I am sick of the term believers. I use it myself, but only because I can't think of another word. You see I understand what it is suppose to mean, basically there is a group of people who believe there are strange objects flying around in our skies and that is it, but debunkers twist it. The debunker meaning is that we all believe that same things, we believe any UFO story that surfaces and even worse that there is some form of religious belief along with that.
We can't use UFO researcher because certain people think that only means people who do field research -- some are very snobby about that. Lately I have been trying to use UFO or Ufology community because I think that describes it better, a community can encompass many people of different beliefs. The problem with that is that it can also encompass debunkers and I am looking for a term to describe only those that aren't debunkers.
So if you have any ideas -- send them my way.
Of course, probably there isn't any words or terms we could come up with that the debunkers wouldn't twist to mean something different.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. When will the people learn that the President is just a puppet with no real power. Probably never. :<That is a comment from my facebook status update where I wished everyone a happy inauguration day.
I can totally understand that sentiment (remember, I wasn't even going to vote up until the last moment) and yet I don't and I hope never to share it completely.
Possibly it is stupid of me, but I still believe that one man can change the world and that it is possible that not every President is a puppet.
Time may prove that commenter to be right, but can we at least give it some time? I will hold onto hope until proven wrong, even if it is foolish to do so. If you don't have hope what do you have? Nothing, you just become a grumpy cynical debunklican about everything and that doesn't sound like a very pleasant way to live.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
So who are the UFO Destroyers?Where do I start with RRR's bifurcating post? They have divided into two groups those that are UFO destroyers and those that aren't. I suppose I would be a lot more insulted if 1) this came from someone I have the least amount of respect for 2) if they weren't almost as condescending to those that they deemed "not ufo destroyers."
Whitley Strieber is one, having made a fictional mockery of the phenomenon, and persisting in his quasi-religious take to he point that many interested persons have discarded UFOs as something that science might be able to decipher.
Then there’s a small group of confused and addled persons who sneak in and out of the UFO arena, venting their spleen because they have gone unrecognized by UFO cognoscenti.
Let’s call them Alfred, Regan, and Lesley.
They gather ideas from others, either stealing those ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts their psychological well-being into question.
They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that others generate about UFOs.
Let me say first off -- I do not mind in the least being included in any group that Whitley Strieber is in. Fuck the group of media guys (what media?). Whitley Strieber has done more to get people thinking about ufos and aliens than the group of media guys could ever hope to.
I feel almost silly even commenting on it, but I will start with this accusation of stealing. I have stole nothing. I don't even know where they came up with that. I have always made it clear that I am not the originator of the theories I write about -- I am merely commenting on them. I have also never claimed to be a Ufologist or anything remotely like that. I am merely someone who has had some ufo related experiences and am very interested in the topic because of that.
I am not looking for recognition from UFO cognoscenti (whoever they may be in RRR's eyes), what good would that be? For what purpose? I think RRR thinks of things like that because it is what THEY or HE would like, but unlike them it doesn't motivate me. I know almost everyone and am friends with many. I only ever wanted to meet people interested in the same topics I am, so I am perfectly happy as is.
Gossipy innuendo? I have no clue wtf they are talking about and can't even comment on it except to say that their post strikes me as being gossipy innuendo.
Moving on from me to their next complaint --
And the final group of UFO Destroyers are those who hoax photos or generate sightings to give them a prominence that they could never achieve in a more credible arena.Whenever I think about hoaxes, RRR is the first person(s) that comes to mind. You see, I remember their generated hoax. How Rich Reynolds or anyone writing on that blog has the nerve to accuse anyone else of hoaxing is beyond the amount of hypocrisy that I can stand.
Now that I have said all of that -- I will continue with my UFO destroying! Apparently I have been granted super powers beyond that of ordinary humans and I don't want to waste them.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
To my knowledge nobody has yet used the word Woo or WooWoo (publicly) to describe me. Although, they have used terms to describe me that obviously basically mean the same thing in their mind. I am OK with that. I wouldn't find being called a Woo particularly offensive. Why? Because almost everyone is a Woo.
If you believe that it is possible and maybe more than possible that some UFOs are NOT 1) secret military crafts, or 2) hallucinations -- you are a Woo to certain people. Yes, I know that people within the Ufology community have their own (unique to the person) definition of Woo, but so do those in the debunking community, most think people in the UFO community are all Woos.
Also, throughout time many people have been considered Woos. Newton was considered a Woo by many people within the scientific community and had his research into alchemy been known -- he would have been consider not only a Woo, but likely driven out of the scientific community and most polite (church going) society completely.
I am certainly not comparing myself (or anyone in Ufology) to Newton, but pointing out that just because someone has a few seemingly "crack pot" ideas or theories does not mean that they deserve to be labeled and/or laughed at. Normally people with the most imaginative minds that are open to many different concepts are the ones that come up with the world changing ideas or inventions. It is rarely the conventional thinker. Now they may believe in or investigate some truly kooky theories, but within those kooky theories could be one small truth that they will discover and that one small thing may help them to crack something larger.
I would also add that this theory that the Woo-Woos are somehow keeping Ufology out of the mainstream is completely unproven and seems to be total bunk to me. Ufology IS in the mainstream, it is on TV almost every night of the week and these days newspapers and other media gladly report on it because it increases circulation and ratings. 99% of people I meet are believers that UFOs could be visitors from elsewhere. There doesn't seem to be widespread argument that UFOs don't exist. You could clear the entire Ufology field of woowoos, as well as hoaxers and scammers, but Ufology would still not be reported on as real science. Until someone gets a piece of something that can actually scientifically be studied the media will never consider Ufology to be a serious science. Of course, there are many more hoops than that, it would have to be proved that the material came from an unknown craft and there would have to be something really remarkable about it. Basically you would probably need the entire craft in order to truly convince those that don't want to believe.
Anyhow, those of you that still feel that need to separate yourselves from the woowoos that believe in alien abduction, contactees, Bob Lazar and whatever else is considered woowoo these days -- knock yourselves out. You are still a woo-woo to some, no matter how above the others you may wish to seem.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
It is description that popped into my mind after the Presidential election. Maybe I am not the first since it seems like an obvious connection. This is how I describe it in Grey Matters --
and I end the article with this and still hope it is true --
The debunkers remind me very much of the John McCain campaign. Rather than truly explain anything, they just slander the other side. Oh, they have their crazy theories like owls and swamp gas, but they never actually prove any of it and spend most of their time just pointing out how crazy the other side is. As though by just showing how wrong they think the other side is proves that they are right. In reality, it is just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that they don't know anymore than anyone else.
and I end the article with this and still hope it is true --
This election gave me hope for another reason -- the Republicans followed their normal debunking method of winning, which is to say very little about what you know or plan to do and instead just point at the other guy and say how wrong, crazy and dangerous he is. It failed miserably. People have realized that merely pointing the finger at the other guy does not prove you are right. Hopefully, they will catch on to all such debunking, if they haven't already.You can read the entire column here, but I think you get the basic idea.