bonaventura
Skilled Investigator
I've been following the unusual and esoteric for a very long time. There's a certain cyclical pattern to my interest; sometimes it's almost obsessive, or at least a tar pit of procrastination, other times, it's just taking a passing glance. But these days, I feel as uninterested, almost impatient with apparitions, UFOs, bigfoot, genies, precognition, telepathy, mediums, and so on.
Everything I'm reading about now, I've read countless times before. It's not just that there's no resolution in sight for many of these things; it's the tedium, the lack of any really interesting new happenings, the constant recycling of the same evidence, the same arguments, and the same refutations. It's a paranormal Groundhog Day.
I suppose I ought to confess that my interest in these topics was never that of a dewy-eyed believer nor that of an "investigator" (the scare quotes aren't for Chris, needless to say) nor that of a skeptic crying, "Ecrassez l'infame." I'm just a member of the reading, listening, and viewing public who likes to stretch his imagination and his presuppositions from time to time, and has gained endless hours of innocent merriment following the antics of the fringier folks in the field. But now I spend most of my time looking back (which is why I love all the shows with Jim Moseley) at follies past, with a perverse satisfaction in the occasional Source A or Imbrogno imbroglio. Even Alfred Webre ceases to charm.
So, is it the field, or is it just me? What should I be looking at to get the old fires burning?
Everything I'm reading about now, I've read countless times before. It's not just that there's no resolution in sight for many of these things; it's the tedium, the lack of any really interesting new happenings, the constant recycling of the same evidence, the same arguments, and the same refutations. It's a paranormal Groundhog Day.
I suppose I ought to confess that my interest in these topics was never that of a dewy-eyed believer nor that of an "investigator" (the scare quotes aren't for Chris, needless to say) nor that of a skeptic crying, "Ecrassez l'infame." I'm just a member of the reading, listening, and viewing public who likes to stretch his imagination and his presuppositions from time to time, and has gained endless hours of innocent merriment following the antics of the fringier folks in the field. But now I spend most of my time looking back (which is why I love all the shows with Jim Moseley) at follies past, with a perverse satisfaction in the occasional Source A or Imbrogno imbroglio. Even Alfred Webre ceases to charm.
So, is it the field, or is it just me? What should I be looking at to get the old fires burning?