Ladies and gentlemen, the voting is now closed, the results have been tabulated, and the first five members of The Other Side of Truth's UFO Hall of Fame and UFO Hall of Shame have been chosen by you, the readers. They are:
UFO Hall of Fame
Dr. J. Allen Hynek
Dr. Jacques Vallee
Stanton T. Friedman
Major Donald Keyhoe
Dr. James McDonald
You can view the final Hall of Fame poll results here.
UFO Hall of Shame
Billy Meier
Philip J. Klass
Dr. Steven Greer
Dr. Edward U. Condon
Marshall Applewhite
You can view the final Hall of Shame poll results here.
I can't argue with any of the choices for the initial inductees in either Hall - all are deserving, for reasons that I will elaborate on in a future post. For now, however, thanks to everyone who voted - and see you again next year when the polling for the class of 2008 begins.
Paul Kimball
7 comments:
I'm in general agreement. Hynek and Vallee definitely deserve to be there, as does Condon.
But although Applewhite was a loon, I'm not sure he did that much damage to UFO research. But I could be wrong.
I think at the time maybe not Applewhite himself, but others that were lying about the companion to Hale Bopp did some damage. Really I don't think any of those people on the list cause lasting damage to ufo research. Many of them I find an entertaining break from the very serious research types. Even Klass was entertaining when he got all red faced and bitchy.
I don't know, I think I look at Ufology much differently than many other people do. I understand those who want it to be so very serious and factual, but I would find that very boring. I enjoy thinking about the far out theories that don't have a shred of evidence.
Lesley:
I guess that's the difference between you and I - I do take it seriously, and think science should as well. Otherwise, what's the point? What would separate the study of UFOs from watching the Jerry Springer show, if all that mattered was whether it was entertaining or not? Every time someone like Linda Moulton Howe, or Steven Greer, opens their mouth, as entertaining as it may be (and I'm the first to admit that Greer is entertaining, in a performance art kind of way), any hope of getting people who could actually do so something about UFOs (i.e. trying to figure out what they represent) gets further and further away.
Best regards,
Paul
Don't get me wrong, I believe UFOs deserve serious study too. I just don't believe it all has to be serious. I also believe that most people who are truly interested in the subject know the difference between serious research and fringe theories, so I don't believe any of the fringe people actually harm the study of ufos. I know that a lot of people like to blame that element for causing scientists to not become involved in the subject, but I think it is more likely due to lack of money for research.
Lesley:
Believe me, I enjoy the entertaining side of ufology (and ufoology) as well. The problem for me comes when people try to mix that with the serious side, which almost always comes at the serious side's expense.
Paul
does Donald Keyhoe really belong on the list of HoF inductees? I just finished my first Keyhoe book, The Flying Saucer Conspiracy, and I can't believe anyone ever took the guy seriously, even in 1955.
I'm not sure what the proper name for Keyhoe's "literary device" is, but every conversation is recounted as if he had a tape recorder on him the entire time. He obviously "reconstructed" most of these conversations, which makes me wonder what else he "reconstructed" or even "made up" to make for a more exciting read.
It seems like he was primarily an author seeking to entertain his readers rather than a serious UFO researcher.
Aaron:
You don't like Keyhoe's literary style, and that makes you to think he could be a liar.
Then you go easily from "reconstruct" to "make-up".
Why don't you first research Keyhoe's life, read more than one of his five books, check some of his confirmable statements, and finally make a little more solid proclamations?
Post a Comment