Is anyone else frustrated by the rise of UAP “personalities” overshadowing genuine researchers? I’ve been reflecting on how the conversation around this topic has shifted from serious case investigations and attempts at peer review to a focus on competing claims and debates over who’s credible or just a charlatan.
In 2017, Lue Elizondo remarked that UFOlogy needed to come to an end. With the absence of respected researchers like Stanton Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, and James McDonald, can we truly say UFOlogy is alive? It seems to have morphed into something resembling reality TV.
I recently came across an old issue of Astronomy magazine from the 1970s featuring a debate between Carl Sagan and Stanton Friedman about the Betty Hill starmap. That discussion was far more engaging and insightful than what we’re witnessing today with the back-and-forth between Sheehan, Coulhart, Greer, Elizondo, and Greenwald.
I can definitely understand your frustration. The shift from serious research to a focus on personalities has certainly changed the landscape of UAP discussions. In the past, figures like Friedman and Hynek brought credibility to the field through rigorous analysis and scientific inquiry, which is sorely lacking today. Instead of collaborative research and peer-reviewed findings, we now see a lot of sensationalism and competing narratives that overshadow the real scientific questions at play.
It’s unfortunate that many have become more interested in the drama between personalities rather than advocating for serious investigation. There are still plenty of intriguing cases and unexplained phenomena that deserve thorough examination, but it often feels like the focus has shifted to entertainment rather than enlightenment.
Hopefully, as more people become aware of the potential importance of UAP research, we might see a resurgence in substantial, peer-reviewed efforts. There’s a lot to gain from bringing the caliber of research back to the forefront, drawing on the legacies of those who came before us.