Greg Bishop's interview Diana Walsh Pasulka -- Encounters takes us into a more esoteric niche in ufology. Dr. Pasulka and Greg cover her forthcoming book Encounters, which in one way continues Pasulka's remarkable American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, and Technology. But Encounters is a "much deeper dive" at What's Happening at current ufology's borders by one more at home in the field. Observations on the multiplicative value of teamwork, about witness accuracy, and more challenging concepts like the "overview effect" form part of this fascinating discussion. (WM)
--------------------------
Greg Bishop has been at the fringe of UFO relevance for a very long time. His pertinence is pathetic.
My pal, the Anomalist's Bill Murphy and I think my buddy Paul Kimball seem favorably disposed to Bishop, but why?
Bishop is a UFO flunky, and if you've ever heard one of his horrendously boring Radio Misterioso "programs" -- not a podcast but a smidgen of crap -- you know what I mean....
His promotion of Diana Pasulka derives from their initial contact during her work on that pitiful book of her's: American Cosmic.''
I panned the book as did Bryan Sentes, who is generally forgiving of academic efforts, but in this instance, her "Valley Girl" approach to the UFO phenomenon was a bit much.
That she hasn't made a mark in her field of academic study -- Religious History -- caused her to publish her UFO materials, where she has made an inconsequential but somewhat significant niche with persons at the fringe of Ufology, like Bishop.
Bishop promotes losers like himself, to no avail, but he persists.
That Bill Murphy sees value in him or Pasulka is distressing but there it is...
RR
3 comments:
The gooey center of ufology has always been a mix of rabid personality and dogma, which has proven incapable of getting out of its own way, let alone finding answers to big questions.
In the long run maybe it's better just to believe in baseball.
Pasulka can't be considered reliable. Like just about every newcomer to the field she has no ability to distinguish good from bad information. No surprise that in her last book she uncritically promotes "late Vallee's" garbage research and depicts him very flatteringly. I know almost nothing about Bishop. I lost interest when I saw that "his" model of the UFO phenomenon is really a set of ideas scooped from Vallee and Keel (and JAC?).
Ron is right. Why does it seem genuine research in this area is nearly impossible and instead all we get are these grotesque attention-seeking sideshows?
Btw RR I noticed that my comment and your response to it have disappeared from this post: https://ufoconjectures.blogspot.com/2023/05/john-greenewald-wraps-up-brouhaha.html
Martin
I don't see your comment or my response anywhere in the archive of comments at Conjecture.
No idea what happened.
I don't delete comments; those not published end up sitting idle in a Blogger area.
RR
Post a Comment