Where Has All The Mystery Gone?

[Robbrent]

I have been reading some of my old John Keel and Jacques Valle books, and I have noticed that the 50s through to the 80s seemed to be a heyday of Fortean events from UFO's to swamp monsters etc.

I thought that with our unlimited communications and 24 hour a day media we would be inundated with stuff, but apart from the It happened to me thread Fortean events are now very rare, the UFO scene appears moribund with little serious research going on, old stories getting rehashed, we have ghost hunting groups who just end up scaring each other

Could it be that the events are due to solar patterns or magnetic fields? Or we now understand more about what is around us.

Do UFO flap areas still exist and are they still active?

I would be fascinated to hear other opinions

 

[Sabresonic]

I have noticed that on the net for a long time with loads of Ghost/UFO/Time slips etc websites just nothing ground breaking or new and chose to settle hear as it feels old school...same with Youtube.
Maybe we need more first hand experiences to fulfil our needs and wouldn't a Viking Time slip or meet some friendly Aliens like the human looking ones with hair and a larger forehead and include the Ghost of my brother getting in touch with me or a Phil Quinn OBE.

 

[stu neville]

It's all about availability of info. When Vallee and Keel were writing, they were usually drawing on a couple of years' worth of pent-up sightings of which most people would be unaware, as how would someone in the UK reasonably expected to have access to a half-column report in the Poughkeepsie Trombone and Advertiser otherwise? As a result we relied on the researcher and authors. Now the net makes the Poughkeepsie Trombone and Advertiser available worldwide, so we're more likely to have at least access to it. When the net became a thing, there was great deal of void space for Forteana, but it's fair to say we've backfilled a fair bit, certainly of contemporary reports across the board.

As for UFO flaps, the interest in them is on the up again so I imagine we'll continue to see growing report numbers. This year has significant anniversaries for both Rendlesham and The Alien Autopsy film so that will reflect in awareness.

Generally I guess there's as much weirdness as ever, we just get to hear about it more quickly and regularly rather than in bursts.

 

[Robbrent]

I also think we are more aware of hoaxes nowadays, many of the old staples (such as the magical transportation of the Argentinian doctor quoted by Keel) have proven to be hoaxes, I mean the when a photo appears of something Fortean the first thing people look for is evidence of manipulation, couple this with the reluctance to talk about things for fear of ridicule, perhaps that's why people see big cats nowadays rather then little green men even though the resultant wild goose chase always ends up with nothing

 

[Cochise]

I'm thinking people are simply not so aware of 'real life' weirdness because they are saturated with fake weirdness, whether purporting to be true or not. And there are very few hippies left

 

[Analogue Boy]

I often wonder how historical sightings of the supernatural are simply cases of bad eyesight. Think about it. Historical reports going back through the centuries of Ghosts, Monsters, Black Dogs, Will’o’the Wisps, fairies etc giving a start to local legend in a time where eyesight failed like ours does today, yet without the benefit of a specsaver prescription for decent glasses.

 

[bugmum]

People are plugged into their devices all the time and don't take proper notice of the world around them.

 

[Mikefule]

The mystery of the disappearing mystery?

I think it's to do with attitudes, expectations, education, the ready availability of information, and a jaded public.

In the 1950s, the west was starting to recover from WW2, people were starting to experience a greater degree of personal freedom and mobility than ever before, there was a basic trust in the news media, and the world was looking forward to a brave new dawn of space hotels, flying cars, and robots, whilst there was the ever present fear of nuclear Armageddon.

It was a difficult time, but an exciting one. Music, fashion, and attitudes were all breaking with the the old norms. Anything seemed possible in the near future. Comics, magazines, books and films made robots and space aliens seem an imminent certainty. Ordinary people lacked the depth of knowledge to challenge what they were told, and generally believed it. If there was a story about a flying saucer being seen, there would be tiny scraps of information scattered through newspapers and radio broadcasts, and most of what you heard would be second or third hand, with enthusiasts rehashing and dissecting the same few facts, and wanting to believe, because "space was the future".

In 2020, mankind has been to the moon and (in the public perception) found nothing much of interest. Probes have landed on Mars and beamed back pictures of a dry dusty and barren place. Space is no longer exciting to the ordinary person in the street. The general level of education (at least in terms of factual information rather than intellectual skills!) is higher. You can check any fact you want on your mobile phone or laptop, which means you don't really have to know anything yourself. There is less pride in being knowledgeable, and hobbies are seen as nerdy rather than normal or cool. Why be passionate when it's easier to be ironic? Politicians and the establishment are no longer trusted, and even the best of the media are drowned out by the competition from trivial and fake news. No one is looking forward to an exciting future: the future is seen as climate change and disaster, and the past is viewed with nostalgia. Where cars and household objects used to be styled "futuristically" they are now styled "retro".

So in 1955: "Wow, so someone saw a flying saucer? How exciting? Of course, I expected it, but wow! Do you think it's frm Mars or Venus?"

And in 2020, "Flying saucer? Fake news. Probably some kid with a drone. Whatever."

 

[INT21]

The mystery of the disappearing mystery?



You can check any fact you want on your mobile phone or laptop, which means you don't really have to know anything yourself. There is less pride in being knowledgeable, and hobbies are seen as nerdy rather than normal or cool.

Very true, but the thing is, one doesn't need to know everything.

There is a saying 'A wise man doesn't know everything, but does know where to go to find what he needs'.

In our case, we start with the fount of all knowledge; Google. And work our way from there.

It was one of the problemsd with things like the five year apprenticeships of old. You spent five year learning things to a depth that was quite unnecessary in real life.
And then spent the rest of your life only using a small fraction of what you knew.

Academic knowledge is fine for academics. But the rest of us don't need it.

Particularly in today's hi tech age. And specialists are only good for the time it takes some machine or an algorithm to learn their job.

The ability to pick up as much of a skill you need quickly is more useful than complete in-depth knowledge.

But we do need a percentage of the population to really study things. Almost like a 'priesthood'.

 

[Mikefule]

Very true, but the thing is, one doesn't need to know everything.

There is a saying 'A wise man doesn't know everything, but does know where to go to find what he needs'.

In our case, we start with the fount of all knowledge; Google. And work our way from there.

It was one of the problemsd with things like the five year apprenticeships of old. You spent five year learning things to a depth that was quite unnecessary in real life.
And then spent the rest of your life only using a small fraction of what you knew.

Academic knowledge is fine for academics. But the rest of us don't need it.

Particularly in today's hi tech age. And specialists are only good for the time it takes some machine or an algorithm to learn their job.

The ability to pick up as much of a skill you need quickly is more useful than complete in-depth knowledge.

But we do need a percentage of the population to really study things. Almost like a 'priesthood'.

I understand your point. However, what we do need is enough knowledge and understanding to give us context.

Anyone who is asked, "What is the atomic number of gold?" can look it up. Similarly, if they are asked the date when Shakespeare died, or who was prime minster when WW2 started, or what is the capital of Namibia. However, without context, these are mere factoids: pub quiz answers that mean nothing in themselves.

A person who does not have enough information to give them context is likely to make dangerous mistakes and to fail to see important connections between ideas. Very simply, they will not even know that there is something they need to look up. You will recall the famous "Known unknowns and unknown unknowns" speech. The unknown unknowns are the ones that get you every time.

I currently work in customer service dealing with queries and complaints for a tool and machinery retailer. Every working day I speak to people who have bought 110V tools to run off domestic mains (which requires a 230V tool), or compressors that are inadequate for their air requirements, or pumps which they expect to "suck" water 10 metres up out of a well. People buy a compressor capable of 8 bar pressure without realising what they need is not pressure but volume.

These people have made mistakes, not because they didn't look up what the mains voltage is, or how to calculate air requirements, or what is the maximum distance you can draw a column of water, but because they lack sufficient understanding to give them a context: an understanding that would warn them that there is something important that they need to look up, or ask someone about, before they make their purchase.

This same principle applies across life, not just in the sphere of specialists and scientists, but in the every day fields of personal safety, home economics, disease control, the law. A person with no knowledge or understanding of a subject may believe whatever they are told if they are told it sufficiently confidently.

 

[INT21]

You are correct in that many (most ?) people of a certain age knew a lot more useful things than today's people.

I do know people who I would have to considered 'thick' for the silly things they do. Until I think that they simply never had to do many of the things that we took for granted in the fifties/sixties, even seventies.

Words of one song go ' there will be nothing left to do, some machine will be doing it for you'. or something similar.

The problem is that in a couple of generations, very few people will even remember what a job was, let alone know ow to think for themselves from basic principles.

A simple example.

For months the rainwater fall-pipe on the house next door (a semi) had been flooding into their garden. Problem is it also took the grey water from the kitchen sink, washing machine and the water from the bath and bathroom sink (not the sewage; different system). So, during the last few hot days this growing swamp has filled the air with a nasty stink.
So I went around and told the neighours they really did need to sort it out. The response was they had contactes the council, but not one had come to fix it.

As I have to breath the stink, I fixed the drain. It took ten minutes to prod it clear with a stick and flush it out with a hose pipe.
This left only the fall pipe to clear.
Again I got the response 'THEY hadn't been to fix it.
All that was needed was to undo one pipe clip and clear the pipe with a stick.
So I left it to them. It will still be the same next year.

Yes, the nation is being dumbed down. Slowly, incrementally.

But it isn't a deliberate move by anyone. It is simply that today's younger people simple do not need to know.

And playing on a tablet is much easier than making things.

INT21.

 

[Mythopoeika]

You are correct in that many (most ?) people of a certain age knew a lot more useful things than today's people.

I do know people who I would have to considered 'thick' for the silly things they do. Until I think that they simply never had to do many of the things that we took for granted in the fifties/sixties, even seventies.

Words of one song go ' there will be nothing left to do, some machine will be doing it for you'. or something similar.

The problem is that in a couple of generations, very few people will even remember what a job was, let alone know ow to think for themselves from basic principles.

A simple example.

For months the rainwater fall-pipe on the house next door (a semi) had been flooding into their garden. Problem is it also took the grey water from the kitchen sink, washing machine and the water from the bath and bathroom sink (not the sewage; different system). So, during the last few hot days this growing swamp has filled the air with a nasty stink.
So I went around and told the neighours they really did need to sort it out. The response was they had contactes the council, but not one had come to fix it.

As I have to breath the stink, I fixed the drain. It took ten minutes to prod it clear with a stick and flush it out with a hose pipe.
This left only the fall pipe to clear.
Again I got the response 'THEY hadn't been to fix it.
All that was needed was to undo one pipe clip and clear the pipe with a stick.
So I left it to them. It will still be the same next year.

Yes, the nation is being dumbed down. Slowly, incrementally.

But it isn't a deliberate move by anyone. It is simply that today's younger people simple do not need to know.

And playing on a tablet is much easier than making things.

INT21.

True words.

 

[Nemo]

Rob, have you checked down the back of the settee?

 

[Robbrent]

To fir there's a fair bit of mystery on Redit

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/weird-tales-from-reddit.47527/page-17#post-1967143

Many of the stories would make it into an unexplained type book, the only problem is we have no background or context on many of the stories

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Many of the stories would make it into an unexplained type book, the only problem is we have no background or context on many of the stories

The lack of context / provenance has been a recurrent problem in the past. For example, some of the allegedly true stories widely known from (e.g.) Frank Edwards' books and other "classic" popular press collections turn out to be directly derived from identifiable fiction writings.

Here's a specific example ... The David Lang / "man vanishes in front of witnesses" story is one of the first Fortean tales that impressed me as a child. It turns out this story is a retelling of an Ambrose Bierce short story.

Man Vanishes While Crossing A Field: Oft-Recycled Tale
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ile-crossing-a-field-oft-recycled-tale.65926/

It's frustrating to find such examples, and each one incrementally challenges one's ongoing openness to alleged weirdness.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

The lack of context / provenance has been a recurrent problem in the past. For example, some of the allegedly true stories widely known from (e.g.) Frank Edwards' books and other "classic" popular press collections turn out to be directly derived from identifiable fiction writings.

Here's a specific example ... The David Lang / "man vanishes in front of witnesses" story is one of the first Fortean tales that impressed me as a child. It turns out this story is a retelling of an Ambrose Bierce short story.

Man Vanishes While Crossing A Field: Oft-Recycled Tale
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ile-crossing-a-field-oft-recycled-tale.65926/

It's frustrating to find such examples, and each one incrementally challenges one's ongoing openness to alleged weirdness.

I came here to say much the same and that case also blew my mind. I'm still holding on to the Manchester timeslip though...

Also, Forteana has been polarized with very little being left in the middle. On one hand, there are those that totally accept ghosts, UFO's, conspiracies, cryptids, etc on face value - but they don't offer much in the way of investigation or evidence.

Then on the other the Skeptical side they rubbish everything without even a glance at the evidence. There was a recent Skeptical podcast that interviewed a Canadian Sociologist who was studying people who see ghosts. The hosts really couldn't remove themselves from the "ghosts aren't real" "we are proud Skeptics" viewpoint that ruined a potentially really interesting interview - and the hosts missed the whole point of this guy's study.

Both sides do very little in the way of credible investigation - both dismiss each other.

Also, Forteana has turned into a business and lots of people now make their living out of it. This has clouded everything on both sides as most who earn a living from all this nail their colors to a certain mast. They don't change - it's not in their interest to be open-minded and that goes for both sides.

What annoys me most, particularly the Skepitcs - they should know better, they tell us they are analytical but they are just lazy and dismissive.

 

[Frideswide]

For example, some of the allegedly true stories widely known from (e.g.) Frank Edwards' books and other "classic" popular press collections turn out to be directly derived from identifiable fiction writings.

I think that the Marie Celeste is the type object of the class!

 

[Mikefule]

Also, Forteana has been polarized with very little being left in the middle. On one hand, there are those that totally accept ghosts, UFO's, conspiracies, cryptids, etc on face value - but they don't offer much in the way of investigation or evidence.

Then on the other the Skeptical side they rubbish everything without even a glance at the evidence. There was a recent Skeptical podcast that interviewed a Canadian Sociologist who was studying people who see ghosts. The hosts really couldn't remove themselves from the "ghosts aren't real" "we are proud Skeptics" viewpoint that ruined a potentially really interesting interview - and the hosts missed the whole point of this guy's study.

What annoys me most, particularly the Skepitcs - they should know better, they tell us they are analytical but they are just lazy and dismissive.

I'd just draw a distinction here between "Skeptics" (capital S, followed by k) and "sceptics" (no capital S, and in British English we prefer the c to the k). I consider myself to be a "sceptic" in the healthy sense of not accepting things immediately at face value, querying or challenging what I've been told, considering the evidence, and looking for the truth.

Often, but not always, the truth is less strange and less exciting than the original story. However, this approach means that those examples that are not explained with conventional answers like hoax, misunderstanding, suggestion, etc., are all the more exciting because I've failed to find an explanation, so there might be "something there".

The Skeptics you have described sound like the polar opposites of conspiracy theorists: they each have an established position and may select, dismiss, or interpret the evidence to prove what they want to believe. Conspiracy theorists want to prove that there is a conspiracy that no one but them can detect; Skeptics (as you have described them) want to prove that everything is a hoax, or that everyone but them is gullible.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

I'd just draw a distinction here between "Skeptics" (capital S, followed by k) and "sceptics" (no capital S, and in British English we prefer the c to the k). I consider myself to be a "sceptic" in the healthy sense of not accepting things immediately at face value, querying or challenging what I've been told, considering the evidence, and looking for the truth.

Often, but not always, the truth is less strange and less exciting than the original story. However, this approach means that those examples that are not explained with conventional answers like hoax, misunderstanding, suggestion, etc., are all the more exciting because I've failed to find an explanation, so there might be "something there".

The Skeptics you have describe sound like the polar opposites of conspiracy theorists: they each have an established position and may select, dismiss, or interpret the evidence to prove what they want to believe. Conspiracy theorists want to prove that there is a conspiracy that no one but them can detect; Skeptics (as you have described them) want to prove that everything is a hoax, or that everyone but them is gullible.

I'm talking about popular media so which sceptics are talking about? I get a lot of us here etc would try and look at things rationally and with an open mind but how does that translate to UK media?

Also, let's take into consideration the huge impact of the like of Dawkins has had on Forteana.

 

[Mikefule]

I'm talking about popular media so which sceptics are talking about? I get a lot of us here etc would try and look at things rationally and with an open mind but how does that translate to UK media?

Also, let's take into consideration the huge impact of the like of Dawkins has had on Forteana.

We are not in disagreement.

I was contrasting Skeptics as you described them with sceptics like myself — of whom there are no doubt many in this forum.

One group of Skeptics (who, I agree, not only exist, but have undue prominence in the media) set out to debunk and pour scorn; the other group of sceptics regard it as a balanced analytical and philosophical approach to the data, and have no preferred outcome other than a true understanding of what the evidence supports.

Lumping both kinds together would be unfair. They are not even different wings of the same party.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

We are not in disagreement.

I was contrasting Skeptics as you described them with sceptics like myself — of whom there are no doubt many in this forum.

One group of Skeptics (who, I agree, not only exist, but have undue prominence in the media) set out to debunk and pour scorn; the other group of sceptics regard it as a balanced analytical and philosophical approach to the data, and have no preferred outcome other than a true understanding of what the evidence supports.

Lumping both kinds together would be unfair. They are not even different wings of the same party.

I've got to go. Hoping someone else comes in to talk about this - thanks Mike - always value your posts.

 

[madmath]

There is still plenty of mystery out there, amazing discoveries yet to be made.
For example, until the current generation there were questions how common planets are around other stars; now we know they are common, plus our planetary system appears to be an anomaly. Even in our own system there's the question around Planet 9, the possible orb that aligns the orbits of the dwarf planets out beyond Pluto.

As for Fortean concepts that may or may not be scientifically investigable, whether or not one believes in, say, ghosts, there are factors to be studied. What are people seeing/hearing? Why do some people see them? What are the cultural foundations of ghosts in various societies around the world? Why are there too many really very quite terrible telly programs about them?
We can and do ask the same around cryptos, UFOs, and many of the subjects discussed on this board.
Plenty of mystery to be found!

 

[INT21]

Would cryptids use Bitcoin ?

(Sorry, couldn't resist it)

 

[Spudrick68]

I feel that modern technology and the way we live is a little like radio interference to a clear broadcast.

Looking back the the early 1900's and the SPR, there appears to be strong suggestions of unexplained phenomenon with the cross correspondences and Leonora Piper (who I have read, is someone that skeptics are keen to stay away from).

In the current age how, as others have said, do we sift the genuine mystery from the crap?

 

[marhawkman]

I feel that modern technology and the way we live is a little like radio interference to a clear broadcast.

Looking back the the early 1900's and the SPR, there appears to be strong suggestions of unexplained phenomenon with the cross correspondences and Leonora Piper (who I have read, is someone that skeptics are keen to stay away from).

In the current age how, as others have said, do we sift the genuine mystery from the crap?

This is especially true in cases where there's a kernel of truth wrapped up in layers of urban legend.

 

[milk23]

You could have a stream of fairies dance by followed by a throbbing UFO parade and top it off with a were wolf with a cough and the mass ear plugged tiny TV glued populace will not notice a thing. It has to have an impact this incessant distraction, I worked with a young person recently and as they left work they were putting in the obligatory ear bud/ ipod-ear stuffers??? You know, those white things... I mentioned that they seem to be hanging from the sides of 90% of heads these days and she agreed and added that they are good if you want to mute everything out. I asked who would want to do such a thing? 'Me' she laughed. That's what we're dealing with. Plus everyone is so sure about everything now. Google has made enormous swathes of the population experts in subjects they know nothing about. It's hard to have an exchange of ideas with people who formulated their view from a 10 second youtube clip of 'the world's top 57 weirdest things'

 

[Vardoger]

I don't think there are less mysteries. Half the programming on the Discovery network is paranormal shows these days.

 

[Coypu]

I'm thinking people are simply not so aware of 'real life' weirdness because they are saturated with fake weirdness, whether purporting to be true or not. And there are very few hippies left

I have two, one artificial the other natural. I use them to hang my leggies on..

 

[madmath]

I don't think there are less mysteries. Half the programming on the Discovery network is paranormal shows these days.

And that's a mystery right there - are there actually that many paranormal mysteries worth pursuing? And how much of those shows is repeated nonsense, already debunked or easily explained, thus obscuring and burying the potential real information that should be considered?
I suggest "unexplained phenomena" is a better term than "paranormal".

 

[marhawkman]

And that's a mystery right there - are there actually that many paranormal mysteries worth pursuing? And how much of those shows is repeated nonsense, already debunked or easily explained, thus obscuring and burying the potential real information that should be considered?
I suggest "unexplained phenomena" is a better term than "paranormal".

As someone once said, mysteries are only mysterious when you don't know what happened.