Copyright 2022, InterAmerica, Inc.
There are myriad ways to study or be interested in UFOs,
without using the tainted sobriquet Ufology.
But the phenomenon is not categorized in any of those myriad
ways, not formally anyway.
For example, Robert Hastings is heavily connected to the idea
that UFOs reconnoiter military nuclear facilities, and that’s their primary
purpose for being here, but he’s wrong.
Preston Dennett (and many others) are absorbed with the
hysteria of alien [ET] abductions of humans (and animals) and that’s their
purpose for being here, but he (along with his fellow-travelers) is also wrong.
Isaac Koi and Jan Aldrich are wrapped into collecting UFO
biblio- graphy. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just worthless (or has been).
Albert Rosales gathers the fairy-tale-like incidents
reported by alleged participants to UFO humanoid encounters. That’s not wrong
either, and could prove worthy of study in some way.
John Greenewald is fascinated with how the U.S. and other
governments interact with citizens when it comes to UFOs. Interesting in its
own way.
Tony Bragalia (and a few Roswell-absorbed enthusiasts)
remain seduced by the 1947 incident, but that avenue to UFOs is a thing unto
itself with little going forward about the matter.
The Ancient Alien habitués are a parcel of von Däniken
groupies (fanboys) who are deluded by their own concocted theories. They aren’t
bad people just mentally flummoxed.
Then there are the hordes of UFO extraterrestrial believers
who deny the physical limitations to visitations by cosmic visitors. They
congregate about that possibility, which isn’t probable but has some element of
sense about it.
And there are other, obtuse categories. (Leave your
favorites in a comment.)
For me, the phenomenon is almost too odd to comprehend. UFOs
could be AI constructs or “piloted” by AI technology, some even hovering over
Bob Hasting’s nuclear installations thinking all the ingenious instrumentations
therein are AI brethren.
Bob Lazar’s bizarre tales of back-engineered ET craft found
and studied by U.S, militaries misses the point, if it were true. A military
purpose for UFOs would be a monumental blind-spot. UFOs as weapons is a travesty
of thought, a perversion of thinking that is profound in its idiocy.
The astropaleontology or astrosociology inherent in the UFO
essence – no matter their source or venue of creation — replaces all other
considerations of the murky phenomenon.
Who or what formulated UFOs? To what purpose? What is their
agenda if there is one?
What cultural milieu, if any, encrusts that which controls
(flies or submerses) UFOs?
What derives the insinuation that UFOs are under thinking
control? What is the nature of that thinking?
Is technology or engineering germane or subsidiary to UFOs?
Or is the phenomenon beyond human scrutiny, to the point
that understanding the phenomenon is vastly greater than our human capacity to
comprehend it?
UFOs are more than a template for advanced military
hardware. And UFOs have to be more than vehicles transporting pirates and
kidnappers to bedrooms or out of-the-way travelers.
UFOs are a harbinger or means to an end….one that continues
to elude us, who find the things worthy of study or fascination, yes?
RR
