Andrews is both understanding and respectful of that decision, yet also understands what's at stake and who's responsible for the chilling reality that there are those on the inside --" our "side -- as well as the expected outside, who would control information, and our ability to think for ourselves: The public is treated as if they are no longer considered
worthy of receiving all points of view. Free thinking has
become a threat to easily led masses and many, from all
sides, are trying to control available information.Andrews is not surprised that this happened however, and urges us to acknowledge these realities and then move on. At least, that's how I interpret his message; we are responsible for what "can "happen:The situation we find ourselves in is not unexpected. It
fits perfectly into the discussion of "2012" and the
transitional period we are in. This is a time when old
structures of deceit and manipulation are failing.
Transformation into new and better structures for the
future is underway. What the future will look like
depends on what we create in the actions and decisions
we make today. It depends on freedom of thought,
freedom of information and freedom of spirit. This is
what my research has been based on.The point here, for me, is not whether one agrees with Andrews or anyone else; it's about access to information. There are those on the inside, let alone the outside of the fringes, who think nothing of making threats, behaving arrogantly and making demands in regards to information. That of course sends the clear message to the rest of us that we can't be trusted to think for ourselves.
"I've been commenting a lot here and there about the meme that UFOlogy is dead, and how it isn't dead at all. It's shifting, as all things are, within and without the esoteric world. The demands made by Glickman and King is just one more example of the shifts taking place in "fringe world." And while that may sound flippant, I will say, New Agey as it may be, that this is" very important, and does affect, and "will "affect, all aspects of our world on many levels; from the mainstream to the anomalous.
I was surprised to hear that Glickman pulled this low brow stunt. I don't much of the crop circle research world or the researchers but from what I've seen of Glickman -- primarily the Star Dreams DVD on crop circles -- he seemed above this kind of thing.
But, again, this isn't about agreement with this researcher or that, but the control of information, and, by natural extension, the control of "the people." It's a pitiful reality we see this over and over in all categories of Fortean, paranormal -- call it what you will -- research. That, to me, is what "hurts" UFOlogy, or Bigfootology, or whatever -ology it is you're involved in.
When I first heard Colin Andrews discuss his now famously misunderstood idea that most crop circles are "fake" I didn't want to hear it. I felt betrayed, and confused. But I listened. And found out Andrews isn't saying anything so simplistic at all
far from it. "FAR FROM IT. "It seems to me that certainly fellow researchers would get that. I'll go so far as to say they "do" get it, and that's what makes their actions even more reprehensible. I have no proof they do get it and are lying, simply my opinion. It's difficult to believe that researchers would be so lax in their awareness of what a Colin Andrews is doing and yet go so far as to demand he be removed from the presenter's list.
