From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@...
I enjoyed the editorial on the present state of ufology and the replies of
Ron Hill and Klaatu. It has seemed to me for a very long time that there
is a ufological "top drawer" or "poodle parade", if you wish, that is more
concerned with meeting each other at the next convention, conference or
photo opportunity than with research. These people seldom write, nor do
they seem to have a background in the field: they have merely latched on
to an issue (abductions, crop circles, etc.) and ridden it to celebrity.
By lacking a background I mean that they are not at all versed in the
UFO/paranormal literature of the 50's, 60's and 70's -- their awareness of
the field starts with the Lear/Cooper/Moore days of the late 80's-early
Yet these are the rulers of the field. The remainder are divided between
those who have found a home on the Net since the mid-90's and those who
appear in the steadily-dwindling UFO press. Many in each camp are not
aware of the other's existence and the names that hold currency in one
field have none in the other.
Furthermore, it is remarkable how little **reading** actually takes place
nowadays. A college lecturer on ufology told me that to his astonishment,
college students refuse to purchase any books or magazines on the
subject--if it can't be downloaded or is otherwise free, they have no use
As to the debate as to whether UFOs should be best studied by scientists
or religious experts I'll withhold my comments. I feel that we've come too
far to go back to the nuts-and-bolts days of the '50s, or to allow science
to turn ufology into another slide-rule dominated environment of endless
charts, statistical comparisons and databases. On the other hand, we are
witnessing an increase in contacteeism, New Ageism and general "fuzzy
thinking" regarding the subject. Dancing on the knife's edge can get
uncomfortable after a while.
Best regards to all,