. They often qualify their bored responses with the typical refrain of many a skeptic: “oh, I wish it would be true. I wish we’d all get the answer that a new study, a new case, a new witness, will tell us what UFOs are, and why, and from where they’ve come.”

Even if they truly did wish that, one wonders why they’re wasting so much time with telling us how bored they are.

A few of the bored blogs: (by no means an inclusive list. They differ slightly in other ways, and, as noted, there are plenty of others that incorporate even more bored bashing, but I’m not here to review them, analyze them, or get into anything. Simply point out the blatant and obvious: they’re bored, and I’m bored with their boredom.)

Aliens Ate My Buick
UFO Reality
UFO Iconoclast
Updates UFO Updates
Magonia


I’m bored with these boring bored bores. Let’s hope the New Year brings us world peace and freedom from poverty. And freedom from boring bored anti-UFO pundits.

Sadly, the chances of the first two becoming a reality are close to none, as is the latter wish.

But as I always point out my dahlings, within my somewhat cynical and pessimist nature (though I prefer to use the word ‘practical’) (and at least I’m not bored) there’s always hope, a glimmering desire stronger than the current reality. And so, I, along with so many others, continue to do the things needed to bring about these changes.

And with that, Happy New Year everyone!