UFOlogy 2009: A Six-Decade Perspective

If the social phenomenon of UFOs tells us anything, it is that the future of the movement turned out differently than its proponents expected. For at least twenty years after Kenneth Arnold’s sighting, believers expected that sometime soon, any day now really, a UFO would land openly—or would crash and be recovered—or otherwise be indisputably revealed. At the very least, believers hoped, the Air Force would end its alleged cover-up of the data it held about UFOs and disclose that information to the public. By the late 1960s, this expectation changed. With mass sightings having gone on for twenty years with no tangible result, UFOlogists’ hopes transferred to UFO abductions providing the desperately sought Holy Grail of proof. When abductions had gone on for thirty years without producing anything tangible, excitement shifted to claims of crashed saucers. The idea of a major “disclosure” coming soon has long been a major hope and expectation in UFOlogy, paralleling the Christian fundamentalists’ expectation of the Second Coming. The respected U.S. News and World Report published in its Washington Whispers column on April 18, 1977, “Before the year is out, the Government—perhaps the President—is expected to make what are described as ‘unsettling disclosures’ about UFOs.” Perhaps the editors had forgotten that same magazine’s cover story of April 7, 1950, “revealing” that flying saucers were in fact a secret Navy project. Every few years, UFO disclosure mania rises to a fever pitch but always subsides.

SOURCE

Mod Edit: Do not simply post articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item/article.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Gemwolf]

Not all UFOlogists are like this. I for one despise the messianic aspects of UFOlogy. Furthermore I believe we will have awareness of other races in the Universe within the next 500 years, not within the next few years.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Thanks for the article Savior. May I ask what your opinion about it is?

I quickly read the article and my first observation is that it is riddled with false statements, just like they accuse the UFO field of.

They leave out the really credible cases (Belgium UFO wave for example) because they cannot debunk them. They still claim Roswell can be explained by Mogul which is laugable at best. They also claim "a few" astronauts believe in UFOs, again a lie as the list is alot longer.

I can go on but it is clear the author uses false statements, outright lies and proclamation to make his case, a very weak one at best.

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
They also claim "a few" astronauts believe in UFOs, again a lie as the list is alot longer.

You are arguing semantics and prespective, here.

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
They leave out the really credible cases (Belgium UFO wave for example) because they cannot debunk them.

The point of the article was not a case-by-case study of every UFO report in history. It is an overview of the field itself as a sociological phenomenon, and how it is changed since Roswell, the "...evolving system of paranoia."

really nice article lots of stuff i didnt know about especially the 60-70s.


so whats the next fad to hit ufology. Personally i think every aspect has been exhausted. Where do you go after an abduction and anal probe?

abductions are really marginalised now but i bet give it 10 or 20 years they will be back ..with even bigger probes.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by yeti101]

Originally posted by yeti101
really nice article lots of stuff i didnt know about especially the 60-70s.

so whats the next fad to hit ufology. Personally i think every aspect has been exhausted. Where do you go after an abduction and anal probe?

abductions are really marginalised now but i bet give it 10 or 20 years they will be back ..with even bigger probes.

That is a rather cynical outlook, wouldn't you say?

I do not know if I would so far to qualify the changing prospective and focus of the field as a "fad." It is more of an evolution of the beliefs, born in no small part of a failure to see expectations met. When the desired expectations are not met, something must be done to account for the failure and fed on the popular-culture of the day. I think there is a relation between the ascent of the "disclosure" movement and cover-up beliefs with the growing distrust of the government.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I do not know if I would so far to qualify the changing prospective and focus of the field as a "fad." It is more of an evolution of the beliefs, born in no small part of a failure to see expectations met. When the desired expectations are not met, something must be done to account for the failure and fed on the popular-culture of the day. I think there is a relation between the ascent of the "disclosure" movement and cover-up beliefs with the growing distrust of the government.

I agree with your point that the expectation of disclosure goes hand in hand with theories of cover-ups. I'd go a step further and add that the most audacious theories promote ever more elaborate and sophisticated cover-up schemes. I won't use examples, but skeptics will guess which ones illustrate the point best. As the perceived lack of disclosure continues, greater sophistication is required to defend the original contention. Often, BS begets BS.

I don't share the certainty of csicop. The implication of the article is that they don't discount 'sightings' but disbelieve the possibility that any sightings are grounded in physical reality. The accuracy or plausibility of such accounts is subverted. They allow that the observer 'believed they saw something.' More often than not this is true, however I'm not as quick to dismiss all accounts.

Of all the purported evidence and explanations available, a number of accounts remain indicative of something more than simple misinterpretation of various stimuli. I can't say I'm convinced that some UFOs are ET or visiting craft , but something unusual is indicated by the circumstantial evidence. It's all very interesting...inconclusive and interesting.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You are arguing semantics and prespective, here.

Granted, I indeed did. On the other hand one can argue that the author tries to bagatalise the claims made by numerous astronauts, which are credible witnesses and therefore inconvenient for him and his case of the "UFO myth".

The point of the article was not a case-by-case study of every UFO report in history. It is an overview of the field itself as a sociological phenomenon, and how it is changed since Roswell, the "...evolving system of paranoia."

Of course but providing an overview of something requires all notable facts to be taken into account to reach an informed conclusion. Failing to include credible UFO cases and then claiming the phenomenon is science fiction and myth is laughable at best.

The thing is the sociological aspect is interesting indeed, and if the author sticked to that without the need to pass of the whole phenomenon as fiction every chance he got without providing the whole picture, the article could have actually been good in my opinion.