“Armchair” Ufology?
A link to my UFOs As Agents of Deconstruction article at the Anomalist site from October 8th of 2009 describes the piece as “armchair ufology.” Although the writer probably didn’t mean it as an insult, it seems that anyone who engages in speculation on any subject is going to be labeled as a lazy researcher removed from the “real world.”
The aim of the piece (and many of the articles at this site) is to encourage the fermentation of ideas. This method is of course well-established in other, more conventional disciplines as a way of pushing research into new areas. Perhaps one of the best examples is in the area of physics, where theory often has real-world applications. Of course the study of UFOs is not a science, but methods of reaching for new knowledge applies here too. The fact that no one has come to any verifiable conclusions about the subject in over fifty years should make some realize that the pain will stop once we stop banging our heads on the wall.
The complaint that many of the old guard (and some of the new) level against theories without field work may be wearing thin. Many theories come into being by observing and collating data. Some of the more robust ideas are further backed up by repeatable results. Since we cannot do this with UFO sightings, we are left to sift data that has been painstakingly collected over many years.
MUFON International Director James Carrion is steering the Pandora Project to compile all of the organization’s archived case files into a database and look for unique patterns which may point to new avenues for research and theories. Some of you may know that in the 1970s Dr. Jacques Vallee was the first to use computer data to search for recognizable trends. In a 1975 paper he and co-author Claude Poher wrote that their analysis pointed to the possibility of the use of magnetic recording stations to detect and analyze UFO activity. I am not aware if this was ever attempted (apart from Ray Stanford’s Project Starlight, which only had one magnetometer at its disposal, and no official sanction from academia.) Admittedly, these examples are not “armchair” research, but Vallee and Poher painstakingly accomplished something that almost anyone with an internet connection can do nowadays.
The imminent release of the late Mac Tonnies’ book The Cryptoterretrials should be a bellwether for the popularization of alternate views of the UFO phenomenon. Mac posits the existence of an ancient and stealthy race of humans who took an evolutionary turn somewhere in the distant past and have been living unnoticed by the apparently dominant species for millenia. If you think that there is some sort of extra-human intelligence that interacts with us on occasion, the evidence for this theory is compelling and plausible. The Crpytoterrestrials is slated to hit the bookstores this spring.
The UFO mystery is not amenable to traditional scientific scrutiny, and that has hampered our search for answers. A combination of so-called “armchair” theorizing, backed up with data and perhaps theories that can be proven in patterns of future observations (gathered by field researchers) may point us in new or fruitful directions. We shouldn’t be afraid or dismissive of any sincere and well-reasoned ideas presented by people who aren’t afraid to modify or abandon their theories based on new data. The field should be wide open.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 10:53 pm and is filed under Books, History, UFOlogists, UFOlogy, UFOmystic Exclusive, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Do bookstores still sell Ufology books? »
- A Ufological Trend? »
- Lights in the Woods… »
- Crash Retrieval Conference This Weekend »
- Binnall & NUFORC »
- A UFO Report In Every Crowd »
- UFO Stuff »
- How UFO hunters are turning to the web »
- UFO News »
- UFO Rights & Wrongs »
|
Jan 13 2010 
January 14th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Greg, could I ask you: Have you ever attemped yourself to study a UFO case ‘in situ’? You know, some case some one might have mentioned during a book signing or after a conference?
The Spanish UFO investigator J.J. BenÃtez is very fond to criticize the so-called ‘armchair Uflogists’ in his books —the Vampires of Ufology is his favorite nickname for them.
I believe the reason for this is very reasonable, actually. It must be frustrating for a person who has taken the trouble of driving hundreds of miles, or flown to the other side of the world, to try to gather some sensible data from a UFO/encounter report: talking to the witnesses, shooting some photos, taking casts or samples, etc. All so that in the end his case could be easily dismissed by a laughable ‘explanation’ by a skeptic reading a second or third-hand report.
“They weren’t there”, it’s the usual complaint we hear from the hardcore field investigators.
But like you, I do believe they should realize that in the end, there must be a higher purpose from all that gathering of data, aside from gathering dust in their home cabinets. They are gathering data *not* just for themselves, but for someone who may come in a year, 10 or 100 years, look at it, and maybe try to make some new sense out of it.
Is Ray Stanford the only one permitted to come up with conclusions about the Zamora case? No. But, we would be idiots if we didn’t take into account all he has to say about the case!
In the end I think we should acknowledge there’s a place for the field researcher, and a place for the theoritician. Both of them deserve our respect when they do their work properly, and our criticism when they do a sloppy job.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
RPJ,
Couldn’t agree more. If you are into UFO research for fame or recognition, it’s probably not going to arrive in bucketfuls, if at all. If it is looked at as an avenue to personal growth and satisfaction, the rewards will be easier to come by.
I have honestly not pursued a case beyond talking to witnesses, although I have tried to explain a few cases to some of these witnesses by looking at star charts, aircraft landing patterns and satellite overflights, for example. Some were relieved, some were not convinced, and some were hostile to my efforts. Of course, there are others which I honestly could not explain, but nothing groundbreaking.
I am not particularly interested in adding to the database with more of the same stories. Some people are, and more power to them, but they shouldn’t denigrate new and possibly fruitful theories.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:32 am
RPJ:
Don’t believe Bishop. He’s a CIA disinformation agent who has committed UFO hoaxes!
January 15th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Psst! Adam:
I know. I’m just playing along…
January 15th, 2010 at 10:29 am
…and I was trying to sound so calm and authoritative. Dammit.
January 15th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Ever since Adam had that Nazi UFO conspiracy expose on the satanists of the West Coast I’ve taken his word as GOLD. I mean not that my L.A. family didn’t get into that stuff leading to a nice Special Forces assassin job. Armchair DMT microcosmic orbit alien abduction experiments not withstanding.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Mr. Greg Bishop makes a number of important points in his comment on so called “armchair ufology.” All those interested in the phenomenon should examine in detail why studying UFOs is as Mr. Bishop aptly points out “… not amenable to traditional scientific scrutiny.” This is something that few are willing to do I suspect because of the tremendous success science has had in producing the technological revolutions that have dramatically increased the material wealth of our society. UFO investigators appear to want to wrap the prestige of science around a subject that is viewed by the powers that be,( academia, corporate controlled press, politicians) as terminally “kookie.†Yet how do you apply science to an investigation of an intelligence (or as more likely may be, of an array of intelligences) that is smarter than we are?
Citizens’ investigative groups like MUFON attempt to limit the scope of their investigations as if the phenomenon were a strictly physical one. Thus they produce a myriad of well-investigated sighting reports that are incredibly dreary in as much as they fail to acknowledge and explore in any significant detail the psychic, psychological, sociological, political and spiritual dimensions of the contacts that are ongoing.
For five years I was a UFO investigator in the CSETI network of contactee physician Dr. Steven Greer. As the result of my association with his teams of experiencers who were highly professional, ie composed of fellow physicians, line pilots for major airlines, Ph.Ds in psychology etc., I was able to have direct interactions with an intelligence that was responsible for some aspects of what we call UFOs. This was so because using Dr. Greer’s techniques we were able to successfully precipitate numerous sightings of both anomalous nocturnal lights and structured craft, with multiple skilled witnesses present.
The irony of our efforts was that some of the very same people who call for “the scientific investigation of UFOs for the betterment of humanity” had no interest whatsoever in hearing about, let alone analyzing the results of our direct investigations. They were more comfortable in writing up other people’s sighting reports than to learn a technique that might afford them the opportunity to have their own sightings. What kind of chemist would limit him/herself from working directly with chemicals in a lab, preferring to only write up others experiments? Those who accuse Greg Bishop of being a mere “armchair ufologist” should examine their own willingness to directly confront the unknown intelligence responsible for aspects of the UFO phenomenon. If they did so they might find themselves to be lacking in the courage or curiosity to directly interact with the phenomenon as Dr. Greer and other contactee leaders as well as countless other experiencers have willingly done.
It is much safer to sit back and take down the impressions of witnesses who have had an encounter and call this science (a better term might be journalism) than to place yourself in remote locations with unarmed small teams of investigators and directly invite the phenomenon to come to you. In addition we need to consider a wide range of theories as to what is the intelligence behind the UFO phenomenon and not just embrace without question the ET hypothesis as contactees in my experience tend to do, or refuse to develop an investigative method that allows us to directly engage the unseen intelligence(s) as I believe MUFON has so fearfully chosen to do.