Rich Hoffman dropped me as a Facebook “friend” because of my
SCU harangue – on Conjecture – about the effort being “pretend” research and
wouldn’t, couldn’t get to the essence of the phenomenon, UFOs.
Here are some of his responses (from Facebook Messenger) and his final missive:
Here are my responses to him:
This started from a SCU announcement on FB from one of its
members who was touting the latest (foolish) outing of the SCU members, an
outing to gather “data” from a night of sky-watching; an endeavor I scorned on
FB.
Hoffman’s YouTube announcement, seen in the Conjecture video, added fuel to my livid dislike of the pretense that these guys are doing something worthwhile and valuable.
Moreover, Rich Hoffman had become, for me, an archetype of the UFO geezer epithet I employ to single out such loony activities as that which SCU (and others) are engaged in.
Hoffman provides, on Facebook, surfeits of postings showcasing his non-UFO existence:
Ship cruises, sojourns to holiday venues, trips to sit in on UFO (UAP for him) gatherings, and pictures of flowers he likes – all okay for his FB pals but insipid as most geezer activities are,
That he believes and lauds SCU’s enterprises as ‘’scientific research” annoys. The SCU boys have shown some interesting visuals of UFOs and their behavior, but we all have seen a plethora of such videos and long-ago accepted the reality of UFOs, long before the public and news media acceptance of that reality.
SCU’s videos are nifty and their analyses intrigue but the horse got out of that barn when the AATIP videos showed up.
To keep foraging for “data” – a term SCU and other “research wannabes use to augment their pathetic enterprises – is a wheel spinning exercise in irrationality and borders on delusions of grandeur.
Feel free to comment. We’re in a private zone now where you won’t be excoriated by the rabble…
RR
3 comments:
So Hoffman believes studying UFOs is equivalent to searching for the Higgs Boson? Seems like scientists already had a name and purpose for that particle beforehand, which was kind of a leg up, don't you think? But rather than a further accounting of the differences between the two, as well as a coverup to contend with, on his hunt for a shape-shifting something with strange purpose that has defied any such prying, I wish him luck.
I get the impression Ron that RH wants to leave a legacy or mark in UFO history.
And I stepped on that.
His remarks are symptomatic of where the old guys -- not those young guys in old bodies (like a few people you and I know) -- are mentally with their long role in Ufology.
That these guys really think they are doing serious, important scientific research on the UFO phenomenon is delusional...not serious mental pathology but a human frailty: hoping to leave something to be remembered by.
It's not quite sad just a little pathetic.
RR
The activities of groups such as SCU can be valuable only insofar as there is further need to establish that UFOs exist (i.e. that debunkers are wrong). Perhaps he took offense too quickly and missed the fact that nothing in what you wrote contradicts the idea that UFO research (or "research") can continue to accumulate evidence that UFOs are in fact real. Would he insist that what he's doing really could unravel the UFO mystery? Or would he be happy to concede (in a less heated exchange) that all he could hope for is to silence Mick West et al. with "proof" of a major anomaly?
In any case I agree that no amount of video/radar/photographic etc. etc. analysis will reveal what UFOs are. As you say we need to hope they're solid things and somehow get a hold of one.
Martin
Post a Comment