UFO Conjectures

Thursday, January 08, 2009

The UFO Destroyers


Who is killing ufology, and thus the UFO mystery?

Stanton Friedman would be a suspect, but despite his fixation on the extraterrestrial hypothesis (that UFOs are from alien civilizations) and his promotions of the MJ-12 hoax and Roswell confusion, he keeps UFOs alive in the minds of many media persons and a slightly interested public.


So he’s not a UFO Destroyer.

Jacques Vallee, the UFO guru for members of the flying saucer intelligentsia, proposes that UFOs are an overt manifestation of a “tangible mythology” [our term, not his].

One aspect of the UFO mystery may well be mythological in nature, but that aspect doesn’t address the physical elements that have accompanied sightings, and alleged landings.

Vallee’s tangible mythology is more evanescent than not.


But Vallee is no UFO Destroyer. He may be on to something, but hasn’t made his case in a definite, scientific way. Nonetheless he has mustered a panoply of circumstantial evidences for his hypotheses.

Physicist Michio Kaku is no UFO Destroyer but, rather, a voice of reason from within the scientific community.


But his views are so amorphous that they are platitudinous and useless.

Deceased astronomer J. Allen Hynek was no UFO Destroyer in his later years, but had been near to doing in the UFO phenomenon when he was a spokesperson for the United States Air Force.


The momentum of his turnaround continues to this day fortunately.

Kevin Randle, who is obsessed with correcting the UFO record, zeroing in on old sightings and episodes, is wasting his and our time with the minutiae of historical UFO events. But he is no UFO Destroyer.


He just wants someone in authority to accept the (past) evidence.

Richard Hall and Jerome Clark, two past UFO experts, have given up the flying saucer ghost pretty much, appearing now and then to bolster former and present colleagues.



They are not UFO Destroyers, even though they are no longer significant players in the ufology game.

The UFO second stringers, Nick Redfern, Greg Bishop, David Clarke, Andy Roberts, the UFO Hunters, Paul Kimball, and a plethora of ufological mavens are not UFO Detroyers.



These people pursue the UFO enigma in context of other things that interest them, paranormal things and less mysterious things, like music and drink.

Mac Tonnies, a sci-fi writer and buff, puts UFOs in such a discursive arena of weirdness that he diffuses the topic, but he’s not UFO Destroyer, taking a benign neglect attitude toward the mysterious lights and images that others see as UFOs.


So who are the 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.

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.

These include the former contactees -- Adamski, Van Tassel, Bethurum, Fry, Angelucci, et al. – and present day hoaxers, such as Billy Meier.




The UFO phenomenon needs a focused approach, a discipline that is scientific in nature.

It isn’t getting that, and those above, whether they are a UFO Destroyer or not, haven’t been and are not helping to bring that about.