Ufos The Regression

There is no going forward for the UFO crowd. They, almost all, are locked into the past, re-reviewing the sightings of previous years, and virtually ignoring the sightings - although admittedly few - of today [2008].

Shackled to Roswell and every other flying saucer/UFO event thereafter has gotten investigators of the phenomenon nowhere,

Looking back at Roswell but overlooking the lack of photographs by the local newspaper and area residents of the debris remnants, the debris field, or anything else that was supposedly in the hands of many "witnesses" is a gaffe that shows how inept the investigation of Roswell has been.

Yet, to keep ruminating about the 1947 event is worse than futile; it borders on an obsessive-compulsive malady that could be labeled "insane."

Roswell is a dead issue. Trying to revive it, again and again, takes time and effort away from a legitimate examination of UFOs that appear, occasionally, in today's skies.

(Crashed "saucers" are pass'e anyway. Apparently, the UFO makers have perfected their "craft.")

And rehashing the Phoenix Lights, for example, is a silly enterprise. Nothing more can be culled from the observations that have been examined ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad nauseam.

All UFO events of the past, as we keep suggesting, present nothing than has helped or can help explain the UFO phenomenon.

The proof is in the pudding: no person is nearer to a UFO solution than they were in 1947, and this after a literal mountain of "evidence" and accumulated data.

The problem, though, lies in the attempted emulation by flying saucer buffs to emulate science, which started when the study of the phenomenon was given the sobriquet "ufology."

(Handwriting analysis tried to credential itself similarly by tagging its efforts as "graphology" and "grapho-analysis.")

Giving a name to a hobby doesn't make it a science, and ufology is not science. It's not even a discipline, as one knows from the discursive ramblings, including our own, about the subject matter.

But to carry the pretense forward, ufologists hark back to the past, feigning an archeological attempt at resolving the UFO enigma.

This is why flying disk sightings and/or landings are studied with a feeble fine-tooth comb.

The effort(s) pretend to be scientific.

But pretense doesn't provide truth, and the truth is that UFOs are still a mystery, will remain a mystery, until a bona fide methodology is adopted, by persons who are not neurotically attached to the UFO histories.

Regression might be fine for psychoanalysis, but in the case of UFOs, regression has been and is self-defeating.

After all, as our compatriots at the UFO Iconoclast(s) put it recently, "there has not been one explanation for true UFOs."

There is no smoking gun within previous UFO episodes, not even a warm bullet...

Origin: dark-sky-misteries.blogspot.com