Wild-eyed and crazy? No! However....

Stan Friedman is the face of “ufology” and that face should reflect a kind of academic or scientific seriousness.

But as you see, Mr. Friedman’s face has more than bemused demeanor; it’s strikes some observers as the face of madness.

That’s one of the problems with ufology’s spokespeople: they all look a little crazy.

Now Mr. Friedman is nothing if not reserved when he speaks about UFOs. Even though he believes UFOs are extraterrestrial aircraft, piloted by alien beings from an alien civilization, his pronouncements are reasonable and sensible. After all, the interplanetary explanation for UFOs/flying saucers is the most commonsensical, if one doesn’t delve too deeply into the phenomenon, as Jacques Vallee and a few others have.

But it’s the marketing of UFO ideas that has besmirched the topic.

UFO believers are a little too animated and goofy-acting when the subject comes up. And UFO web-sites/blogs et cetera reek of psychosis – some superficially, others insanely, with black backgrounds, bizarre ads, and commentary that could come right out of an insane asylum.

It’s not that the UFO old-guard is senile; they just appear to be so.

If one actually listens to Mr. Friedman, one will see that he has mastered the UFO situation as well as anyone, and better than most.

But when he lets photos, like this one, go forth, he undermines his message and the UFO discussion accordingly:



Albert Einstein allowed a number of goofy photos of himself to circulate:



But his subject matter, astrophysics, was serious and taken seriously by colleagues, the media, and the public generally. Einstein wasn’t starting from a negative stereotype, like that which infuses UFOs.

So, to create an ambiance of seriousness and intelligence, Mr. Friedman and his UFO buddies have to present themselves and their ideas in a way that doesn’t come across as edging on the brink of insanity.

A Geezer Rant

Old guy Dennis Balthaser has the temerity (and errant gall) to list Anthony Bragalia alongside known UFO do-badders in an aside in a March 2010 web-offering:
---------
"Fortunately for those of us seriously interested in the subject of Ufology, there is support for the existence of UFOs from many impressive sources, which I will share with you. As with all of my research however, there are some individuals that claim extraterrestrial UFOs do exist, but I have to question their claims based on their record, lack of scientific data, omission of references, etc. That list of individuals would include Bob Lazar of Area 51 fame, Phil Schneider about the Underground Dulce New Mexico base, Lt. Col. Phil Corso, with no references for his best selling book 'The Day After Roswell', Tony Bragalia about Roswell, and several others. I am hopeful that in time new information will surface, which will allow me to retract my current views on those mentioned above."
---------
To imply that Mr. Bragalia’s work lacks references is not to know what Mr. Bragalia provides when he posts UFO materials at our blogs (The UFO Iconoclasts, et cetera) and elsewhere.

Balthaser is an uneducated bloke, as one can tell from his appearances on various UFO shows (from the History Channel, et al.)

We once saw and heard him say this:

Those sightings collaborated [sic] these witness reports of sightings.

He meant corroborated, but that would require an education in grammar and language use, which he and most ufologists lack.

Balthaser is among that clot of ufologists whom we’ve listed (earlier here) as on the terminus express – they are on the slippery slope of life, near to death because of age.

Fortunately for ufology, the geezers, like Balthaser, will pass on -- sooner than later – and the UFO palate will be cleansed of the fetid nonsense these old guys have spewed and keep spewing in such a manifold way that ufology and the UFO topic itself have been virtually destroyed by their incandescent ignorance and lack of fundamental academic decency.