Well, by now some of you may be aware that I have had an epiphany of sorts of just yesterday, regarding the woeful state of alternative research and its "community". What started out as an attempt to bring some sanity and analysis into the whole Comet Elenin matter became...what? Well, for one thing, introductions are supposed to be, well, introductions, not endless excursions through the tulips of nine-terraced pyramids at Tikal, which are by a process of reasoning that remain obscure to me, each examples of evolution at the biological, political, social, and cosmic scales, then from there into resonance effects and a deluge of numbers and calculations barely visible on my screen, to something about brown dwarf stars, Zechariah Sitchin, and how hydrogen bombs cause resonance effects.
Having trouble following all that? Well, if so, join the club.
What I'm referring to is a video conference I was asked to participate in the other day. Now, mind you, I don't begrudge the invitation, but what gave me increasingly stupefied pause as I listened to most of the other speakers was how far afield they ranged from the actual topic of discussion, which was supposed to be the Comet Elenin and all the media-internet hype associated with it. As I listened to the other speakers, I kept thinking to myself "Why am I here? What has any of my research to do with this?"
Again, what was supposed to be a kind of analytical stage to parse various scenarios became a jarring Picasso-esque experiment in video cubism, with so many dissonant perspectives that what emerged was a clanging confusion and no real analysis at all, and certainly no picture(s), at least, not any I felt really comfortable in identifying with. In fact, to refer to it as a kind of video cubism is to do an injustice to Picasso, for even his paintings retain some semblance of the objective and order. What this was turned out to be more like a video experiment cousin to Jackson Pollock. There was little moderation of any effective sort, no attempt to blend a good mix of panelists with their backgrounds. And on questions that I had little or no interest (or even knowledge), it was of course at that juncture the moderator asked me for commentary...
... Frankly, I sat there, stunned... unable to form a clear thought because there was - with a couple of exceptions - so little of it taking place. It reinforced, however, my conviction that the video and audio media are, for the most part, incapable of communicating detail that is best communicated in books, and that the alternative community is less about research than it is about agendas and divas each singing to a different libretto. To say that I was frustrated with the whole course of events would be to put it very mildly. The relaxed atmosphere of radio, an extended conversation, I do not mind, but I shall be more mindful in the future of conferences and so on, if only to avoid the impression of endorsing ideas I do not endorse. Only one other panelist took care to state that when one is trying to "read the tea leaves," or proposing a scenario, that one isn't holding it as some sort of dogma. I tried to inject, initially, some sanity into the proceedings but realized it was a lost cause. So....never again!
One person put it to me best, referring to the interview my co-author on Grid of the Gods, Dr. Scott D. deHart's eleven-year-old son Bennett, did with me as the talking rubber ball Mike Flanchered, and which I posted elsewhere on this site: Mike Flanchered did a better interview, was more to the point, and took far less time to do it, than did this experience. I agree.