UFOs and Kissing Ass(es)

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.

String Theory, The Singularity, and UFOs

The running-in-circles that ufologists have been guilty of, in the past and even more so now [2008], 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.

The UFO Tower of Babel

A polyglot of nonsense has suffused the UFO debate.

Flying saucers and UFOs have always created a pastiche of silliness but today (2008), the UFO argument(s) have become besotted with nuttiness, all disguised as erudite discussion but are anything but.

Because UFOs have been and are so maddeningly elusive, they’ve made madmen and madwomen out of those attracted to the phenomena.

The proof is in the plethora of nonsensical writings in blogs and on web-sites by ufologists (so-called) and those who are enamored of flying saucers, alien visitations, and UFOs.

The Biblical Tower of Babel [Genesis 11] provides the analogy for the UFO Tower of Babel or Babble.



The cacophony of writings about the UFO phenomena has not only confused the UFO topic but the wild ruminations, including our own, have blurred the subject beyond an ability to contain it within intelligent and/or quasi-scientific parameters.

In an attempt to make UFOs academic in nature, some writers – Mac Tonnies and Bruce Duensing for example – have provided a patina of abstruse prose that beclouds the UFO phenomena but does take readers into the heart of other mysteries that either have a connection to UFOs or do not.

Nonetheless, the writings of occultists and SciFi aficonados that are, admittedly, incisive merely encrust UFOs with paranormal accoutrements that detract from the inherent simplicity of the UFO phenomena; that is, UFOs are basic in nature, and all the permutations thrust upon them makes it harder to discern just what UFOs are.

The principles of Ockham should apply in the search for the core of the UFO mystery.



But because those who’ve dealt with the UFO topic for years, without any kind of resolution – none whatsoever – are so frustrated, they’ve resorted to every kind of arcane possibility extant, muddying the UFO waters in the process.

It’s as if UFOs have confused their minds, just as the Hebrew God confused early humankind’s minds.

Some UFO proponents, such as Regan Lee, Jeff Rense, and a guy named Lehmberg, are so far away from the core UFO mystery that they may be excluded from any UFO discussion by sensate searchers after a UFO denouement.

The advent and ubiquity of the internet and blogging however will not allow UFOs to be put back into the bottle of commonsense.

It’s as if Pandora let loose scads of intellectual ills and most have settled on the UFO community.



But it can’t hurt to try and subdue the barbarian hordes who have taken hold of the UFO phenomena and created a Frankensteinian creature that can only be destroyed by taking it apart, piece by piece.



That’s what some hope to do, and we’re joining them in the effort…..

The Devolution of UFOs and Ufology

Objective ufologists have to admit that the UFO phenomena is long-lasting but pretty much defunct as a topic worthy of time and trouble by anyone….and we mean anyone.

The effort by ufologists, as we keep pointing out, has been without result and import.

UFOs are a back-burner item for many ufologists, while others keep flailing the dead horse as the phenomena (phenomenon to them) appears, goes away, and remains elusive in the extreme.

Science and media are right to ignore UFOs, since doing anything about them – researching or reportage – will be time wasted, and there are so many others things in life that provide (or can) a rewarding existence.

But ufologists have a lot of time (and some money) invested in UFOs, and letting loose will admit stupidity, a life-time of inane concern for a phenomenon that means nothing in the great scheme of things.

Ufologists come and go (die or leave the UFO hobby heart-broken because it doesn’t allow resolution) but the phenomena goes on, even though nowadays UFOs are an ember of its once startling effect on those who’ve seen them and those who hope to see them.

It’s quite sad – pathetic even – to see vibrant persons (such as Kimball, Tonnies, Redfern, et al.) taking the prime of their life on Earth and throw it away on a phenomena that doesn’t mean anything to anyone who has a full understanding of the purpose of life.

Some try to incorporate UFOs into their mundane activities, but even that is silly. UFOs shouldn’t even get that little bit of attention. The phenomenon is a quirk in the evolution of humanity.

UFOs mean nothing to the long road that the gods or Darwin established for mankind.

But a state of denial or a severe blind-spot in the mind of ufologists persists. And it doesn’t make sense, of any kind.

All kinds of mental gymnastics by ufologists attempt to make UFOs pertinent to human existence but the ratiocinations are flimsy at best and often bolstered by ruminations that are nearly insane in their permutations. (See Joseph Capp for instance.)

UFOs are – or were mysterious – but the days of awe have long passed. UFOs are now merely a footnote to man’s time on Earth, like the Loch Ness creature, Sasquatch, or any other phenomena that Loren Coleman has spent a life-time pursuing.

Even the small amount of time we spend on UFOs is admittedly ridiculous, and we have no defense for our squandered time (and effort).

But we’re not normal, and those mentioned above are…or so they think.

UFOs: A Reason to Party?

A Canadian film-maker who likes UFOs takes umbrage with our idea that he and his cronies diminish the seriousness of UFOs by using them as a front for beer-drinking and womanizing.

Most ufologists think some UFO phenomena are serious matters, even going so far in some quarters to say they represent an apocalyptic omen.

Other UFO blokes (us included) think that UFOs are a benign (thus far), unknown intrusion of several phenomena, one of which may be serious (an alien presence of some kind).

Science eschews UFOs because the field has been, since day one, infected by crazies who have tried to use UFOs (sometimes successfully, as in the case of George Adamski) to augment their ego-needs.

Serious “ufologists” have distanced themselves form the crazies but there is a renewed effort, by the Canadian film-maker and his pals, to re-invigorate the nonsense element within the UFO community.

The recent release of some British government UFO files has created an environment that might generate a sensible interest by the public and media in the UFO phenomena.

But that sensible interest will be undercut by those who use UFOs as a pretext to act silly and be cavalier, all the time pretending to be investigating UFOs seriously.

The 1950s created an atmosphere of looniness about flying saucers, but with the alleged abduction of Betty and Barney Hill, UFOs took on a sinister aspect.

UFOs have a patina of eeriness about them that is more than subliminal, even though nothing untoward about UFOs has been proven, in the scientific or military sense.

But UFOs may contain a serious threat to humanity, or not. We just don’t know.

Yet, UFO aficionados who use the phenomena as an excuse to get wasted and traverse the world as playboys and playwomen do an injustice to those who want science and media, even the public, to give UFOs a bit more concern than has happened since the contactee days.

The party-people diminish UFO study as their ballyhooed shenanigans give continued credence to others that UFOs are the bailiwick of the fringe, and not anything that should be taken seriously.

So our plaint that the film-maker is subverting ufology, and the investigators he has shilled into his fun-loving approach to UFOs, is only that: a plaint.

The film-maker can have all the fun he wants, but let’s not use his tomfoolery as a template for ufology or UFO research.

Life is short, and partying is okay, if one is a hedonist or epicurean.

But for those who think there’s something serious going on, within the human condition, and that UFOs may be a part of that, then the UFO happy-crowd should be ignored or avoided.

UFO Posses

There are vigilantes out there – and we, despite comments to the contrary – are not part of them nor do we pretend to be a group that has to be reckoned with.

Our “job” (as it were) is to try and expose the insidious elements within the UFO community; the elements that destroy what little credibility ufology has left, if there is any credibility left at all.

While many, including us, condemn the 1950s contactees for undermining the flying saucer/UFO phenomenon, the current crop of UFO socialites have down even more damage to ufology than any one of the alleged contactees, and that includes the still rambling Billy Meier.

At least the contactees stayed within the realm of flying saucers, whereas the gaggle of UFO hobbyists who like to party more than investigate the phenomenon take UFOs down into the gutter of horse-play and drunken revelry, all the time pretending to be seriously enamored of the UFO enigma.

Nick Redfern and Greg Bishop are bona fide UFO researchers, but they have a penchant for cavorting with film-maker and playboy wannabe Paul Kimball, a good guy but cavalier in the extreme, and a guy who likes women beyond what psychologists would call normal.

(See the psychiatric account of James Bond and latent homosexuality in The Journal of Psychiatry, Volume XXXIV.)



Mr. Kimball’s UFO film, Best Evidence, gives him, he thinks, carte blanche to visit with UFO dignitaries, while firming up a contingent of UFO researchers who have the patina of investigational expertise but who put camaraderie first on their UFO agenda.

This means that the UFO priority is “good-times” and buddy-longing rather than a full-scale assault on the core mystery of UFOs.

This is fine, as far as it goes, but when we are called “losers” for pointing this out, the opprobrium smacks of miniscule fascism.

Goofy opinion, ours and others, are grist for attack by this posse, when all it boils down to is that they want the attention that we, and others, get.

They resort to bonhomie, while we resort to “new-think,” hoping to make a break-through in the UFO conundrum.

This doesn’t sit well with them. They, especially Mr. Kimball, like the spotlight.

(Take a look at his self-aggrandizing encomiums plastered for a lengthy bit on his blog.)

We don’t wish Mr. Kimball anything bad. We actually think his Zorgrot thing is cute; meaningless totally, but cute.



So, if you take UFOs seriously, or think they should be taken seriously, don’t be hoodwinked by the party-boys.

After all, they only number three, as one can see from the photos taken at the last UFO soiree they attended.

Mike Heiser's Blog

Mike Heiser is PhD who deals with Semitic religions usually, but he also has an interest, surprisingly, in UFOs.

Check out his new blog:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions