In this clip from an interview I conducted with the late Karl Pflock in September, 2001, for Stanton T. Friedman is Real, he talks about what's wrong with ufology.
Karl's untimely death earlier this year was a huge blow to the cause of the serious study of the UFO phenomenon, precisely because he was one of the small group of ufologists who understood (or understand) the "big picture", and what ufology needs to do if it ever wants to be taken seriously.
Karl and I had our disagreements, as friends always will, but on the topic he discusses here, we agreed one hundred per cent.
Paul Kimball
2 comments:
"Karl's untimely death earlier this year was a huge blow to the cause of the serious study of the UFO phenomenon, precisely because he was one of the small group of ufologists who understood (or understand) the "big picture", and what ufology needs to do if it ever wants to be taken seriously."
No kidding!
He certainly hits the nail on the proverbial head in this clip. The (my words) circus-like atmosphere that is being maintained by “main-stream UFology” can only be attributed to people encouraging the showman over the researcher.
Not that I would go the other extreme and suggest the entertainment portion of UFology be muzzled or repressed in some ways. The irrational portion of UFology has a place, simply it needs to know it’s place. The same way an actor might understand that he’s not really a doctor though he plays one on a TV show, some people in UFology would do well to stop taking themselves so seriously and understand that they don’t have a clue as to how the phenomena functions.
There’s nothing wrong with that, understanding that one doesn’t understand is the first stage of gaining knowledge, it’s the people who think they know exactly what’s going on—those are the ones to watch out for.
I got to get around to reviewing his and James’s book, “Shockingly Close to the Truth.” It was a very enjoyable read.
Odd:
The irrational portion of UFology has a place, simply it needs to know it’s place
I concur, so long as they're not taking advantage of people.
I liken it to religion - there are the serious scholars of Christianity, for example, and then there are the people who don't give a hoot about academic research and criticism, they just believe. There's a place for each, but there will always be conflict between the two.
Paul
Post a Comment