Ufological Crybabies: So Very Sensitive, Adverse to Criticism.

Greetings. Open, candid, and honest criticism. 

"The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."

Salman Rushdie.

In my experience, many a UFO "researcher" is highly uncomfortable with any sort of criticism, even when it takes a constructive form. Some will pushback energetically against such commentary directly, displaying some testicular capability in the process, while the majority sit back and allow their followers to defend them, engaging in name-calling, personal attacks, and childish behaviors all along the way. 

A few long weeks ago, I wrote a lengthy article that focused on one particular question: Has Peter Robbins accomplished anything of scientific substance in his decades of involvement in the UFO subculture? After a time, Mr. Robbins ended up sharing the article on his personal account on Facebook, whereupon his friends and supporters promptly began to attack, comment, and make false accusations. Not a single individual actually attempted to answer the question of the article, instead choosing to unleash a long stream of colorful names and statements, some accurate in form, some inaccurate and void of anything that could be construed as evidence. To my skeptical way of thinking, that spoke volumes on many levels:

1. Mr. Robbins never reached out to me directly to address the article and his problems with it; no email, no message, no phone call, and he has still not done so. Seems he does not have the balls for a direct discussion. An empty ball sack, not very high off the ground.

2. Not a single one of Mr. Robbins' Facebook friends or supporters bothered to demonstrate that my article was off-target or erroneous. Someone, anyone, could have provided documented evidence of a scientific accomplishment by Mr. Robbins to make me eat some ufological crow, but alas, that did not transpire. 

3. Nobody has taken the time to write a responding article; to clear the air, to correct the record (if necessary,) or to simply criticize yours truly in kind. Nothing of the sort has happened, which is unfortunate, for it would show that someone out there has some testicles, and the internal backbone to respond to my articles. I would greatly enjoy the opportunity to read such a piece, and share it, but no dice.

The entire aforementioned episode is part and parcel of what usually happens in the UFO arena, with most being far too sensitive to criticism, and even more allowing their faithful followers to respond, only occasionally directly engaging with the initiator of the intellectual confrontation. There are some notable exceptions to the rule, people who responded to an article of mine with spirited and straightforward thoughts and opinions; Rich Giordano, Dave Scott, Daniel Alan Jones, and a few others, and I respect them for their communicative efforts. However, most stay eerily silent, the Rich Hoffmans of the ufological wilderness, seemingly not interested, or even capable, of engaging in a productive course of action, a deliberation which may actually move the needle forward for all parties involved. 

I have had the privilege of debating the UFO problem with many people, quite a number of which I disliked on a personal level, but my own feelings were, and continue to be, of no real importance, for all discussions should be candid, measured, and strictly professional affairs. 

If we cannot converse unreservedly about the issues at play, we have no hope of advancing our collective knowledge. No hope whatsoever. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.