Activity

DJ has presented a lot of material and the recent critiques of cultish and self-referential trends in the “frontier” reseach milieu have ruffled feathers. In any case, I still think that the contents of what people say – even real or imagined “whistleblowers” – is more the issue than those people’s bio. But there is a proverb that says that lies have short legs. So in the field in question, while long term “outer limits” information shows consistency over decades, the propaganda machine has to come out with an unending flow of new, unsupported revelations to gloss over past inconsistencies. Whereas honest researchers set out the goals and limitations of investigation, and if a genuinely new piece of information comes out, validated on the basis of a reasonable set of corroborations, the researcher can bring it into the scenario he is creating. On the other hand, there is a long history of “UFO myths” narrated by story-tellers from Adamski on. A summary glance at the web debate shows that even quite intelligent, young researchers seem to be unable to grasp the difference between investigation and the adherence to a mythology. This is not to say that there is a dichotomy between cold, beta brainwave type mindset and dynamic delta-theta brainwave type intuitive genius – all the best mythmakers exploit the latter, but on the basis of their own agenda and not necessarily of defining the “truth” – as far as “truth” can actually be defined in our quantum space.