Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Woo Who? Probably You.

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.


  1. Interesting post. I agree that the 'woo factor' is a subjective concept. I once read a book by someone who claimed that microscopic ETs lived in their house plants. To me, that's woo. Someone believing in the alien abduction phenomenon is not. After all, the phenomenon exists - it's the source that's unexplained.

    Another example of woo, to my mind, is where someone unquestionably and dogmatically accepts something as fact, without any evidence, e.g that UFOs must emanate from another planet. They could be from another planet, and the ET hypothesis is as good a theory as any other - but it's not the only one.

    I also agree that ufology is within the mainstream, and however rational a discourse anyone attempts to have within that milieu, there are people who will poke fun at serious efforts to study the phenomenon. My patience goes with the people I view as woo-woos, because I feel their approach adds to the ridicule of this whole field.

    Anyway, I'm probably not explaining this very well, as I've not been awake very long. I just hope I don't come across as arrogant or having a superiority complex, due to my impatience with some of the more outlandish stories within ufology. I guess what's considered outlandish and what isn't, is also highly subjective, but I won't get into that now :).

  2. I am referring more to people within Ufology who try to debunk and discredit others. There are plenty of debunkers out there and no reason for that to be the job of anyone in Ufology. I think one of the things that bothers me most about it is that it always calls attention to the most fringe stories and people while many good researchers publish research that goes almost unnoticed. Yeah, people love reading the crazy stories whether they believe them or not -- real research is not so fun to read. I get it, I do that a lot too.

    As long as there are debunkers there is no need for anyone in ufology to waste their time. There are plenty of debunkers to go on Larry King and wherever necessary to debunk ANY ufo story and lack of the really crazy ones won't stop it because to them we are all equally as crazy. Also, scientific facts won't stop it because debunkers are experts at coming up with their own set of facts, even though often times their "scientific theories" are far more loony than anything in ufology. :-)

    And yes, unless someone is a real debunker of all of it, it become highly subjective.

    Also, I really do have faith that at least 98% of people interested in Ufology are smart enough to figure out what is questionable, without any help from anyone.