I like Erik Hoel’s stuff. He is a solid writer, but also Erik Hoel is sometimes all about Erik Hoel – and, in some of his pieces, Erik Hoel’s opinions you should believe, caveat lector. That unfortunately shines a bit in this piece, even if the intent is made clear at the start.

What threw me off, sadly, was the bookending. Bookending this piece wih statements like

I don’t like dismissing people’s personal beliefs

and

at a personal level, people can believe what they want

between elongated crots of systemic dimissal tactics (cf., ‘Our current journalistic class, unwilling or unable to do the research I can do in my boxers in about five hours’) that ought to affect readers’ personal beliefs about the topics implicates, strongly, that we are knuckleheads if we have bought into the contrary narrative. It creates a small trust gap for me at the onset, then targets the the journalism class (but surely not me) as the problem.

I would love for him to write a follow-on piece with the research script reversed – what were the results of these multi-million government contracting efforts? Reaching out to those involved in these programs, what did they discover by comparison to the recent hearings? What non-CUI data is available for consumption, assessment? Etc. Could be a neat read atop all this.

• UFO conspiracy theories are popular because of their sensationalism and belief in them.
• Journalists may be interested in clicks and blowing up extraordinary claims.
• The UFO craze peaks in the summer when the news cycle slows down.
• Stories about unidentified objects may have political implications.
• The Pentagon does not have an official UFO study program.
• Journalistic organizations may be responsible for blowing up extraordinary claims.