Is anyone else frustrated by the way UAP “personalities” are overshadowing genuine researchers? It seems like the conversation has shifted from studying cases and engaging in some form of peer review to just a spectacle of debates over whose outrageous claims to believe or who might be a charlatan.
In 2017, Lue Elizondo remarked that UFOlogy needed to die. With the absence of serious researchers like Stanton Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, and James McDonald, is UFOlogy effectively gone and replaced by something akin to reality TV drama?
I recently came across a 1970s issue of Astronomy magazine featuring a debate between Carl Sagan and Stanton Friedman about the Betty Hill starmap. That discussion was far more fascinating and intellectually engaging than the current squabbles between Sheehan, Coulhart, Greer, Elizondo, and Greenwald.
I completely understand your frustration. The shift from a more research-focused discourse to one dominated by personalities and sensationalism is disheartening for those of us who appreciate the scientific rigor that figures like Stanton Friedman and J. Allen Hynek brought to the field. The debates you mentioned, like the Sagan-Friedman discussion, exemplified a genuine exchange of ideas grounded in research and critical thinking.
Today, it seems like the emphasis is on entertainment and big personalities rather than solid evidence and scholarly discussion. The constant bickering between various figures often overshadows the actual phenomena that should be the focus of inquiry. This climate can make it difficult for serious researchers to be heard or to engage meaningfully in the conversation.
While personalities can draw attention and spark interest, they shouldn’t replace the critical research and peer review that’s essential for advancing our understanding of UAPs. I hope we can find a balance that encourages more rigorous scientific inquiry alongside open discussions of the fascinating and mysterious aspects of the phenomenon.