home esoterica Original binnallofamerica.com Audio the United States of Esoterica merchandise contact


Grey Matter


The Women Get It

Just so you know, I don't mean all women get it or that all men don't get it, mostly it just seemed a catchy title. However, last week there were three related articles and all were by women. Perhaps there were related articles by men, but I didn't come across them if there were.

First was Regan's article at the UFO Mag Blog -- Gonzo UFOlogy and the Myth of Witness Non-Objectivity.

Lisa Shiel then picked up from there with a series of blog posts about objectivity.

And going along with those in a certain way was an article by Alexandra Holzer in UFO Digest -- 'Boo Hoo' to Paranormal Politics.

All of these articles could fit into what I, to take a cue from Alexandra, call Paranormal Politics, although in this case I am only referring to Ufology.

First off is the theory, put out there by some folks, that those who have witnessed UFOs or other paranormal events are not objective and they are.

It goes further than that, to the ones that think if you can't see the truth of their point of view and their facts and realize that is the only possible truth then you aren't being objective.

In most cases, I have noticed that the people who think they are most objective are the ones that are soooooooooooooo obviously not.

Normally in the lines of their writing, the personal animosity they have for whatever individual they are "disagreeing" with is so plainly obvious that nobody reading it could possibly think they are being objective.

Yes, there is a difference between attacking and disagreeing. Disagreeing is pointing out your differences. Attacking is when you feel the need to not only disagree, but accuse the other person of something like being a fraud, lying, destroying a case, or my favorite -- "causing Ufology to not be taken seriously."

As to the first, fraud and lying. Before you accuse someone of either of those things you should have some pretty compelling proof that shows that someone is knowingly deceiving and committing fraud. Otherwise, in most circles (not apparently in Ufology) that is considered slander and really is fraud.

Destroying cases can be done, but it normally requires more than one person and also some fraud.

My favorite, causing Ufology to not be taken seriously can't be done by only one person and is not caused merely by some people having what others consider to be far out or wrong theories. In fact, I would say that the people in Ufology who go around attacking others contribute to it not being taken seriously as much as anything else does. Who can take seriously a group (I use that term liberally) with so much in fighting and hatred, where people seem to think that their way to the top (which will be a sad disappointment) is by stepping over those they have just kicked to the ground?

Let me make clear that attacking and defending yourself are two totally different things, even though most people know that.

I don't mean to go on and on about the attackers, but obviously that is something that really bothers me. I had honestly hoped that as we moved into the future that those in Ufology would decide that, like it or not, we are all in this together and that for the most part we all have common interests and goals that should override our disagreements or dislike of one another, but I now see that was some sort of hippy dippy girlie pipe dream.

I do really feel that if certain people in Ufology used the same amount of energy against debunkers, towards furthering Ufology or even just their own research as they use with their negativity towards others in Ufology far more would get done and Ufology would be better off for it.

However, back to the original subject of -- who is really objective? Nobody is. Everyone has their own preconceived notions, theories or ideas that taint their perspective and anyone who says they don't is basically saying they are not human. Assuming that we are all human, nobody is truly objective. There may be differing degrees of objectivity, but nobody is completely objective.

Aside from the objectivity issue, I am damn tired of people thinking they are using scientific principals, where others are not. It would be one thing if these people were actually scientists, but most of them aren't. Most of these people don't know the first thing about actual science, only these things they term as "scientific principals."

Science is an ever changing realm. Not that long ago (in the grand scheme of things) the best scientists on earth would have told you that such things as airplanes were impossible. Those were scientists who were dearly holding on to principal, but they were completely wrong.

Unfortunately, science is not bedrock -- it is not something that does not move or change. So to chain yourself to what you define as science is totally useless because in 10 years and certainly further ahead it will be something totally different.

That is not just my thought, but actual scientists. If you listen to Dr Kaku you will hear much of the same -- we don't know it all or even begin to know it.

The thing I absolutely most love and admire about Dr Kaku is that he never completely shoots down any theory of ETs, dimensional beings or whatever else you can come up with. He points out that one thing may be more likely, but that does not make it true and it does not close many other possibilities. He doesn't have to attack anyone to make whatever points he may make -- he is a true scientist and a gentleman.

Perhaps if there was a Ufology rule it should be that you must take a lesson in manners from Dr Kaku before you can talk, blog or in any way write about Ufology.

  • Check out Lesley's Blog HERE
  • Discuss "Grey Matters" @ theusofe HERE