This morning a friend recommended I interview a certain ufologist on The Experience whose work was influential to her. I won’t name him because this isn’t about singling anyone out, it’s about the whole rotten mess.
I cannot in good conscience invite him on, for he has given a glowing blurb to David Jacobs’ new book on the back cover and anyone who supports Jacobs doesn’t care about these topics in any meaningful way. That is, anyone who supports his “work” and knows of the damning evidence that it is all nonsense. I checked out this guy’s presentation at a recent conference and I’m not certain he’s aware of Emma Woods, Brian Reed, or any of the recordings that in any legitimate field of study would have Jacobs run out of it. And so, this brings me to another glaring issue with ufology:
Can you be a good ufologist if you never reexamine your own evidence through time?
This man’s presentation is not unique but the standard in ufology in that it groups together evidence from the 1940s on up to present day. Some of the cases have been debunked; some not. Is this acceptable? Are we to pretend we’ve learned nothing since the 40s about things like photography, hypnosis, and witness testimony? Are we to never look for the solution to a case and find an Emma Woods website, discover Carol Rainey, or contemplate George Hansen?
The intriguing thing to me about this subculture study begging to be taken seriously by the main is that it is so outdated. It’s counterintuitive that the PhD putting it all on the line with career and being made a laughing stock to prove that this elusive thing is real would be satisfied with a mixture of debunked data and not debunked, but so old that we can’t do much with it except hold it up and go, “See?” It smacks of a type of laziness that you don’t know you’re practicing until someone points it out–the type that occurs when time becomes a blur because you’ve been able to cite the same several cases over and over again to applause and now ten years has gone by, twenty years, and you never noticed. You don’t realize that the photo in your hand, which still feels fresh to you, is from 25 years ago (and perhaps debunked) because you hold it up with the same energy, the same vigor you did 25 years ago. This, because you’re up against the same wall of mainstream denial from 25 years ago and garnering the same amount of applause for your bravery in putting these clues together to form the picture of this reality denied by all but the free thinkers in the room.
Except you’re trapped.
There is no free-thinking in that at all. You’re trapped in time like a ghost: all manic energy and no substance. When you let your excitement get the best of you, your passion run wild, and your sense of elitism take over, it’s easy to forget that the alien abduction case you’re hot about right now was alleged to have occurred in the 1980s and has recently been shown to probably have never happened.
So which is it we are supposed to be enamored with: your energetic display of certainty about the reality of something or the evidence for it? If it’s the evidence, you’d better be darned sure that what you present is still relevant.
And when you allow your name and quote to be used to promote another completely and legitimately debunked researcher, it would behoove you to google search what he has been up to these past few decades just in case the person you befriended and were intrigued with in the 80s isn’t the same person you’re helping out now.