i guess controversy is what builds up the posts on a thread, but maybe this is indicative of where Ufology is at? i don't find C. Rutkowski circumspect or dispassionate. all Canadians are passionate. that ATP episode brought up some interesting discussion points. but what is interesting about Rutkowski is that he is truly a representative of the field of science and he is ruling out, and critical of, the speculative. to me that's sensible and is the meaningful direction for Ufology to follow. collect data, investigate, analyse and share.
if anything Rutkowski is so low key, and perhaps his stature goes unrecognized, but he's really covered a lot of territory very seriously for many years and the ideas should be listened to and promoted a little more methinks. for example he's done the work with abductees and he spells it out clearly as all other reasonable Ufologists have: these are people who have lived through trauma and need clinical help. it's not the space for the Ufologist to explore when it involves sexual assault and suicide. again we see shades of Emma Woods and the Jacobs affair. so if the field is to be advanced which directions are the ones to follow and chase down and which belong to pop culture?
should we really give too much or any speculative time to nuclear wars on mars, wars on the moon, off planet officers or, as what Chris O'Brien suggests on ATP, and as Rutkowski has when he examines the high strange elements in his own work, that consciousness studies is what we need to turn to. speculation puts the cart before the horse. there is a unique phenomenon that we are interacting with, or believe that we are, and we need to understand how that works. if there is that one case of actual abduction, that one in a 2,000 year possibility that Rutkowski, or Sagan, might suggest then certainly we need to spend time with that case. and then with all the other cases, we really need to study those people, to understand a little better what their sensory system experienced, how their processing works and what their history is, and explore what correlations we can discover in nature, or come to an understanding about.
Rutkowski asks very probing questions in his own work with some really exceptional case studies and conclusions that he has made. This was summarised a little too abruptly on this show. If you sacrificed the pop-culture conversation you could have got a lot more convincing and informative material out of this guy. He's got to be one of the top figures in the field but not by popularity's estimate which is really sad.
Ever hear something and your brain prepares it three ways?:
