UFO Watchdog is now in the hands of the hosts of the Paracast moderators. They’ve redone the site and added new inductees into the “fame” and “shame” categories.
For the most part, when UFO Watchdog was run by Royce Meyers, liars and hoaxers were in the Hall of Shame. Now however, it’s difficult to understand the reasoning behind some of the inductees into the shame division.
For example, the new managers of UFO Watchdog have dumped Dr. Lynne Kitei into the Hall of Shame. UFO Watchdog explains why:
So what is she doing here? Well, it's a bit complex. First of all, the Phoenix Lights themselves weren't her first sighting. It all started in 1995 when she and her husband saw three orbs near their home. They were oval shaped and three to six feet in diameter. They were soothing and mesmerizing and Dr. Lynne felt there was an intelligent presence staring back. So when the Phoenix Lights happened a couple of years later, Dr. Lynne felt that she brought them, that they were there because of her. She says witnesses felt "real time and long term transformations of consciousness" and that "mass consciousness of Phoenix" shifted as a result. In fact, people reported telepathic contact with the space beings who told them they had nothing to fear and that they meant no harm.
The phrasing is curious: “first of all,” as if they’re accusing her of something. Many UFO witnesses have had multiple sightings, myself included. Often sightings and encounters go back to childhood. Why Kitei’s previous sighting put her into a category of shame is not clear. Okay, so Lynne Ketei is on the woo side. That’s her experience, her thoughts. Unless she’s lying, or hoaxing, dumping her into a dungeon of UFO shame is just exercising personal opinion.
I will say however that the telepathic contact with UFOs is something that is often reported by witnesses, including myself. Whatever that intelligence is, is another story. Personal interpretations, beware. But the fact of some kind of telepathic communication is there. Too bad if this data offends; do we ignore it because it seems “woo?” How is that honest?
I suspect that Lynne Ketei (often referred to as “Dr. Lynne” which seems a bit patronizing) is in the dungeon of shame because of her relationship with Stephen Greer:
As a result of all this Dr. Lynne quit her job and basically enlisted in the Disclosure Movement. She was a featured speaker in Steven Greer's Contact: Countdown to Transformation, a "a special conference under the stars to celebrate and make ET contact."
I don’t waste my time on Disclosure -- I think it’s naive and a waste of time -- but at the same time, there is something positive about being a squeaky wheel. If cries for disclosure get some people to wake up a little, or make them nervous, that's a good thing. Those new to the UFO realm/arena/circus/carnival/-ology/field, listening to the material disclosure people have put together for the first time, like Greer’s clips of witnesses, might get some people to begin their own investigations. Greer veered off the track a long time ago -- I mean, no one should ever dare say with such (or any) authority that there are “500 hundred types of aliens watching earth” (paraphrased) as I heard him say when he came to Eugene several years ago. (He also seemed pretty full of himself, really kind of a pompous twit in some ways.) The latter is just personal opinion however.
It seems “Dr. Lynne’s” inclusion in the bad bin is based on her woo-ness, not on her honesty:
She has also joined up with Rebecca Hardcastle, an expert in "exoconsciousness," which is is "dedicated to exploring the extraterrestrial dimensions of human consciousness that link us directly to the cosmos and its inhabitants. Exoconsciousness is committed to preparation for peaceful co-existence and communication with extraterrestrial communities." advocating a National Department of Extraterrestrial Alliances.
I think much of Ketei’s take on things is kind of silly myself but so what? That’s purely my subjective opinion based on my own biases towards things like disclosure and the gooey warm love fest about aliens a lot of disclosure and exo-politics people have. There are worse things, far worse things, and more important things, in UFOlogy than this to address.
How do these new would be UFO Police know Ketei is not telling the truth? Maybe her experience is just as she says it is. We don’t know. Is there proof available that she’s lying? If not, it seems harsh to include her in this category. And it doesn’t serve research well at all, for, as I said, many UFO witnesses -- again, myself included -- have had numerous sightings (me), have had them since childhood (me), have had telepathic communications with UFOs (or the intelligences behind them) (me) -- do we just call people like this “woo” and mock them, shoving them into a silly “Hall of Shame” category, or do we authentically explore their experiences?
Visit The Orange Orb
http://orangeorb.blogspot.com
5 comments:
I worry I should keep my mouth shut.
Nothing I say can be backed up. And my story is as woo-woo as it can get.
Alas - If someone wants to mock me, I am an easy target.
I think that the HALL OF SHAME is a pet project of an individual, and not a team of open-minded researchers.
Thank you for posting this. I wonder if "woo"-ness has something to do with the feminine experience of paranormal phenomena. Or, from another perspective, perhaps "woo"-ness is a right-brain interpretation. I.e., a more creative, multi-modal view (as opposed to mechanical / linear). Just throwing some thoughts out here...
In any case, it confounds me as to why there are some who feel such a strong need to "police" this field? I understand the desire to expose obvious charlatans, but I wonder if policing might be a subconscious attempt to introduce order onto a topic that defies order - in other words, perhaps a "woo" perspective is necessary (for some cases anyway)...? Perhaps a creative right-brain view is what is needed.
I'm just rambling here...
Until any line of inquiry starts to show some sort of promise, none should be tossed out. Ms. Kitei's Woo Factor is no exception. This type of arbitrary categorization is once again, sadly symptomatic of the inherently personality driven field of Paranormal Investigation. Someone finds a nugget or angle and do they share it for Peer Review or Discussion? Nope. They hoard it and retain a publisher whereupon you can get an inkling of their nugget of superfluous info spread out over the course of 7 books. Personality driven research = greed seemingly. It's funny. Nobody is making any money in this field yet you would think that the Paranormal Realm is a friggin' Motherlode waiting to be found, tapped and gotten rich off of. Terrible. Folks like Colin Andrews, Jacques Vallee and Christopher O'Brien are the true heroes in this wacko-filled, ego-oriented, thankless realm. I look forward to hearing Colin speak in McMinnville, Oregon this May!
Cheers,
Erik
Erik, I have HUGE problems with others deciding there is a "peer review" -- who are these peers, where's this review? I missed the memos.
Ketei might be a bit, or even a lot, full of herself, see herself as something of a UFO guru, and any woo factor is purely subjective. That doesn't mean her experiences aren't real, or that she isn't telling the truth. Not everyone is academically minded, goes the route of the Vallee and Andrews and O'Briens and etc. Something profound for her happened and she's off sharing it with others. She didn't hoard anything (as far as we know)she put it in a book. If she made some money from that, good for her. If she's a liar and she made money off that, bad for us who bought her book, we were duped, good for her, the lying bitch. But we don't KNOW. Deciding you do based on subjective reactions due to personal levels of woo intolerance is also ego-oriented.
The UFO world has always functioned with all its parts that are impossible to disconnect from each other. You have the circus with the serious and everything in between. Some say that's one manifestation of the Trickster personality inherent in UFOlogy.
As I said in the piece, let people think for themselves. I find it FAR more dangerous to have self-styled Controllers of the UFO Information running around telling others who's in, who's out, who's nuts, who isn't, etc. -- and all of it based only on personal opinions of why that is -- than a woo-ish individual who wrote a book about her anomalous experiences.
In all of this we're forgetting that the esoteric world isn't just for the few; maybe someone who doesn't even have a computer and who doesn't know a thing about UFO stuff, especially those writers, pundits, researchers etc. who take themselves soooooooooooo damn seriously, had something weird happen to them but never told anyone. They see a book like Ketei's and read it and they find a lot of hope in that, a lot of similar experiences, etc.
Yes, I'm looking forward to both Andrews and Walton, and the beer! at McMinnville. I hope we can meet up there Erik.
The Beer!
I think I must have come across as a snobbish asshat in my last comment. I'm saying the same thing as you! The Peer Group is everyone and the Review is done by the same openly and shared although I put the seemingly inevitable "book deal" in a cynical tone, you can't blame me. Although it was snarky. I'm guilty of finding this seemingly greedy trait in some of the oldschool type researchers such as Friedman (who is a great researcher btw. you just can't hear about his findings without getting the book) or worse, Corso who liked to bend things a bit.
I do not discount in any way Ms. Kitei's experience(s) nor do I put them in any kind of symantic or academic classification. The Paranormal isn't only for the intellectual. Not even by a longshot. Sorry about the snobby tone. Yikes!
On another note, a beer with Colin and Travis would be even better!
See you there,
Erik
Post a Comment