reply to post by mmiichael
Not to get too far off topic but I'm not sure how Lindell can claim: "UFOs and foo fighters justifiably fall within the study of folklore and
psychology, not the fields of physics and engineering."
I don't find that snotty but (and not to be dramatic) a "dangerous" wrong. I for one would rather have a physicist studying a ufo that buzzed a
military area, rather than a psychologist. Maybe there is something more behind his statement, but that is extremely disconcerting to hear someone
believe their interest is the only way to explain a phenomenon. Yikes! The only reason I am so bothered by it, is that I know college profs that live
in "their" world to explain everything--hopefully there is a clarification.
Ufology is a joke. And it is dying--most of the witch doctors can no longer hide behind mumbo jumbo as the internet gives us all a larger magnifying
glass to examine extraordinary claims/events almost within that day--not 2 years later when someone writes a book.
BUT we have to remember there is a reason ufology is poorly represented. Academic institutions don't exactly produce ufologists--now do they? I
found most skeptics to be ex or current college faculty. They have MONEY!!! They're "job" isn't to sell that aliens are real--it doesn't put
food on their table like some ufologists. They have the luxury to discredit, and in a way are expected to, which gives a professor a nice chance to
write a book and justify his tenure. A ufologist is usually someone that does this as a 2nd job or spare time--sure there are exceptions--but since
there are no degrees required, anyone can be one. I doubt Linda Moulton Howe, David Sereda, or Don Schmitt are on par academically with most skeptics
like Shermer, Shostak, or Carl Sagan.
The ufologists are like the Bad News Bears going up against a rich semi-pro baseball team. They are not respected, rarely win, cause their own
errors, but sometimes...they do eke out a win.
Ufology is what it is because academia has forced it down that path. I'm not saying ufology is "right", what I'm saying is academia has avoided
knowledge training on the phenomenon. John Mack was a great example to me of the nonsensical pressure he was under for studying abductions. It
didn't have to be a question of aliens, the experiment is why do people believe it? But it disturbed Harvard, and in return we got Susan Clancy's
so-so argument dismissing it--and nothing more. To me, ufology and this whole 2nd rate study of the phenomenon points right to that. Clancy may be
right, Mack may be right...but why the fear? Keep going, find out why it is happening.
The fewer ufologists the better--but I think a new attitude needs to taken on how we study this phenomenon and "exclusivity" statements of a
folklorist is not a good first step. I haven't been too pleased with the logic of even some skeptics, and I even took Michael Shermer to task on
some of his short videos that were falling into the trap of confirmation bias to show how smart he was--his blinders were on too much. Yes, the most
likely answer is the answer, but truth and science doesn't always follow "likely" or limited to what human knowledge you possess at this point in
time. You have to think outside the box and take in unlikely possibilities to make a jump and gain new knowledge.
[edit on 7/14/09 by Atomic]
s&f 
