Your Heroes? Random Top 5.

[professorpan]

I shamefully left out the ladies. Thanks for making me see that, FB.

Helen Caldicott
Maya Angelou (in spite of her recent endorsement of Hilary)
Sinead O'Connor
Dian Fossey

And my number one. . . .

Jane Goodall

I was fortunate enough to attend one of her lecture a few years ago and by the end of the talk I was weeping -- the tears one weeps when in the presence of a holy, saintly truth teller. She speaks for the apes, no question about it.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Yeah same, talk about male bias:

Murphy Brown






only joking:


Malalai Joya

My wife

Trish (a friend of mine)

Kate (another friend)

Maxine McKew

Cathy Freeman

Eve Libertine

Auntie Viv(another friend, but not really my aunt)

Lowitja (Lois) O'Donoghue

Oodgeroo Noonuccal

Jalkari Bai

Rani Lakshmibai

Lakshmi Sahgal

and of course

Phoolan Devi

But like the blokes there are probably more that I should mention.

Oh yeah, a poster who is no longer here - Pitcairn

and of course

Peaches (if only for the title of her record last year).

[compared2what?]

Hey, kind sirrahs --

I speak only for myself, and not all womankind, but thanks for the recognition!

May I suggest that from now on we also explicitly note which of our heroes are star-bellied sneetches and which ones are sneetches without stars, so that we can all remember to take our hats off in the presence of the latter?

Because I think nothing goes further toward correcting any bias that might result from the natural and innocent tendency to dance with the historical realities of the culture what brung ya than scrupulously chivalrous segregation. As has been proven time and again, any more serious consideration of in what way heroism might be differently defined by the actual extant differences in opportunity and experience between genders would only lead to trouble, sure as the sparks fly upward.

That's just plain common sense and....Oh, forgive me. I mislaid my embroidery scissors and flowery tea service and got distracted. Oh, well. Off to attend to the chores! Those chickens aren't going to feed themselves, you know.

Seriously, y'all are commendable in your intentions and in the good faith with which you acted on them. And no one should be offended by them, I think. I, personally, am certainly not. Therefore, I want to emphasize that I seek merely to note the reflex, and not to rage against it.

So please ignore or attend to the following observation as you deem proper, but: From my POV, you're doing it wrong.*

And I thought it worth mentioning, because otherwise how could you possibly know?

*No unfortunate connotation of the phrase intended. Or, to be totally candid with myself and the world, not seriously intended.

[Ziggin' and a Zaggin']

professorpan included J. Allen Hynek among his heroes.

"Swamp Gas" Allen isn't a hero in my book.

Sorry, profpan.

[philipacentaur]

professorpan included J. Allen Hynek among his heroes.

"Swamp Gas" Allen isn't a hero in my book.

Sorry, profpan.

Maybe you just don't know enough about Hynek. I'm guessing your mind is made up already, never to be changed.

[Jeff]

professorpan included J. Allen Hynek among his heroes.

"Swamp Gas" Allen isn't a hero in my book.

Sorry, profpan.

In Hynek and Vallee's Edge of Reality, Hynek's asked about the progress of his changing attitudes:

"I think I finally decided that things were serious much too long after I started. I had internal misgivings about Blue Book policies as early as 1953, and I expressed them to my colleagues when I had a chance. It wasn't until the 'swamp gas' incident that I said, 'I've had it! This is the last time I'm going to pull a chestnut out of the fire for the Air Force.'"

He adds that he had been completely honest in his assessment ("foxfire, will-o-the-whisp does occur and has been described pretty much the same way"), and that he'd explicitly offered the explanation only for the faint lights that had been seen, not for the other phenomena of the Hillsdale case. He said that he'd found himself in a circus atmosphere and had handled it poorly, and that he should have kept his mouth shut until after a thorough assessment.

[philipacentaur]

Thanks, Jeff. I hadn't the patience nor the time for that.

[Jeff]

Thanks, Jeff. I hadn't the patience nor the time for that.

I credit my avoidance of serious work.

[professorpan]

Jeff, you beat me to it.

The Edge of Reality turned around on my opinion of Hynek. The book was extremely influential in my thinking about UFOs, and turned me from a straightforward nuts-and-bolts guy to whatever I am now (an ultraterrestrial Keelian psychedelic egregorist?!).

[Ziggin' and a Zaggin']

I am aware of Mr. Hynek's change of attitude concerning the UFO phenomenon... As many others have said before,"what took him so long?" and I would add: so long after doing so much damage to UFO research during the 1950s and 1960s.

I can understand why some might consider Hynek favourably. He did ultimately come around... but it was quite late in the game.

A few weeks ago, I finished reading UFOs and the National Security State by Richard M. Dolanand came to the inevitable conclusion that UFO investigation has a few good guys (ex.: Donald E. Keyhoeand James E. McDonald, for example) and many bad guys (Philip Klassand Donald Menzel, for example). Others come under shades of grey: Captain Edward Ruppeltappeared to be a good guy until he apparently was "turned" shortly before his death. I would include Hynek in that grey category.

In his book, Dolan states (p. 224):

"But the careful reader must remain mindful of Hynek's history in this subject. It is a history that, depending upon which character flaw was his correct one, leads any serious researcher into a stance of wariness regarding J. Allen Hynek."

Lets say I'm wary enough not to consider Hynek a hero. In my opinion, Donald Keyhoe was more of a hero.

(on edit:) philipcentaur... Take a pill... and relax a bit. No need to get excited.

[philipacentaur]

My reaction was based on the fact that you chose the "swamp gas" thing in your terse dismissal of Hynek.

You know who I'm wary of? Dolan. He should be ashamed of himself for being on that piece of shit show on the Sci Fi Channel.

(On edit: Good guys and bad guys? I see you take this all very seriously.)

[Ziggin' and a Zaggin']

philipcentaur said:

My reaction was based on the fact that you chose the "swamp gas" thing in your terse dismissal of Hynek.

You know who I'm wary of? Dolan. He should be ashamed of himself for being on that piece of shit show on the Sci Fi Channel.

I agree that it was a terse dismissal. I should have supported my point of view at the outset.

I don't get the SciFi channel where I live so I don't know what Mr. Dolan is up to there. I wasn't aware that Dolan should not be trusted. Perhaps you, philipcentaur, could explain why we can't trust him?

Feel free to start a new thread - perhaps under the much under-used UFO thread - as we are getting into a completely different subject: Who the Hell Can You Trust to Speak Truthfully about UFOs?

[FourthBase]

Hey, kind sirrahs --

I speak only for myself, and not all womankind, but thanks for the recognition!

May I suggest that from now on we also explicitly note which of our heroes are star-bellied sneetches and which ones are sneetches without stars, so that we can all remember to take our hats off in the presence of the latter?

Because I think nothing goes further toward correcting any bias that might result from the natural and innocent tendency to dance with the historical realities of the culture what brung ya than scrupulously chivalrous segregation. As has been proven time and again, any more serious consideration of in what way heroism might be differently defined by the actual extant differences in opportunity and experience between genders would only lead to trouble, sure as the sparks fly upward.

That's just plain common sense and....Oh, forgive me. I mislaid my embroidery scissors and flowery tea service and got distracted. Oh, well. Off to attend to the chores! Those chickens aren't going to feed themselves, you know.

Seriously, y'all are commendable in your intentions and in the good faith with which you acted on them. And no one should be offended by them, I think. I, personally, am certainly not. Therefore, I want to emphasize that I seek merely to note the reflex, and not to rage against it.

So please ignore or attend to the following observation as you deem proper, but: From my POV, you're doing it wrong.*

And I thought it worth mentioning, because otherwise how could you possibly know?

*No unfortunate connotation of the phrase intended. Or, to be totally candid with myself and the world, not seriously intended.

I totally get what you're saying, compared.
But then again, I was hardly being chivalrous.
"Ladies" was obviously meant to be a joke, look at them again.
"Gentlemen", OTOH, not such a joke -- they are indeed gentle men.

But the real reason for the "Ladies" and "Gentlemen":
The thread asked for random Top 5 heroes...
Segregating was my stupid way of sneaking in more than 5.
Although it looks like nobody else respected the OP's specs, so...whatevs.

[Jeff]

Feel free to start a new thread - perhaps under the much under-used UFO thread - as we are getting into a completely different subject: Who the Hell Can You Trust to Speak Truthfully about UFOs?

That is a great subject for a thread. Hope to see it.

[Ziggin' and a Zaggin']

Here are some of my "fictional" heroes:

John Drake, Secret Agent a.k.a. Danger Man.
Bob Morane
Tintin
Simon Templar, the Saint
Dan Cooper
Sherlock Holmes

P.S. Jeff: Concerning "Who Speaks the Truth About UFOs?", I'll work on an initial post to start a discussion under the UFO thread... unless someone beats me to it.