Although the UFO old-guard reminds us of the druids represented in Charles Ive’s musical piece, The Unanswered Question, where they (the druids) pray to the gods for some answers or enlightenment but get no response, making them more frantic and angst-ridden, there are no groups or any individual who is in a position to wrest control of the UFO argument from them.
Paul Kimball’s “cabal” (consisting of Nick Redfern, Greg Bishop, Mac Tonnies, and a few hangers-on) has usurped the UFO debate and taken it out of the hands of Richard Hall, Jerry Clark, Kevin Randle, Bruce Maccabee, David, Rudiak, MUFON, Rense, and other “ufologists” of some note.
The problem with Kimball’s coterie is that they won’t go all the way. They hesitate to remove the old UFO palace guard by force, as the Bolsheviks did with the Tsar in Russia, and assume control of the UFO discussion extant.
Stuart Miller, Publisher/Editor of Alien Worlds, is the Trotsky of the movement to eliminate the UFO stalwarts housed mostly at Errol Bruce-Knapp’s UFO UPDates.
Mr. Stuart abets Kimball’s cabal, but the cabal doesn’t seem ready to become a dictatorship of the UFO proletariat.
What is needed is a UFO Lenin, someone with the moxie and zeal to take the UFO debate out of the musty halls of Bruce-Knappism and make it a movement for the new-guard.
One problem is what to do with Stanton Friedman.
Kimball continues to chip away at Friedman’s “UFO Manifesto” but the old man remains a “sacre divine” to the UFO cognoscenti.
Friedman actually transcends the UFO oligarchy in place at UFO UpDates.
To besmirch, or try to, Friedman, is to waste ammunition on a person or being generally immune to ufological uprisings.
But the rest? They are vulnerable. But the Kimball cabal won’t take them on, not even insidiously.
However, on the periphery of the UFO community there resides some intellectually astute and quasi-subversive elements, ready to assume the mantle of ufologists extraordinaire, but under another rubric.
Some names of those subliminal radicals? Michael Heiser, Cullan Hudson, Bruce Duensing, and….
Well, you know.
The Regan Lees, Frank Warrens, Don Ledgers, Moulton Howes, Steven Greers, Chris Rutkowskis, et al. are the UFO proletariat; they don’t count or matter.
So if a UFO revolution is underway, or a coup d’état imminent, it won’t be by the Kimball cabal.
It will come out of left-field, by names merely glimpsed now and again in the UFO firmament.
Monday, June 23, 2008
The 1947 Roswell episode has tainted and continues to taint UFO research and scrutiny.
Joseph Capp at UFO Media Matters is obsessed with Roswell, Paul Kimball’s blog has been infected, and Stan Friedman and Kevin Randle have been ill with the Roswell “disease” for many years now.
For some reason, ufologists seem to think that the Roswell incident holds the key to the UFO phenomena, and the 30 year scrutiny – the initial story got shunted aside from 1947 until the late 70s it seems – of Roswell has mined everything that was and is available to mine.
The Ros”well” is dry, and ufologists can’t slake their thirst there, but they are deluded by the Roswell mirage.
It is time to move on, to other aspects of the UFO mystery.
Those aspects may be hidden or subliminal but intense research should be able to ferret out something worthwhile, if something worthwhile is actually there.
Sure, the Roswell story intrigues, in several ways, but it investigation of the imbroglio continue to come up empty.
Human behavior, military snafus, and the will to believe have been spotlighted, but UFOs?
Nothing tangible has turned up….none of the supposed debris, or alien bodies, or photographs of anything weird.
Peripheral materials have surfaced; FBI messages, anecdotal remembrances, Mogul balloons, even death-bed revelations.
But nothing that science or anyone could call “evidence” – not even circumstantial evidence, just hearsay and a flawed newspaper headline.
It’s time to move on…..really.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The difference between science and ufology can be seen, clearly, by comparing two talks: one by UFO “expert” Brad Sparks and another by physicist Michio Kaku on SETI and UFOs, both at Paul Kimball’s discursive blog.
Sparks regurgitates the Roswell/Mogul conflict, and Kaku examines the SETI mistake(s), with some asides about how any UFO study by science would kill the career(s) of the scientist(s) involved.
Sparks rambles, and digresses, which he readily admits. Kaku is concise and to the point.
The patina of Sparks’ exposition is one of staleness and conspiracy: the government, especially the Air Force, has policies that pit them (the AF) against ufologists.
Kaku avoids a SETI conspiracy – to defraud alien speculation – and makes it clear that the issue of alien civilizations (and UFOs) is a bit more complex than SETI or ufologists acknowledge.
Sparks is fixated on the Air Force, as are most ufologists.
It’s the United States Navy where the UFO mystery is flummoxed and controlled. The evidence is overwhelming, and we detail it at our UFO web-site.
The other thing is that Kaku is articulate, Sparks not. Sparks is not a speaker. Yes, he has some bona fide UFO credentials, but speech-making? Not his forté.
Kimball accumulates lots of material from ufologists and non-ufologists, but we find very little creative UFO hypotheses by Kimball himself.
Since this is the case, it would do well for Mr. Kimball to provide more Kaku and less Sparks, or any other ufologist of note.
You see, ufologists, aside from Stanton Friedman, just can’t hold a candle to the likes of a Michio Kaku.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Canadian film-maker and UFO maven Paul Kimball has taken to invective and ad hominems toward Rich Reynolds, who only has an indirect connection to this blog.
We here have never called Paul Kimball any names but have taken a stance about some of his activities which have not been UFO oriented or even UFO-related although he has couched those activities in terms of the UFO mystery.
Mr. Kimball doesn’t like that we’ve questioned his UFO purposes.
But that he confuses Rich Reynolds with what we non-Reynolds participants write goes to the heart of the inept investigations that ufologists such as Kimball engage in. He and others don’t really check out the facts of a matter, and draw erroneous conclusions thereby.
Mr. Kimball has scorched his relative, Stanton Friedman, wild-man Karl Korff, UFO good-guy Frank Warren, and others.
He calls them names, but never challenges what they write or say that offends.
Mr. Kimball calls his blog “The Other Side of Truth” and it surely is, as truth is turned upon its head to provide Mr. Kimball with a platform that promotes him and his cronies to the detriment of what really is, in ufology and outside ufology.
We’ll be sticking it to Paul Kimball so long as he chooses to pervert the truth to make himself look better than he is….
Monday, June 9, 2008
The proclivity for some (many?) in the UFO community is not to seriously research UFOs but, rather, to be acknowledge and accepted by their ufological peers.
Some UFO devotees we know go out of their way to brown nose (the politer term) or kiss ass of some renown or semi-renown ufologists.
Some even need to kiss the asses of UFO asses.
Check the UFO web-sites and especially the plethora of UFO blogs extant, and you’ll find slavish encomiums to other UFO bloggers, even the lame bloggers, and the UFO notables.
UFOs have gotten lost in all the sycophantry of the UFO blogosphere, and that kiss-ass atmosphere has degraded UFO research in the minds of scientists and media.
The objects for study, UFOs, are beclouded by the smarmy stroking of mediocre commentary and activity by UFO mavens who have an obsessive need to from some kind of fake camaraderie with their peers (and those who are better than their peers).
You want names? Paul Kimball, Greg Bishop, Regan Lee, Alfred Lehmberg to name a few kiss-ass rebrobates.
There are lesser lights who also go for the chummy accolades, but they don’t matter.
It’s the braggarts and egotists who need to feel accepted by other braggarts and egotists since reputable persons outside the UFO community are not forthcoming with laudatory attention even if you make a sort of good UFO film or write a sort of good UFO book.
We understand the need to be liked or honored – Kimball, fro instance, is enrapt by “honors” even when they come from dolts who don’t know good film-making from bad.
Kimball has taken to touting Errol Bruce-Knapp, a person unknown outside a small contingent of UFO aficionados.
Why? Shouldn’t Kimball be working on the UFO phenomenon instead of trying to win favor with a bloke or blokes who have actually contributed nothing of worth to the UFO discussion.
Oh sure, Bruce-Knapp has moderated a slew of inane commentaries and postings for a web-site and podcast, but has the man ever come up with an idea that might be pursued to a denouement of the UFO enigma?
No, he hasn’t.
But those, like Kimball, who need to woo fellow “ufologists.” don’t have a rigorous methodology for UFO study.
It’s the salutes and constant remembrances of UFO cases past that sustain their “ufology.”
Don’t get us wrong. It’s a free country (here and in Canada too), so anyone can kiss-ass all they want.
But let’s nor pretend that doing so is furthering the pursuit of the UFO mystery.
It’s merely bonhomie to assuage some psychological need, a need that has nothing, nothing at all, to do with UFOs.
Monday, June 2, 2008
The running-in-circles that ufologists have been guilty of, in the past and even more so now , has to stop.
Constant reversion to Roswell [Kevin Randle, Stanton Friedman, et al.] and other past UFO or flying saucer events has been unproductive, to say the least.
Physicists provide a working template for how UFOs should be studied or conjectured about.
After Newton and Einstein, when classical physics were tempered by quantum physics [quantum mechanics and quantum theory], physicists have provided hypotheses about the basic building blocks of the Universe – string theory among them – and what the Universe is basically made up of or sprung from -- the Singularity.
Physicists haven’t been any more successful at resolving the questions in their related fields of study than ufologists, but ufologists haven’t provided new, paradigm-shifting hypotheses about what UFOs are.
Yes, there have been some interesting conjectures, such as that from Mac Tonnies (who posits a concomitant Earth race that is subliminal), but each hypothetical rumination actually end up being rehashed ideas that have popped up often, before, by quacks and legitimate UFO researchers, such as Jacques Vallee.
The “new” hypotheses” are wrapped in fresh language, but underneath lies the same tired, old speculations that arrived in 1947 and fleshed out in the 50s and 60s.
Meanwhile, physicists have presented new, original, creative ideas about the Universe and the building blocks thereof.
Their methodologies (math, calculus, et cetera) remain the same as that in Newton’s day pretty much. But the proffered theories are new whereas there are no new theories for what UFOs are.
The UFO phenomena are rooted, by ufologists, in prosaic and/or mundane subjective explanations.
As we keep reiterating, ufologists -- even the smart ones (and there are a few) – do not or cannot create a new paradigm from which UFOs can be researched or studied in their essence.
The accretions within or rather upon the flying saucer/UFO morphology just can’t be set aside by ufologists or the UFO community.
The reasons for this are emotional, psychological if you will, and almost ingrained it seems in the minds of those who are devotees of the UFO mystery.
It took courage for the quantum physicists to break with their colleagues who were immersed (and are immersed) in classical physical theory.
It will take courage by some ufologists – we need a new sobriquet for UFO study – to break with the past and those ufologists who just can’t let go of it.
It will take a new breed of ufologists [Heiser, Hudson, et al.] to bring about a truly fresh, invigorated hypothesis, or hypotheses, for the UFO phenomena.
Those tethered to the old explanations, and even the old UFO episodes, have provided nothing and must be set aside, ignored if any progress in solving the UFO enigma is to be had.
This is obvious, just as it was obvious to some physicists that Newton and Einstein had to be set aside in order to get at the real reality that those men sought but couldn’t quite get a handle on.
The epithet “ufology” has to be dumped and even the working name for the aerial phenomena, UFOs.
We’ve written this before, many times, and we understand that the UFO old-guard [Hall, Clark, Connors] and middle-guard [Kimball, Redfern, Bishop, Tonnies (maybe)] are not about to be shoved aside by what they see as newbies to the fray.
But that was also the case with the new physicists – Kaku, Smolen, et al.
They have broken with the physics past, the dogs barked, but the new physics caravan has moved on.
And so it should be thus with ufology – or whatever its new mantle should be.