I ran across this interview of Randy Maugans by William Henry, courtesy of Facebook friend Patricia Howard that brought it to my attention:
I have to say, that I am entirely in agreement with their assessment. The last year saw the alternative research community - what Mr. Henry calls the "truth community" - taking high dives off the cliffs into belly-flopping hysteria. We were treated to endless hype and the so-called testimony of "whistleblowers" - who must always remain anonymous of course, with little by way of corroboration from other sources to back any of it up.
But we have to ask ourselves why this is happening? Why the tailspin into endless speculations and apocalyptic scenarios, including replays of Hale-Bopp with Elenin, the reliance upon science fiction novels as "analysis", the heavy dose of alleged "whistleblower" testimony, the construction of macro-scenarios of apocalyptic "grandeur"(or perhaps better put of apocalyptic grandiosity)?
In his questioning of Mr. Maugans, William Henry elicited the response that Mr Maugans was connecting dots that would indicate that some of this, at least, is deliberate, suggesting that the aim is really to cast a pall of suspicion over anyone researching in the field. This, is, indeed, what has happened. 2011 saw a move within this "community' (and I hesitate even using that word in connection with alternative research) away from research and analysis, and toward rampant speculation and scenario construction, "whistleblower" testimony, and...well... what I like to call the "diva" personality, i.e., the reliance upon a kind of "capital" built up over the years to promote speculation whose acceptance is based upon the stature or standing individuals have or had within the "community."
Speculation is, of course, the name of the game within this whole field, nothing would get done without it. But there is a great deal of difference between speculation based on research, documents, reasoned argument, and so on, and that based upon a diva's reputation and hysterics and histrionics, whistleblowers, alleged threats, marketing schemes in conjunction with said threats, anecdotes, and so on.
The bottom line, for me, is this, and I have said it often before: "research" based upon whistleblowers, channeling, science fiction novels or Hollywood movies, dubious "word analysis", and all the other claptrap that one so often hears, is not research. One cannot footnote a whistleblower, a channeled source, and so on. These things may, from time to time, shed interesting light on an argument, or even connect an interesting dot or two, but in the final analysis, there is no substitute for real documentable sources, for reasoned speculation and argument. Let's hope that 2012 brings some sanity back to the field.
Why is "whistleblower" testimony such a problem? Well, as I pointed out in Saucers, Swastikas, and Psyops, and as Dr. de Hart and I observed in Yahweh the Two-Faced God, such testimony is inevitably religious in its structure, it is a kind of "special revelation" in the face of which one is forced by the nature of the case to become either a "believer" or a "skeptic". The net effect of those relying upon such cases or indeed promoting it and pandering to it, is to transform the whole field into yet another form of "revealed religion", sans the deities, whose roles are replaced by the "divas" doing the singing of the aria.
As for Mr. Henry and Mr. Maugans, three cheers, guys, for having the guts and cahonies to call it all into question. Bravo!