After I listened to the last episode of The Paracast, I was, I guess you could say, disappointed. I know many people (including Mr. Biedny) would like to think of the dying field of UFOlogy as a valid topic for discussion, but quite frankly, I think that those who share this opinion may be falling victim to their own criticism. It’s true, what they say, UFOlogy has seen better days, but to think that “complaining” about will make any amount of difference is just simply not acceptable to me.
Frank Warren recently posted his thoughts on the subject, and I agree with him:
Content from external source:
Along with many of my colleagues, I routinely make the trek over to the Paracast to listen to the latest guest of interest (to me); recently the one closest to the top of the “archives” that met that criteria was author, “Rich Dolan.”
As usual I clicked on the link to start the podcast; was finishing some writing chores simultaneously, got about two minutes into the program, quickly paused it, then restarted it from the beginning; again, I got about two minutes into the program, stopped it, and started over again; about that time, the phone rang, and I wasn’t able to finish listening, and still haven’t as of yet.
The reason I repeated the first two minutes of Dolan’s interview, is because he articulated some of the most accurate, portentous and perceptive analysis of Ufology that I have heard in a long time, if ever!
David Biedny began the interview recalling previous discourse and reiterating his notion about the “terrible state of Ufology,” and the need for a restructuring; to that Dolan replied, “What is the structure . . . I really don’t perceive much of a structure.”
No truer words have ever been said in my view; pundits often criticize what they deem to be Ufology, and or it’s condition, good or bad, but what are they really impugning? They’re condemning the “state of Ufology” when they should be asking, “Where is the state located?
Barring individual research and study, and some small organizations, e.g., MUFON to name one, as Dolan correctly points out—“there is no structure!”
There are many “individuals” past and present who are more “visible” (and vocal to which I am one) via public speaking, and or that participate in various media venues, i.e., “TV interviews,” symposiums and conventions etc.; however, although these folks are the most prominent, this doesn’t mean that their respective ideologies are the “central theme” of Ufology.
Quite frankly it’s impracticable to criticize the “state of Ufology” as given the fact that a “governed body” doesn’t exist, one can’t offer a cure for an ailment to a patient that one can’t find!
Consequently, condemnation or praise for that matter (of Ufology) should be as individualistic as the field is at present; or, perhaps rather then criticize the “periphery of the problem” why not address the gist of it—that is the lack of any type of consortium period!
If the rest of the interview with Dolan is as worthy as the first two minutes, then I highly recommend a visit to the Paracast to check out the rest of the exchange.
P a r a n o r m a l » N e w s l i n k 