Aug 23 2007
|
|
Kimball Comments On MJ12
Paul Kimball wades in on the latest controversy surrounding the MJ12 saga and the ever-present Roswell mystery. Paul makes a lot of sense too, as the following extract from his posting reveals:
At the moment controversy is raging within the “hallowed halls of ufology” about MJ-12.“What,” you ask. “MJ-12. I thought that was a dead fish”.
Indeed. MJ-12 itself is a dead fish. It was a scam. Whether it was for disinformation purposes or financial gain is a secondary matter, as far as I’m concerned. Except for a few die-hard defenders (Stan Friedman foremost among them), everybody else has come to that conclusion some time ago, and for the most part moved on.
No, the controversy is not about MJ-12 itself, really, but rather about a paper written by Brad Sparks and Barry Greenwood, and presented at the recent MUFON Symposium. I had an advance peek at the paper weeks before the Symposium courtesy of Brad, and was going to provide some editorial input (mostly re: spelling, grammar, and overall construction, which it badly needed at that stage), but work and life got in the way, and I never got a chance to send back my suggestions, which Brad had asked for (putting the boots to any assertion that Brad can’t take constructive criticism).
Here’s the rest of Paul’s commentary, which I urge one and all to read.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, August 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 am and is filed under The Redfern Files, Breaking News, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. 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:
- MJ12: Required Reading »
- Nick’s Pic Of The Day »
- MJ12, UFOs and the FBI »
- Paul Kimball on Radio Misterioso Tonight »
- Vintage On Fowler »
|
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Nick:
Thanks.
This, combined with the recent Clark-Gehrman fight, reflects very poorly on ufology, and demonstartes why it remains ignored by science and the mainstream in general.
Paul
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Paul
I predict that ufology will never be anymore than a subject that attracts a few thousand people on a regular basis (and maybe less now).
Many ufologists confidently think that the world is waiting for them to finally deliver the ET goods and go down in history.
They’re not. Most people outside could not care less about the petty arguments in ufology (and don’t know about it anyway) and unless someone really makes a major breakthrough (along the lines of proving that Roswell was ET, for example), we will not be remembered by science, the media or the public.
A good many ufologists are ego-driven and full of self-importance. But at the end of the day, we are just a group of largely unrecognized people who argue with each other, and publish things here and there that get read by a few thousand people. And that’s it.
Same as it ever was. Same as it always will be.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
What tools then, are needed to make that “major breakthrough” that is so desperatley needed in Ufology?
What do ufologists need to do to attract good scientists like the late John Mack?
Is it all in the hands of THEM (you know who)?
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“Is it all in the hands of…(you know who)?”
…
Voldemort?
:D
“I predict that ufology will never be anymore than a subject that attracts a few thousand people on a regular basis (and maybe less now).
Many ufologists confidently think that the world is waiting for them to finally deliver the ET goods and go down in history.
They’re not. Most people outside could not care less about the petty arguments in ufology (and don’t know about it anyway) and unless someone really makes a major breakthrough (along the lines of proving that Roswell was ET, for example), we will not be remembered by science, the media or the public.
A good many ufologists are ego-driven and full of self-importance. But at the end of the day, we are just a group of largely unrecognized people who argue with each other, and publish things here and there that get read by a few thousand people. And that’s it.
Same as it ever was. Same as it always will be.”
Depressing.
But true.
Perhaps instead of in-fighting there should be a group attempt to come up with a certain image of ufology to present to the public to get them to take it more seriously.
No scientists agree completely on everything put forth about their field–it would be nice if some ufologists realized that there may very well be several answers to the same question (that question being: what the heck was THAT in the sky?).
Fight the good fight.
~Y
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I think the biggest problems facing ufology are (a) the image that we have with the scientific community and with the media - namely that we are all viewed as nutcases, eccentrics etc; (b) the fact that we lack any hard evidence in terms of something tangible that can be studied and proved to be anomalous (rather than different people having different opinions on something that remains enigmatic or unresolved); and (c) that we lack large funding to really devote to a deep study of the data.
I’m not sure how we change things, but I believe that things can only change if we can find some form of hard evidence to support the idea that UFOs exist.
But that will only ever happen (I personally think) if UFOs are literal nuts and bolts craft.
If they have far stranger origins, it may well be impossible to get tangible, hard evidence.
In which case, we may be perceived by the human race of the late 21st century and 22nd century in the same way that we view people who - 100 years ago - searched for fairies, or knocked on tables trying to contact the dead, etc.
In other words, we’ll be viewed as a group of people who looked into some unusual areas in search of the truth about aliens, but never really found any hard evidence that proved ET was visiting.
Ironically, if ET really does land, I personally think that ufology will be swept away in an instant as the public demands answers from the media, who in turn demand answeres from the government and the mainstream scientific community.
We may get a brief 5 minutes to say “we told you so,” but that will be it.
Unless we stumble on it first somehow.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Nick:
You pretty much summed it up… as you and I have discussed many times before. It’s an interesting hobby, with a small base of fans, but that’s it, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply deluding themselves.
Paul
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Brilliant Nick. I think you’re right, most of the so-called Ufologists are more wanting of those 5 minutes of yelling “Told you so!” to everybody that laughed at them than to really, REALLY make a strong case so this phenomenon can be studied by the best minds available.
But I don’t think it is a hobby Paul.
I think it’s a FUCKING addiction. Stronger than crack, and sometimes even more destructive…
I’ll come back tomorrow… for my daily fix
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
RPJ:
I agree that for some it can be like an addiction, but that’s tru of any hobby or activity. For the rest of us, it’s just one of the myriad things that are of interest in this world.
Paul
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
There are three major forces at work against standard Ufology that many never consider.
#1: If higher intelligences are involved, it’s quite possible (and highly likely) they don’t wish to be exposed in the way “Ufologist” would like them to be.
If #1 is true then they have an ally in #2: Governments don’t wish to have them exposed the way “Ufologist” would like them to be. Different motivations, same result.
If #1 and #2 are true, #3 is that most Ufologist do not realize just how formidable #1 and #2 are. In the end, this makes them their own worst enemy. This works quite nicely for #1 and #2.
As for MJ-12, I don’t doubt something -like it- existed at one point. Based on the early history of the modern UFO age (1947 onward), it makes nothing but absolute sense. At this point however, even if it did, the point of disinfo is to muddy the waters so much that clarity will never be possible.
#1 and #2 are quite satisfied I suspect…
“Know thy lot, Know thine enemies, Know thyself.” ~ Sun Tzu Wu
“I can’t get no…” ~ The Rolling Stones
August 24th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Paul,
I think that Moore, Friedman, Shandera etc. wanted to believe that the MJ-12 documents were real, and went along on that premise. Moore and Shandera cautiously approved of them (at least the famous “briefing document” anyway) in the early 1990s. I watched as Moore gradually accepted that they were most likely disinfo. He now says, (and I trend to agree) that there probably was an organization called MJ-12, but that there is little or no proof that it had anything to do with UFOs.
Re: Ufology- I agree with what Nick and others are saying here. In comments yesterday to the YouTube post, I responded to complaints that the fake videos would reflect badly on ufology. What could possibly marginalize ufology any more than it already is, or change the public’s view of our hobby?
August 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
” People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true”
-Bacon*
The crisis of confidence I see in the
field these days is hardy unique to Ufology, and I can but wonder how the folks at, say, the Society for Psychical
Research, kept their spirits up and found the will to continue researching
after a century of nebulous results.
And really, what results could we hope for? We certainly lack the technological
means to compel the UFO’s to a more
direct dialogue, and we are uncertain
as to what we are truly looking for-travellers from distant stars? demons/
angels in modern garb? the fey folk or
some truly warped bureaucrats?
The phenomena remains. Lets us continue
to study it as best we can, by what means we are able, and not be downcast
at the lack of public popularity.
* Francis or Roger, I can’t remeber which…
August 26th, 2007 at 12:29 am
With the exception of rare studies like the Project Hessdalen, no-one is actually studying the UFO phenomenon. They are, rather, studying selected REPORTS (mostly from untrained observers) of the UFO phenomenon. It’s a fundamental difference which is too often overlooked.
There are surely far better uses for scientific research grants than studying the UFO ‘data’. Curing cancer, developing quantum computing, researching the causes of global warming - you know, little things like that. Things that might actually make a difference to the way we live our lives.
Maybe once we’ve solved all the real and pressing problems that our planet faces, then we can think about throwing money at things that go bump in the night.