The Nightshirt Sightings, Portents, Forebodings, Suspicions

“After Disclosure”

513NfJv4UKL._SL160_The very next day after I wrote the previous post — about how we should just assume the reality and significance of the UFO phenomenon and proceed from there — what should arrive on my doorstep in an Amazon box but the new book A.D. After Disclosure, by Richard Dolan and Bryce Zabel. It is a book-length argument for, yes, assuming — based on the mountains of evidence that now exist — that UFOs are real and that public confirmation of the existence of alien beings here on earth is only a matter of time. (What “alien” means is, of course, not yet clear, although as I argued previously, in a sense it doesn’t really matter.)

This is a thrilling, landmark book, the first in what will inevitably be the next, post-Fortean phase of ufology — i.e. when it becomes a subject of legitimate study within the mainstream. The implications of disclosure/contact are staggering, and the authors map out, with great intelligence and forethought, what the world will look like after it happens — very likely in our lifetimes. It will be the biggest story in history, and its repercussions will be felt in every aspect of our society.

A.D.: After Disclosure is the capper in what has been a fantastic year in ufology, with some of the best, most serious books ever written on the subject: Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, Jacques Vallee’s brand new Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times, as well as James Fox’s documentary I Know What I Saw and Mac Tonnies’ highly speculative but also paradigm-bending The Cryptoterrestrials. Bringing ufology out of the Fortean ghetto is the best thing that could possibly happen for the field. It seems to finally be happening.

My Amazon review of A.D. is reprinted on the authors’ Web site.

About

I am a science writer and armchair Fortean based in Washington, DC. Write to me at eric.wargo [at] gmail.com.

3 Responses to ““After Disclosure””

  • “post-Fortean phase of ufology — i.e. when it becomes a subject of legitimate study within the mainstream.”

    &

    “Bringing ufology out of the Fortean ghetto is the best thing that could possibly happen for the field. It seems to finally be happening.”

    Much as I enjoy your blog and acknowledge its importance within academia, I’m puzzled about why Fortean has to be a negative term – I’m almost certain that some of the writers concerned would be equally puzzled, if I take them at their word.

    I think a better way of seeing it is that, like the academic study of occultism and the western esoteric traditions, perhaps we should be doing what Fort, Keel, Vallee and others have done and be more literal, i.e., look at it phenomenologically and historically, distinguish the emic from the etic.

    I’ve taken ufology as seriously as I have the debunkology because both have pre-determined positions that ignore evidence. And I’ve certainly never thought of ufology as Fortean in the classic sense.

    I’d much rather hope that the Fortean will be brought out of the ghetto of the cultic milieu dominated by UFO religions and the skeptics, and lifted back into it’s philosophically phenomenological place. Researchers like Tonnies and Redfern are a good sign that this is taking place.

  • Hi David. Thanks for this challenging response.

    Although I think you might be in the minority about not considering ufology to be a domain of Forteana, I agree with your point about my use of the term “Fortean ghetto.” That implies a disparagement that I didn’t intend. Perhaps I should have picked a different phrasing. I was using “Fortean” more broadly to mean domains of inquiry that have been seen as illegitimate by the mainstream — mainstream academia, science, as well as journalism and the public in general. It’s a ghetto because it has been ghetto-ized — and perhaps understandably, given the “lack of boundaries” I mentioned in the previous post.

    I see the work of the new generation of researchers I mention as a totally different animal than the closed-minded “UFO religions and skeptics.” For decades the only people doing real interesting work to my knowledge were Keel and, especially, Vallee, but they didn’t make for critical mass. I’m just glad it’s changing. I also think a rehabilitated ufology would do a lot for “gentrifying” (to continue with perhaps a terrible metaphor) other domains of Forteana (cryptozoology, occultism, esoteric traditions, etc.) — in the sense of restoring their academic/scientific legitimacy in the eyes of the mainstream.

    I hope that makes sense (and I hope I’m understanding you correctly).

  • You managed to understand what I was saying better than I did – but of course that’s the whole point of a conversation, no?

    I just read your recent post about Hopkins et al and I agree with you on that: it’s almost a generational shift. Guys (still predominately but don’t tell the Women of Esoterica circle) like Mac and Redfern rip through the usual ETH (nuts and bolts vs the federation of lighters) vs skeptoids narrative. But while Redfern and others are definitely more in the Keel tradition of participatory gonzo journalism, Mac was more like a scholar. Vallee is in my mind an ideal combo.

    I’m just not convinced it will come from within ‘ufology’ – unless the phenomenon changes in manifestation. It will be in the shift from the Greys to the NExTs that that opportunity will arise. If it is as responsive as Keeln and Vallee reckon, it will sooner rather than later.