reply to post by thesearchfortruth
One of the largest problems I see with "UFOlogy" are the Ufologist 'researchers', and adherents to the phenomenon which often enough seem to muddy the
waters of the subject more so than shedding any light.
Besides that, even including the often touted 'evidence' we hear so much and so often about, after some 70 years of modern interest, examination and
interrogation of the topic, all we really have for the effort is "I don't know" underlying tons of a colorful sweet frosting of speculations in
The speculations are so prevalent and pervasive that many are even presented and argued as FACT!
In the end, however, we still have a "I don't know".
"I don't know" is okay, and fine. Acknowledging that an unknown remains unknown and attempting to quantify it is one of the cornerstones of science.
I think the best chance for "UFOlogy" are its detractors, the skeptics that would really love to see and meet aliens, but interrogate the topic with
the most extreme of extreme prejudice such that when/if any confirming evidence or anything real and worthwhile comes along, it's something to
actually sit up and pay attention to.
Call it the Dana Skully paradigm.
If Dana Skully sees aliens, then, we got aliens, otherwise, all we got a lot of spooky Mulder.
Anyone already believing in ETH, or some other narrow non-objective pet speculation is suspect for injection of their own belief into their
This too goes for folks of former and past objectivity that have drank the koolaid and thus lost their objectivity in favor of ETH, or whichever other
narrow scope speculative idea they favor.
Objectively, everything needs be left on the table as a possibility and even probability, especially those possibilities and probabilities that could
very well be considered 'boring' explanations like uncategorized natural phenomenon.
Thus, I side with the detractors and skeptics as the only real HOPE for "UFOlogy".
edit on 3-7-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)