[u.f.o.] have you seen one recently

Flashback to 1981 ... seen over Vancouver Island in British Columbia and made public by the British Ministry of Defence in 2006.

A group of former pilots have re-opened the U.F.O. Issue and are demanding the government stop sweeping it under the carpet:

"We want the US government to stop perpetuating the myth that all UFOs can be explained away in down-to-earth, conventional terms," said Fife Symington, former governor of Arizona and air force pilot who says he saw a UFO in 1997. "Instead our country needs to reopen its official investigation that it shut down in 1969," Symington said.

"We believe that for reasons of both national security and flight safety, every country should make an effort to identify any object in its airspace," said a statement from the 19 former pilots and government officials from around the world.

This blog's position is that it is neither here nor there if they actually do exist. The important thing is people's attitudes. To broaden this, various bloggers and I have been bringing news of Common Purpose doings and have been connecting dots.

Something like that, as with U.F.O.'s, is going to polarize opinion and the most annoying people are those at both ends:

* the blind believers who rush to judgement, fill their sites with garish colours and loudly proclaim in Capitals, vigorously underscored, that it is divine judgement and that you MUST believe. These people are pains because they add zero to the debate and encourage the other two types below;

* the blind deniers who automatically scoff, irrespective of evidence to the contrary and immediately utilize catch-phrases to label those putting the idea. These people are intensely annoying, often utilizing restrained site layouts and reasonable language to lull people into believing they've actually examined the issue;

* the joker who runs a cartoon or makes a little aside on the issue and he's just as bad as the scoffer because what he presents is a fait accompli, assuming that all sane people think it's a joke.

* the "eminently reasonable" who either don't bother to examine the evidence or flick through it in their rush-rush-rush way and then pronounce, in their wisdom, a most reasonable position: "Well, of course there might be some but many, of course, are just delusion or forgery." He may well be right but how the heck would he know? Is this not sheer lazy ignorance?

The people with whom we can do business are those in the centre, like these pilots, who ask questions, wonder why they are scoffed at or ignored and who detail, without the need to utilize adjectives, just what did happen, as far as they can see.

They might be scamming but then again they might not. They might be mistaken but then again, they might not. But they have to be allowed to tell their tale and if they fail to convince – well, at least we can put it in the “too hard” basket and remain agnostic about it.

This blog has a real problem with the four types detailed above because they act mindlessly and contribute zero or even less than zero – they offer disinformation. Perhaps that's their purpose or more charitably, perhaps they're too scared to face unpalatable possible truths. Then again, they may be disinterested or have no time.

Me – give me the thought out truth any time, however unpalatable, provided it can be supported dispassionately.

A 1952 photo of a purported UFO over Passaic, New Jersey, from an FBI document [courtesy Wiki].