Hovering Outside UFOlogy: A Guide For The Curious
UFOmystic reader Regan Lee has posted an excellent commentary titled Hovering Outside UFOlogy: A Guide For The Curious.
Hovering Outside UFOlogy: A Guide For The Curious
R. Lee
January 18, 2007
Deep within that niche UFO us people have found for ourselves , are those that are ‘pro’ UFO of course, and those outside looking in, who are “anti’ UFO.
I include myself in that first (really, the only niche; the anti UFO people are niche-less) niche; that “pro UFO†category. Both groups are passionate, obsessed even (as some might say — or accuse.) The rest of us are average people going to work, doing whatever it is we do, unaware that coworkers or neighbor while our coworkers or neighbors are unaware that we are seemingly normal people by day, and UFO bloggers and writers at night.
Since I use my real name, anyone who knows me can Google me and find out that I write a UFO blog, (The Orange Orb) that I write a column (Trickster’s Realm) for Binnall of America, a blog at The Daily Grail, and for American Chronicle. (See? Obsessed.) Most of us Google people we know, including Googling ourselves. (Don’t be embarrassed, we’ve all done it at least once.)
I have no idea who, out of the many coworkers I come into contact with everyday, have inadvertently (or even intentionally; as if they have nothing better to do. Still, one never knows) come across my UFO blogging life. If they have, they haven’t said anything. And if they have, and haven’t said anything, it’s probably a good thing, since they probably think I’m a bit of a lunatic, and can’t reconcile the me they know on the job, and the me they just discovered on-line. Just as well.
Within this underworld of UFO People, are anti-UFO People. The anti-UFO People bug me, not because they’re “anti†UFO, but because of their tactics. Their semantics. Their behavior. Their assumptions. Oh, there’s more. Their lies, attacks, sneers, well….anyway. The innocent, “average†Googler, looking for UFO stuff, might stumble upon these faux UFOloists, and we can’t have that. Looking for UFO blogs, or websites, the unawares will be faced with a confused array of UFO choices; many of which are not UFO researchers and writers at all.
As a public service to the UFOlogically curious, I’ve provided a short guide to what consistently appears in these pseudo UFO blogs and web places, hovering around (heh) the fringes of the already fringe pro-UFOlogists:
Chronic skeptics are not ‘UFOlogists.†They are anti-UFOlogists. Or anti-UFOists. Debunkers. Deniers. Trolls. Pelicanists. One, some, or all of these things may apply. But not “UFOlogists.†They may or may not know much about UFOs: its history, specific cases of various types, books, individual researchers, theories. ( more often than not, they don’t.) They are not UFO bloggers, writers, researchers, commentators. They are anti UFOists, bent on throwing monkey wrenches wherever they can.
The anti-UFOist is an unhappy grouchy, mocking, sarcastic, deceitful and disingenuous individual using UFOs as the target of their scorn, and object of their narrow visioned pronouncements.
(It’s kind of like this: if you’re Bill O’Reilley who constantly attacks the Left, that doesn’t mean he is a Leftist.)
“We don’t know what a UFO looks like, so how do we know if we’ve seen one?†Astounding, I know, isn’t it? This has also been asked of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
Anyway, they need to stop asking that question. It’s just really stupid. If you come across something like that, it’s one of those “anti-UFOists.â€
“We know what a toaster looks like, but we don’t know what a UFO looks like.â€
This is a companion to the previous question. Equally stupid.
Do you believe in UFOs?†I’ve been begging chronic skeptics, anti-UFOists, and a few pro UFOists to stop framing the question that way. , We’ve all been begging them for years — stop saying that! You can’t “believe†in a UFO, anymore than you can believe in a car, a washing machine, or a toaster.
And don’t say “we know what a toaster looks like…â€
Really, the majority of UFO witnesses and experiencers of the weird aren’t lying. And they’re not sick, or mentally unstable, or on drugs. They just want to know what the hell happened.
I mean, wouldn’t you?
If you come across a “ufo†site that offers these explanations as rational theories for UFO sightings, know you’ve entered the land of the non-UFOist.
Aside from the anti-UFOlogist, there’s another category. Not as bad as the anti-UFOlogist who seeks to destroy, but they are responsible for mucking up things. Those are the confused: the fence sitters and hill hoppers.
They’re pretty much obsessed like both groups; anti and pro UFO niche dwellers. But they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge they’re:
UFOlogists
Skeptics: (not the true skeptics but any form of skeptic at all, from the chronic skeptic to the Pelicanist to the raving irrational rationalist.)
Or are they? They don’t often know. Either do we half the time.
Really interested in UFOs, despite the fact they have a UFO blog or website. Write daily, sometimes more. Make films, write books, attend UFO conferences.
UFOs however, are “just a hobby.â€
It’s sort of like admitting you’re Jewish, kind of, or Native, you know, the ones who say, sometimes, their mother, or their grandmother, was Jewish, or Apache, but don’t get them wrong, they’re not.
I get the feeling these ufo posers like slumming but they don’t take it all seriously.
Just whose side are they on anyway?
Interestingly, in a bit of synchronicity, Loren Coleman has posted the following at Cryptomundo:
Does Wiki, Google, or Yahoo Link You To Cryptozoology?
What can job seekers find out about you by looking at your FaceBook, YouTube, and Wikipedia? Doing a search for you and your activities via Google, Yahoo, MSN Search, Quintura, or yes, by visiting Ask Jeeves would reveal what? Have you been mentioned in Cryptomundo, at The Anomalist, or on Boing Boing? Well, maybe Boing Boing would just be cool, right?
Anyway, that’s been a concern, hasn’t it? It has been discussed in job career internet sites for awhile. College placement services have been feeding into the fears. Recent college graduates who only two years ago had posted their beer bash pictures (and more) online have begun to panic that their potential future employers might be surfing the web to find out all about them. Some people have even worried about their links to cryptozoology. But what if you actually were on a past expedition looking for the Death Worm, Mothman or Sasquatch? That info is out there too.
Click here to read the post in its entirety on Cryptomundo.
This entry was posted
on Friday, January 19th, 2007 at 6:37 am and is filed under The Redfern Files, UFOlogists. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- A Ufological Trend? »
- Lights in the Woods… »
- Another IFO »
- A UFO Report In Every Crowd »
- UFOs or UAVs? »
|
Jan 19 2007 
January 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I have been quite open with the subject regarding ufos, sasquatches and the mystic mysteries. No need to use my given name as most have other given names for me. Some being aliendave, sasquatchman, strangeone, sasquatchunter, so I use sasdave as even skeptics cannot sway me. I wouldn’t say I believe in Ufos, I know they exist, even if they are not alien. Even though; I haven’t seen any action in the last 10 or so years. I have had people for some strange reason confide in me their weird experiences for some time now. I may have a problem in believing some of these experiences; but, I take them for their word and I don’t mock them. To which I have gone through quite often. The saying seeing is believing; yet, most of these people have a hard time excepting their own sighted experience(s). When one has a strange sighting or experience there is usually more questions, so maybe it is easier being a anti. Take the easy way out and be of the norm. Even after I was miss quoted and lied about on a international TV documentary, I know this subject is so hot, the liars rain supreme. As truth will scare those to do the strangest things even lie. Light and respect to those that go the path of real truth(s).
January 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
SASDAVE:
Your 100% correct, the question is not if u.f.o.s exist, the question is what are they. But no proof no matter how compelling will sway the anti u.f.o. camp.Unfortunately I think it is human nature to pick a side and stick to it no matter how wrong it turns out to be. Think of all the ways we separate ourselves from other people. We form groups along racial, ethnic, gender, age, religious and a host of other lines. This makes us feel important and better than those not part of the group. This is at least in part, the reason many of the anti u.f.o. people irrationally contort the evidence to fit their view.
We as a species have a lot of growing up to do. If we can’t even see ourselves as one what will we think of some other intelligence that may look very Different from us? Is it a wonder why the phenomenon has chosen not to fully reveal itself?
January 20th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Thanks for reposting my article Nick!
I’m peeved though; at both myself and American Chronicle. They messed up, and the unedited copy went through, not the final copy; which explains the sloppy copy. And I can’t get it back, or delete it. Oh well…
(I’ve just started your ‘Saucer Spies” book. . .)
January 20th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Human beings are complex creatures, and attempts such as this to pigeonhole, and thereby discredit, any one group are unrealistic. It is not uncommon for a single human being to be a mixture of both the skeptical and the credulous, or the certain and the uncertain, in regard to any number of things.
I think what Regan Lee is trying to do in this article is define the way she thinks “real ufologists” or “decent ufologists should behave, so as not to offend her sensibilities. But she’s barking up the wrong tree, because neither humans nor the world are ever going to change to conform to what she thinks is right and proper. She’ll just have to be satisfied with fitting her fellow human beings into neat categories with interesting names like “pro-ufo,” “anti-ufoist,” “trolls,” “deniers,” “pelicanists” and “fence sitters.”
So, Nick Redfern, I fear I must disagree with you that this is an “excellent commentary.”
January 21st, 2007 at 9:59 am
Zowie
That’s what the blog is here for - debate, agreement, disagreement. After all, if everyone in ufology agreed - and we were all wrong - the subject would never advance, and neither would our knowledge.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Zowie, thanks for the comments.
Human beings are complex creatures,
Indeed. No argument.
and attempts such as this to pigeonhole, and thereby discredit, any one group are unrealistic.
I’m afraid you misunderstood. It’s a given, as I agreed with your comment above, that we are complex (most of us) creatures, and when it comes to UFO research and studies, we all have our own skeptic views towards various things. But I am speaking of specific things:
chronic skeptics (not to be confused with true skepticism; this was cheerfully stolen from Colin Bennett’s term) those who take an active anti-UFO stance, sort of “anti - UFO activists.”
When it comes to those two categories, it is not a question of “pigeon holing” (for they’ve already done that themselves) it is a matter of pointing out their oftentimes intentional inaccuracies.
It is not uncommon for a single human being to be a mixture of both the skeptical and the credulous, or the certain and the uncertain, in regard to any number of things.
Again, agreed, but that is not the issue I was addressing in my piece.
I think what Regan Lee is trying to do in this article is define the way she thinks “real ufologists†or “decent ufologists should behave, so as not to offend her sensibilities.
No, what I was doing was making clear the distinctions among those who are “pro UFO” vs. ‘anti UFO’ –
But she’s barking up the wrong tree, because neither humans nor the world are ever going to change to conform to what she thinks is right and proper. She’ll just have to be satisfied with fitting her fellow human beings into neat categories with interesting names like “pro-ufo,†“anti-ufoist,†“trolls,†“deniers,†“pelicanists†and “fence sitters.â€
there are Pelicanists about. No one would argue with that one.
As are trolls; they be about as well.
And there are many a UFO “denier” about; or have you not come across the anti-UFO blogs, etc yet?
As they comment on such things UFOish, I do as well.
Regarding the others, such as hill hoppers and fence sitters, that is my perception, I will grant you that “hill hoppers” and “fence sitters” are a matter of taste, perception, and opinion, but that’s how I see it. I really am truly confused by those who so gliby flit about from one side of the grass to the other; and am suspicious. But, that’s just me.
Zowie, as you’ve commented, we’re complex, and there is a wide range of views within UFOlogy. But it strikes me as surreal when some suggest that “anti-UFOists” — who range from mild dismissal to outright attacks and lies — are to be included, with the same level of consideration as those of us who are usually far less disingenuous.