The UFO Police

For 3,5 years now I've been a member of the Paracast forum which of course is related to the internet radio show the Paracast with hosts Gene Steinberg and David Biedney. The hosts themselves have done marvellous work with their paranormal talk show which can be downloaded for free. I don't have many remarks to make about the show itself, both Steinberg and Biedney are excellent interviewers and keep their listeners captivated. David Biedney does have a temper which shows itself on rare occasions, but don't we all to some degree? My remarks here are more directed at the Paracast forum which in my opinion changed over time from a 'everything is up for discussion' to a situation where a group of posters more or less police information regarding the UFO phenomena.

On a forum you'll always have people from all walks of life and with different opinions. That's only natural. It's also natural to disagree with other contributors on a forum, that's what it's for in the first place. A forum is a meeting place for the discussion of questions for public interest. That's straight out of the dictionary. A forum becomes something else when certain types of information are immediately rejected by a group of posters holding similar views.
It's one thing to be critical, it's another thing to be mindlessly critical. The latter meaning that you already have an automated response to certain issues without thoroughly examining what the issue is about or what the other party is really saying. And this is what has been happening on the Paracast forum for quite some time now, in my opinion. When I forward a UFO report related to a case and all I get in return is " I gotta puke", that's hardly a rational discussion.

The group of members I'm referring to also plays the credibility angle in great frequency. UFO researchers rather quickly receive a label 'credible' or 'not credible'. I suppose that's also a natural thing to do since ufology isn't an exact science. Naturally researchers who publish similar views to theirs receive the label 'credible' while others who go off the reservation are 'not credible.' To solidify the (precomposed?) position that some researchers are 'not credible' something negative has to be found on them that will stick. When they make a mistake, that's something you can use to one's hearts content.
The duplicity here is what kind of mistake has been made, (if any). Is it an honest mistake, a serious mistake or a mistake intended to deceive? From my perspective that's not really an issue when it comes to folks labeling UFO researchers 'not credible.' For them it's a matter of moving forward with their opinion while not examining or questioning it. Often no attention is given to the good work some of the 'not credible' researchers have done. When you're really objective you weigh the positive against the negative. More importantly, aren't people allowed to make a mistake in the field of the unknown?

What's even more disturbing is that the credibility issue is taken to the next level. 'Guilty by association.' When researcher A who is credible, is (even remotely) connected to researcher B who is not credible, then that reflects badly on researcher A. Like researcher B is carrying a deadly contagious pathogen which has to be avoided at all costs. The connection between A and B can in fact be trivial, for example they can both attend the same UFO conference. That doesn't imply they agree with each others work. Yet the suggestion is made if A associates himself with B, then that will have bad consequences. Isn't that a kind of intellectual blackmail? Remember what we are talking about here. We are talking about ufologists here, not neo Nazis. Practically all things in ufology are theoretical and open to interpretation.

I fear that the Paracast forum will continue on its current polarising path, shutting out alternative ideas until a point of stagnation is reached. Having a determined group that basically acts like the UFO police will accomplish exactly that. Maybe that's also a natural process but that's one I don't want to take part in. In my opinion forums are there to learn from each other and hopefully we all get a little wiser at the end of the day. Maybe I'm an idealist stating that and for believing in freedom of speech. Maybe the bottom line is that we all (myself included) need to get a better understanding of that elusive concept - agree to disagree.