UFO Conjectures

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Someone thinks there are ETs afoot in the Universe

http://www.univverse.org/universal/nasas-kepler-telescope-discovered-artificial-alien-megastructure/

RR

Even my own limited ET hypotheses are troublesome, unless

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The book pictured here, one of several gotten from Amazon this week, was bought to underpin and/or support my view that one or two (a few) UFOs may have been (or are) encounters with von Neumann-like probes from an advanced extraterrestrial race.

(The UFO encounters that I have used to example my thinking include, among others, the 1948 Gorman “dogfight,” the 1967 Stephan Michalak incident (at Falcon Lake), and the 1979 Robert Taylor brush with a “contraption,” all cited here many times.)

But this doesn’t work does it, if my other thoughts about the uniqueness of technological advances, in the context of Earth’s “evolutionary” processes are probable?

That is, the thinking, development, and eventual construction of AI machines come within the intellectual, cultural milieu that is Earth’s and Earth’s alone.

An alien civilization would not develop, in any way – biologically, intelligently, or technologically – as Earth has.

Darwin’s evolution, in all its manifestations, is restricted to the elements, often cited here, that are unique to this planet, this rock in space.

And alien culture or race would come about under far different circumstances than that which humans have been subjected to or supported by.

(I won’t belabor, again, my often stated views on this, but you can find them by using the search tab at the above left on this blog.)

My point, here, is that AI machinery, in the configuration of a UFO or “piloting” a UFO is from the realm of science fiction or the devious thinking of those, like me, extrapolating what is an Earth-centric technology to encompass a non-Earth technology.

But there is a caveat, one that ufologists and science certainly eschews – although science is coming around – and that is the idea that the cosmos, the universe (seen and unseen) is the creation of a supreme mind or intelligence, God, as it were.
This means that the patterns of existence (reality) conform to the “wishes” of a deity or omnipresent mind, some even postulating, as you know, that we (our existence and reality) is a computer simulation, a matrix. (I find that intriguing as do some of you.)

That the whole of everything, as religions have told us, is a creation of a supreme being.

This would allow for, account for, the similarity of UFO craft to our own advanced aircraft and “beings” encountered in some bizarre UFO incidents, that are like us because the supreme thinker or creator [God] has willed it or made it so, and the universe (reality) is subsumed by this “creator” or omnipotent thing, that has fashioned a creation within the parameters of Its desires, Its likes and dislikes.

So, yes, there can be alien (extraterrestrial) beings. not very different from humans, visiting the Earth, then and now, but surely not in the amounts that UFO reportage indicates.

That would be insane and an omnipotent being can’t be insane, can It?

(That for another time.)

 RR

Saturday, May 27, 2017

An Inquiry from one of my readers: Michael Loengard

Michael Loengard has left a query: 

Hello!

I have a Question, who can help me to find, in Google Earth, the San Agustin UFO Crash where Art Campbell did his Excavations. I tried to find it...but don't know where it is.

Thanks for help! 

Friday, May 26, 2017

Roswell: An [ongoing] autochthonous delusion

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
This “definition” in Psychiatric Dictionary [Fourth Edition, Leland Hinsie/Robert J. Campbell, Oxford University Press, 1970, Page 191] strikes me as a psychiatric explanation for the Roswell incident and its ongoing aftermath:

“Autochthonous delusion. Primary delusion, i.e. one that arises as an immediate experience, out of the blue, with no external or objective cause or explanation, but nonetheless with a strong feeling of conviction … autochthonous delusions are disturbances of symbolic meaning: because the legs of a chair are twisted, the world is twisted.”

The term delusion is derived from “delude”, a Latin word that implies mocking, defrauding or cheating. Delusion has been long considered to be a basic characteristic of madness and to be mad was considered to be deluded. [The Odisha Journal of Psychiatry-2016, Delusion: Critical Evaluation, Issue and Updates by Sai Krishna Tikka; Tathagata Mahintamani; Daya Ram; Bikramaditya Jaiswal]

When we consider various dimensions of delusions, culture has the highest influence on the content of delusions. Content of delusions are considered to be selected in accordance with the preferred channels of relatedness in a particular culture. [Ibid, 74]

[Yet] suffice it to say that certain beliefs are often recognized as delusions without our needing to ascertain their cultural prevalence. [Delusions, Certainty, and the Background, John Rhodes and Richard G. T. Gipps, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009]

Kleist (1928) considered revelationary psychoses under the heading of a marginal psychosis, in which autochthonous delusional ideas intrude into consciousness and are attributed by the patient directly to God, angels, or what Kleist termed the ‘¿ Weltge(iswt'orld spirit). [John Johnson, FRCPsych, University Hospital of South Manchester, October 1993]

These cited sources (above) tell us that the ambient environment of 1947 – flying saucers being seen and reported by news media – supported by the (in)famous Haut Press Release stating that the military had “captured” a flying disc – created a world view (Weltanschauung) that persons in Roswell took to be real but suppressed (or better, repressed) early on, only to resurface in a cathexis around 1978, when the Roswell “event” came to be grist for ufologists, and those having suppressed their psychic attachment to the “flying disc” idea of 1947 allowing a delusion to develop that has exploded in the UFO community.

Skeptical UFO buffs say that the Roswell tale and its ongoing canon is a myth and they are somewhat correct, somewhat.

Autochthonous delusions create myths, and have from time immemorial, when humans came to expand on an event, making it, by extrapolation and accretions, something more than it was originally.

So, the Roswell incident can be called a myth (or mythos) but that’s scaling the fish to clean away the underlying psychiatric core that created and continues to maintain the Roswell story.

Ufologists, aside from French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, do not like to contend with psychological explanations for many reasons: obscurity of psychiatric terminologies, the old consensus that psychology, and especially psychiatry, are not bona fide science, and the inherent laziness of ufologists to seek answers outside the easy to imagine ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis).

But, no matter what happened in Roswell during June/July 1947 – and something odd did happen – ufologists will have to consider the idea that the crux of the ongoing interest and initial thrusts (in 1947 and 1978) are rooted in delusion, autochthonous delusion.

No other “explanation” fits the bill like the psychiatric one, none.

RR

You think only UFOs suddenly disappear?

Some stars do also:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-disappearing-star-n6946-bh1-100245258.html

RR

The Ramey memo is back (in the news)?

Two stories today, 5/26/17, from Google Alerts, about the Ramey memo.....

One about David Rudiak's efforts:

https://tenplay.com.au/news/national/may-2017/has-roswell-truth-been-hiding-in-plain-sight

And one about the memo, generally (Rudiak mentioned):

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3651031/roswell-ufo-conspiracy-theory-solved-memo/

RR

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Quantum as a means to a UFO explanation?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

I just got the book pictured here.

It is a 287 page "exegesis" of quantum mechanics' oddities and truths.

I'm not reviewing the book but will use it for some conjectures here.

Quantum theory is replete with opportunities to explain various troubling items that you and I (and other UFO buffs) contend with: the nature of reality, consciousness, and things that are weird in essence and "real" in our terms of reality.

That is, UFOs are real but a true mystery, not a transcendental mystery but a niggling "itch" we all keep scratching to no avail.

I think that a number of approaches (psychology, neurology, cosmology even) can be directed at the UFO enigma, especially the vicissitudes of quantum theory.

This book has a number of suggestions that may be applied. We'll see.

RR

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Old-fashioned UFOs: A follow-up to previous Non-ET UFO piece

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

While reading the current [2017] issue of WIRED magazine, I notice that items and artifacts of our present human existence are more futuristic than the alleged artifacts and elements said to be seen by witnesses in their UFO sightings.

I know this has been broached before -- the archaic, old-fashioned Airship constructs, for instance -- but it become obvious that UFOs, as "sighted" or experienced, are short of what one would expect from and advanced space traveling race.

In the WIRED magazine, at hand, is a story about Apple's new headquarters in Cupertino City, California; the article sub-titled, interestingly, on the magazine's cover: "Inside Apple's Insanely Great [or just insane] New Mothership," the designation coming from the HQ's architectural design as you can see in the cover picture here.

But it's not that alone that puts the UFO "reality" in perspective. When you gather together all the factoids and detritus from UFO witness testimony, whether from Ezekiel or Betty Hill or Stephan Michalak, you should note how primitive the crafts are.

And the witness testimony is supported by what few flying saucer or UFO photos we have that might be authentic.

The 1896 Airship craze in America, mostly California, is fraught with ships barely flying they are so beleaguered by their heft and construction.

And flying saucers depicted right up to today, some supposedly seen up close, as in the Travis Walton episode or the Robert Taylor scuffle -- an AI thing as I see it -- are not anywhere as near advanced as one might expect from a space-faring species.

Adamski's chicken-brooder contraption typified the flying saucers (UFOs) purportedly spotted by "real" witnesses long after Adamski foundered and disappeared.

We see advanced objects all around us -- iPhones, laptop computers, driverless cars, even aircraft -- that put UFOs to shame, constructively and futuristic in nature.

If UFOs were actually spacecraft from an advanced species, they wouldn't crash, as the Roswell incident has it, nor would they look so ramshackle and rudimentary as described by those who think they've seen one or interacted with one.

So, ET believers, give up your "fantasy" -- your delusion: UFOs may be something but they certainly are not extraterrestrial spacecraft from Planet 9.

RR

UFOs may be real, but not crafted by ETs, not at all!

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

If you scour the UFO canon, the UFO lore or literature, carefully and seriously, you can only conclude that UFOs may be real but there is nothing in that batch of folderol that would indicate UFOs are spacecraft from extraterrestrial worlds; nothing, not even anything circumstantial.

An encounter with “humanoids” – a favorite “UFO genre” of mine – presents either a glob of hallucinatory accounts or something bizarre in a way that has nothing to do with beings from outer space or alien civilizations from the cosmos.

There is nothing tangible or even tangentially close to showing something that might be construed as or indicative of an extraterrestrial civilization that has dropped by this Earth.

Each UFO encounter and every UFO sighting is mundane in every way even when the sightings or encounter is flush with extraordinary elements.

Not one UFO event – from Kenneth Arnold’s iconic sighting to the Betty/Barney Hill alleged kidnapping, Socorro, the 1976 Tehran supposed interaction, or the Phoenix lights, even the O’Hare airport observations, et cetera, et cetera – has anything that would hint at an ET intrusion.

Yes, I believe UFOs are a real phenomenon. What the essence of that phenomenon is eludes minds better than mine.

But if you have one UFO sighting where the details of it include something that only can be thought to be extraterrestrial, let me know.

We humans have no idea what an extraterrestrial civilization or ET visitors might consist of or how they would appear or act if encountered, but none would, if one uses common sense, present themselves as described by witness reports.

Flying fast and making 180 degree turns isn’t proof of extraterrestrial acumen.

Being oddly clothed (and they rarely are in witness accounts) says nothing about an alien dress code.

Speaking (or telepathing thoughts) isn’t a sign of an advanced alien culture. (It’s more like evidence of a schizophrenic bout by the witness.)

Disappearing in a whiff of smoke or just going invisible says nothing about an ET explanation. It’s strange, yes, but otherworldly? Nope.

The ET explanation is a group delusion of most ufologists and UFO buffs.

It’s not logical or based upon any forensic evidence that could only be considered extraterrestrial, if we had any idea what “extraterrestrial evidence” might be.

That every UFO sighting is hinted as being alien (extraterrestrial), even by news media, confounds the simplicity of sightings, which are queer surely, but not containing one iota of anything that could smack of an extraterrestrial presence, nothing!

RR

Sunday, May 21, 2017

KIC 8462852 (Tabby's Star) is "misbehaving" again

http://spacebeyondcosmos.blogspot.com/2017/05/that-alien-megastructure-star-just.html

[From my Facebook feeds]

RR

ETs hacked Voyager 2?

http://spacebeyondcosmos.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/voyager-2-may-have-been-hacked-as-it.html

[Fron my Facebook feeds]

RR

Saturday, May 20, 2017

The 1967 Michalak/Falcon Lake UFO incident (from Google Alerts)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/falcon-lake-incident-book-anniversary-1.4121639

(Zoam Chomsky dismisses this sighting but, as the newspaper article indicates, it's a good one.)

RR

Ufology = Escapism

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Because of my psychological background and training, I can’t help being attuned to quirks in the UFO community, not just UFO witnesses but ufologists (UFO buffs, investigators, and wannabes).

And I’m nonplussed by the blatant, over-ripe examples of escapism on the part of ufological practitioners.

“Escapism. In psychoanalytic therapy, this term denotes the tendency to escape from reality functioning to the relative security of childhood, a tendency often manifested by an accentuation of neurotic symptoms. It is a form of resistance.” [Psychiatric Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Hinsie/Campbell, Oxford University Press]

(The neurotic state also applies to physicists, especially those involved with cosmology as I’ve noted in passages here, previously, about the childhood demeanor of such scientists when they’re discussing their work and findings or celebrating a successful result such as a Mars Rover landing.)

In the UFO world, escapism is highlighted by the dominant desire to see UFOs as a contingent of extraterrestrial visitors, coming to save the human race from itself or to aid our species with “extraterrestrial knowledge” and “aid.”

I won’t name names, but in the tangential fringe lore online, one can see a grasping desire by those who suffer economic plight or physical deformity or just plain homeliness. (Ray Palmer was an example of the deformity group, while a few “pals” of mine suffer personal homeliness or economic debilitations of life’s exigencies.

There are few UFO enthusiasts who are endowed with beauty or riches, so one might conclude, and I do, that these aficionados seek the solace and comfort of the UFO ET meme.

They escape into a delusional, fantasy world, based in their childhood dreams, of otherworldly existences, exacerbated by their failure in adulthood to achieve dominance in looks or economic wherewithal.

UFOs offer a cover for their perceived shortcomings, and they milk the idea of “ETism” to assuage their “failures” in life.

(Look at the demeanor of UFO people – their physiognomy, their financial status, their success, or lack of it, their slovenly dress, and their cultural interests or lack of such.)

Ufology is a lousy, deprecated fixture of the social milieu, and the people involved in it are a species representing the welter of persons whom psychiatry use to treat but now, generally, ignore, as does the rest of human society.

Image above from:


RR

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Ufologists miss the point

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
I notice that some UFO persons I chum around with or use to are ignored in ufological circles (me among them but for different reasons).

Ufology’s buffs, who are ignored, are those who persist in clubbing “archaic” UFO cases, splitting hairs about those cases, ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseum.

They don’t conjure with UFOs per se but bedraggle details that surround the phenomenon or sightings that interest them or, rather, UFO events that they have gathered material about over the years, dishing out that material in a way to try and establish some ufological acumen and/or “fame.”

Detail upon detail is piled up in insensate commentary that doesn’t address the UFO phenomenon but does provide red-herring information that takes readers away from the enigma, slugging them with UFO detritus that is peripheral to what UFOs are, an explanation for them.

It’s the phenomenon that should be addressed, not the niggling, fractious details of what UFO witnesses were wearing, how they reacted, and what happened to them after their observation or incident.

In science, it’s the phenomenon that is researched, not the ambient patina of irrelevancies that surround it.

Yes, I understand that some physical forms (matter, energy, et al.) are considered in the context of other egregious elements that may or my not impact it, but a physical item itself is never shunted away from scrutiny in order to zero in the patinal attributes of an experiment or process.

In ufology, the UFO itself is, generally, smothered by the attention given to outer factors that may, indeed, have some bearing, but usually only becloud aspects of the thing (UFO) itself under examination.

An example that one of my readers likes is the 1952 Desvergers event in Florida where irradiated soil was found underneath where the alleged UFO hovered.

But the Blue Book investigators and latent UFO researchers and hobbyists insisted upon exploring, to the detriment of the phenomenal aspect (that irradiation), the iffy background of the scoutmaster (Sonny Desvergers) who said he had a UFO experience.

Sure the idea that Desvergers seemed like a person who might create a UFO hoax, and subsequent behavior by him obviated that, but that his "hoax" left ground cover that was radiated was set aside in deference to the “bad character” aspects of the witness (Desvergers).

Look at the commentary at some UFO blogs and web-sites. You will see the charney attention to similar peripheral details that choke the life out of an interesting case; the 1964 Lonnie Zamora-Socorro episode is an example.

My pal Kevin Randle has had an exemplary UFO blog for a long time but with it comes his retinue of followers who engulf his prose and ideas with comments that have nothing to do with the UFO event he’s presenting; the comments are self-aggrandizing tributes to the person commenting.

This is the case with other UFO blogs and sites. It’s the commentary that’s killing ufology and the UFO topic.

Like that now banal political slogan of a few years back – “It’s the economy, stupid” – it’s the UFO, people, not the adornments that surround it.


RR

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

UFOs thrive on (need) attention in order to exist?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The quantum bromide that quantum particles in a superposition state, do or do not exist until they are measured (observed), allegorized in the Schrödinger “thought experiment” of the cat in a box, applies to UFOs.

That is, UFOs do not exist until they are observed, but does that observation create the UFO sighting or does the UFO event exist before it is observed?

Sartre’s “existence precedes essence” may apply here, but does it?

In Thomistic philosophy “what a thing is" and "that it is" are completely different.
Do UFOs exist, philosophically, or are they a construct of observation (as quantum mechanics indicates)?

And how does consciousness enter into the equation? Is there a psychological component integral to UFOs, or even a neurological component?

Do any of these things matter to ufology?

We can work with Thomistic (Aquinas’ philosophy/theology) to an extent by agreeing (or not) that UFO exist, and our job is to determine what UFOs are,

Or we can say that UFOs do not exist until they are observed by a witness (an observer).

We are on the horns of many dilemmas: UFOs exist or not, they are what, and do they only exist in the fervid mind of witnesses (observers), as Jung suggested in his Flying Saucer book?

The essence of ufology is to ignore these consequential matters and deal with the superficial aspects of UFOs, their appearance and disappearance, leaving the question of their reality to simmer in the witness reportage, which is an iffy proposition by all accounts.

While the reality of UFOs, their existence and essence, does not have the dynamic importance that the reality of God question imposes upon us, the UFO topic is of a same kind, actually.

Do they exist? What is their essence? And does the human factor (their observation) play a part in either question?

The problem is that ufologists, UFO buffs, do not have the wherewithal to conjure with the philosophy of UFOs (or ufology); that is, persons interested in UFOs are not equipped to deal with the philosophical/psychological/neurological/quantum underpinnings that are intrinsic to a real study of the UFO phenomenon.

You know that. I know that. So here we are, in a quagmire of ignorance imposed on ufology by its practitioners.

That has been the bane of the topic since its catalytic heyday, 1947.

RR

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Enervated Ufology

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
What strikes me, more than anything, about UFO buffs and ufologists is how lazy and unenergetic the UFO crowd is.

Seeing UFO personalities on those gagly UFO TV shows, aside from how sloppily dressed and scruffy they look, I notice that there is no spark or sparkle in their presentations. (Well, there’s Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Ancient Astronaut guru, but that’s it.)

Even visiting UFO web-sites and blogs, one sees a dearth of energy or vibrant creativity; everything is somnambulistic.

The topic and the people immersed in it are old, generally, so they are tired but even the younger set, 50 or so in age, are without youthful vim and vigor.

UFO topics are presented in cob-webby environments, often in black with white text, a sure sign of a depressive patina.

“The bloom is off the rose” as the old saying goes, and it surely is off the gaggle of UFO “celebrities” who show up on those awful television portals.

UFOs and ufology need a spark of energy and dynamic thought, but from where will it come?

Youth (millennials and Gen Z “kids”) have other fish to fry, it seems.

(As you can see by my word use and references that I fall into that aged, cranky category that I’m disparaging here.)

Anyway, let’s see some spirited and vigorous ufology, flush with vibrant personalities, well-scrubbed and refined in dress so that the topic is highlighted by energy, not the muted refrains of the deathly crew now navigating the UFO story into oblivion.

RR

Monday, May 15, 2017

The New Paradigms: Ufologists pay attention!

Copyright 2017. InterAmerica, Inc.
I’ve noticed and posted some profound changes in scientific thinking recently:

The Big Bang is under assault by some physicists who can’t convince themselves or others that there was nothing before the Big Bang happened.


“The most problematic liability of each of the aforementioned Big Bang hypotheses was their inability to ultimately explain the literal origin of the Universe. Each sequence of events started out in medias res (in the middle of things).”

The Big Bang inflation theory has problems.


“A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.”

Two programs on he National Geographic channel Monday night [5/15/17] had references to items that I torture you with here:

The idea of Earth’s solitary isolation in the cosmos, with the clarification from Carl Sagan in his original Cosmos TV series, inserted in Neil deGrasse Tyson's new Cosmos series.

And in Year Million, NatGeo presented the concerns and benefits of Artificial Intelligence (Robots), AI being a possible explanation, by me, of UFO probes, a few.
Then there is the creeping idea that there may be a God in place for our universe and reality, below, in a posted link here [May 15, 2017].

How do these things impact the UFO topic (and ufology)?

Well, a paragraph in a review of new books about The Reformation in the May 5, 2017 Times Literary Supplement [Page 28 ff.] by Charlotte Methuen had this:

“MacCulloch’s underlying message [in his book All Things Made New] is the need for ‘the proper study of history” which, he argues, ‘forms a powerful barrier against societies and institutions collectively going insane as a result of telling themselves badly skewed stories about the past.” [Page 29]

So, one needs to know the real history of things – UFO stories, in urtext form as I beleaguered the other day here – in order to place them in the context of new thinking.

And the new thinking is showing up more and more, placing old-dog ideas about the cosmos, advanced species and life, and the rocky foundation of many physical laws that many (or you) hold dear.

Nothing is sacrosanct and the idea that UFOs are ET oriented is skewed history, a biased meme inserting itself in UFO lore by those who have a psychotic need to believe that beings have visited and are visiting here, to save us from ourselves or to offer advanced knowledge that we might use to save ourselves, with outside help.

While a few UFO die-hards and quidnuncs think that the UFO topic needs to be reframed, that is goofy.

The UFO topic, the UFO canon (lore) only needs a decluttering, a removal of false history and “facts.”

The chore seems daunting but it really isn’t. Kevin  Randle has begun the cleansing of Roswell clutter and Nick Redfern is constantly refining old UFO tales with new insights and real facts.

And you can do your part by refusing to continue flogging old, errant UFO broadsides and presenting them as truths, when you know they aren’t: MJ-12 is one.

Don’t continue to be “insane” but try to be intellectual, advanced in thought, just as are those who now see old (and even some new) physics laws as wayward and wrong.

RR 

There seems to be a God

https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-god-exist-scientists-think-153002283.html

RR

Sunday, May 14, 2017

The Platitudes of UFO ETs

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

When Earthlings allegedly encounter and interact with beings (or humanoids) that supposedly emerge from flying saucers or UFOs (unearthly craft), the colloquy (telepathically or verbally) goes something like this: the visitor says, “We mean you no harm. We are from “Nerfworld” far away in the galaxy (or universe).” The Earthling says, “Can I get you something to drink?”

Now does that seem like an opening that bespeaks advanced intelligence, on either side?

It seems that an advanced, sentient species (from outer space), after all the years of purported UFO sightings and interactions with Earthlings, would provide a profound truth or sensible interplay of some kind.

That is, they (the advanced species) wouldn’t, after all the years of human contact, condescend

The  professed abducted “conversations” with outer space visitors, from Adamski through to Betty Hill and Betty Andreasson almost always include an offer to tour the “ship” to which the abductees have been taken.

The advanced being from elsewhere invariably sounds like the abductee if the abductee were provoking an abduction or friendly kidnapping.

Contact with beings, outside the human reality – God(s), angels, demonic messengers, time-travelers, et al. – seem rather prosaic, mundane when it comes down to examining the being-to-person exchange or interaction.

Even in the Biblical encounters with God, that Entity, cloaks His or Her speech in sophomoric blather, “I am who am” for instance.

This suggests that the adductors may be (and are, as I see it) projections from the unconscious of the abductees, and nothing more.

The paranoid overlay of the abduction experience is palpable and noted by psychiatrists who’ve delved, objectively, into the phenomenon.

This reasonable explanation may account for the dearth in UFO abduction tales lately.

Everyone has caught on, even those who have a proclivity to be abducted, er, I mean paranoid.

RR

Friday, May 12, 2017

The Misuse or Non-use of Urtext in Ufology

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Urtext is the definition for an original or earliest text [extant]; that is, a compose's first finished piece of music or a writer's final draft before publication of his or her written work.

In ufology, the first report or interview of a UFO witness sighting would be the urtext of that sighting.

For instance, Kenneth Arnold’s first interview about his iconic sighting would be the urtext version of what he allegedly saw.

Betty Hill’s first account of her purported abduction would be the urtext version of what supposedly happened to her and her husband Barney.

In classical literature, first copies of works, urtext copies, are what academics want to see, the most original work(s) of Homer or Shakespeare for instance.

In Biblical studies, the urtext of the Biblical writings are of primary importance.

For ufologists, the problem has invariably been that original UFO reporting is usually(?) accreted to by UFO buffs who often add extraneous material that favors their bias or inclination – the belief that UFOs are extraterrestrial craft for example.

Just as copies of Biblical manuscripts obtained errors or additions by errant or inept monks in their copying of Biblical books, UFO reports, likewise, are added to by inept or biased UFO aficionados, investigators, researchers.

The 1964 Lonnie Zamora Socorro sighting, a favorite of mine, as you know, was compromised by the initial, governmental investigators and UFO writer Ray Stanford, abetted by J. Allen Hynek who didn’t keep hold of the urtext description of the episode by Officer Zamora, and particularly the symbol or insignia that Officer Zamora said he saw (and drew).

Many UFO cases have become bloated and errant by the addition, inadvertently or mistakenly, of material that never was part of the initial witness account.

This sloppy methodology has been a bane of ufology, but little acknowledged by writers and readers of UFO material who, themselves, accept, blindly what they read in magazines or gather, especially, on the internet.

The disciplines of science and academia are eschewed by UFO enthusiasts for various reasons; i.e., laziness, ignorance, propagandistically inclined biases, et cetera.

Once, UFO followers and devotees adopt a tenor of serious, intellectual, academic demeanor for their ufological hobby, the UFO topic might resurge as a valid interest for science, the media, and the public at large.

RR

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

A UFO Video and newspaper article you might find interesting

Our pal Yvan D provided, in a comment to a 12/31/16 posting here about the 1950 (1952?) Oskar Linke sighting, this video link (about UFOs) wherein Herr Linke appears:

https://youtu.be/w-gobjVfFiQ 

And Yvan D also sent a 1952 newspaper article about the Linke episode:
My 2016 posting about the Linke sighting is HERE.

(The Oskar Linke story was brought back to life by a Kevin Randle article at his blog.)

RR

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

From my Facebook feed(s)

RR

Current Blog Stats for UFO Conjectures

RR

The UFO Stasis (or Death?)

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
In rummaging around the UFO blogosphere I noticed that a number of people who were active at UFO Updates 10 years ago have either gone underground or left the UFO community altogether.

(I posted some of the names at one of our UFO social sites.)

Contacting a few, I’m told that they were no longer actively interested in UFOs but still follow the topic sub rosa (as a lurker, rather than an overt observer).

No, it’s got nothing to do with ufological trolls or the internecine squabbling.

It’s mostly to do with the soporific, unstimulating nature of ufology and UFOs nowadays.

(I suggest you Google the UFO Update archives to see how wild and rowdy that place used to be. You’ll also see names of people quite active then, but not now.)

I get Google Alerts for Ufology and UFOs, but even they have fallen off precipitously lately, just three today [5/9] for UFOs and one for Ufology.

I know there is a remnant of UFO buffs still hyping UFOs, trying to salvage their investment(s) in the topic, some trying to forge ufological allegiances by various means.

That won’t work, long-range.

UFOs, as I keep harping on here (sorry), are really passé, although there remains a vital contingent on Facebook, where the die-hards have gathered and formed “friendships” whereupon they interact, rather dramatically, with each other.

But I don’t see any of the old UFO notables in those FB arenas, yet I do see vital interactions among UFO aficionados, some trolls, but few newbies; that is, the people working the Facebook UFO areas are the same persons who remain active in ufology even as it dies on the vine.

Being inside the UFO arena one thinks it’s vital and vibrant.

Standing outside the UFO arena, one will only spot a mosquito swarm of activity that has little or nothing to do with the social, political, cultural, scientific, entertaining milieux.

I know most of you don’t like to read these dour messages of mine, but that’s the way of things.

That some of you remain delusional keeps me in the fray. It stimulates my psychological interests. After all, being nuts still offers grist for discussion as the resurgence in Freud and psychoanalysis shows.

RR

The wing-feathered serpent and its UFO connection?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
A piece in the May 1975 issue of Official UFO magazine, Aliens among Us: Encounters and Visitations by Nancy Grunthal [Page 44 ff.] has a lengthy tale of a man named Fred Clarke (not his real name) who, in 1974, saw “an emblem of a winged and feathered serpent” on the jackets of a “hippie couple” sitting across from him on a subway train.

Then six months later, while driving home, at 1 a.m. in the morning from a lodge meeting in New Jersey, Clarke’s car stopped functioning and he saw an oblong, hovering form with a tripod-like apparatus settle on the highway from which “two short beings, about four feet five inches” emerged and glided over to his car.

“They sure weren’t walking, I can tell you that,” [said] Clarke. “It was like they were floating, and they were moving much faster than a person could walk … They came over to the car, and I remember I could see the serpent emblem on their silver uniforms.” [ibid, Page 44]

They rubbed their “hands over the hood and sides of the car, like they were scanning it with some kind of device … Then they went over to the edge of the service road and scooped up some rocks and dirt, put it into a sack and floated back to their vehicle.

“As soon as they climbed aboard, the landing gear retracted and a reddish-orange light seemed to illuminate the craft … Clarke heard … a humming and then a buzzing noise as the craft shot vertically up into the sky … [whereupon] his car engine started automatically. [ibid]

Clarke tried to tell his sorry to others, including his wife, but was rebuffed, his wife saying “You’re overworked and it seems to be affecting your mind.” [ibid, Page 46]

Clarke was then reluctant to tell his tale and “might have [been] able to forgeten [sic] the whole thing, except that every so often we would see guys and gals of all ages … with the symbol of a winged, feathered serpent on their jeans, jackets, or pants. It never failed to make him shudder.” [ibid]

Did Fred Clarke pilfer his story from that told by Nebraska police sergeant Hebert Schirmer, who detailed an encounter in 1967 with UFO entities also wearing a winged, serpent emblem?
See Phantoms and Monsters site for that story by clicking HERE.

The winged, feather serpent, and the glorified serpent are integral to mythology and religious texts, as most of you well know:




The Universal Kabbalah by Leonora Leet

And the opening book of The Hebrew Bible (The Old Testament) presents the serpent in a less than glorious light. [Genesis, Chapter 3]
Also the Book of Daniel (referenced above) in The Bible has a serpent (dragon) in Chapter 14:22.

The serpent has also been a part of great literature:

[In] the Eighth Circle of Hell, Virgil and Dante face many dangers. Because of the collapsed bridge, they must navigate treacherous rocks, and Virgil carefully selects a path before helping his mortal companion along. Dante loses his breath for a moment, but Virgil urges him onward, indicating that a long climb still awaits them. They descend the wall into the Seventh Pouch, where teeming masses of serpents chase after naked sinners; coiled snakes bind the sinners’ hands and legs. Dante watches a serpent catch one of the sinners and bite him between the shoulders. He watches in amazement as the soul instantly catches fire and burns up, then rises from the ashes to return to the pit of serpents. [Dante’s (Divine) Comedy, Cantos XVII,  XXIV and XXV]
Jung, in his treatise Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things seen in the Skies [Princeton University Press, 1978, paperback], on Page 20, in the midst of his discussion of the Mandala (which he thought was a psychical projection of UFOs), offers a dream of a six year old girl, that depicted “three snakes [crawling] around [a] fire” representing an archetype, mythic memes in the collective unconscious of all humans.

http://jungiangenealogy.weebly.com/symbols.html

Peter Kolosimo, in his book, Spaceships in Prehistory [University Books, NJ, 1976], has several serpent themed photos: an Aztec plumed serpent, a Roman reptile on the altar in the Casa dei Vettii at Pompeii, a serpent on a boundary stone of the Kassites epoch, a cup from the valley of the Indus (dated circa 2500 B.C.) showing two serpents held by a human figure, and a Danish “serpent god” from 3000 B.C. [Pages 84-87]
And while some of you have seen depictions of flying serpents in the decorative art of the Meso-American and Oriental cultures, I found no specific cave drawings of serpents from the Neolithic era or early Stone Age but apparently there are some:
I was hoping to suggest that persons seeing winged, serpent images on UFOnaut uniforms were dredging up the image from their Jungian collective unconscious.
(In Freudian psychology, the serpent is a, tenuous, per Brill, symbol of the male genitalia, of course which has no bearing here or in UFO lore.)

I know a few UFO buffs see serpentine humanoids as the ETs piloting UFOs, but that’s a stretch, derived from UFO witnesses who have need of Analytical Psychology as Jung proposes in his Flying Saucer book.

Ancient Astronaut theorists have a field day with the Flying Serpent god of the Aztecs, Quetzalcoatl, saying that Quetzalcoatl was actually an ancient astronaut who visited the Earth and helped the Aztecs develop or evolve.
(While I like the AAT’s speculations – they are imaginative – I think we can insert the word God or gods for the ancient astronaut mantle and be as risible as the AATs are.)

But since there is a vast canon of serpents, flying and not, in all of the Earth’s literature extant, plus a large portfolio of serpents in drawings or etched in ancient sculpture, one has to take the observation of “Fred Clarke” in the Official UFO magazine cited above and the 1967 report by police officer Schirmer somewhat seriously.
Is there a presence showing up, in situ, displaying a winged, feathered serpent as a symbol full of meaning for those who can discern it?

(And remember, that serpent in Eden caused us a lot of grief, which should cause us to try and determine what or who it really was so we can apply payback.)
RR

Monday, May 08, 2017

The UFO Provocateur(s)

Since I've taken to be a little more temperate at this blog, I offer you another blog of ours that deals with UFOs a bit more incendiary:

ufoprovocateur.blogspot.com

RR

A reasoned take on ET visitations (or not)

Doug Stewart sent a Literary Hub link that discusses, from a astrobiologist, why it would be unlikely that ETs would visit Earth, delineating the various scenarios that have been proffered by film-makers and others.

I thank Doug for the link.

Click HERE

RR

Saturday, May 06, 2017

Nick Redfern’s new Roswell book – a “review”

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

I just got Nick’s latest endeavor, The Roswell UFO Conspiracy: Exposing a Shocking and Sinister Secret [Lisa Hagan Books, 2017], a sequel to his 2005 Body Snatchers in the Desert [Simon & Schuster]

His 2005 book, Body Snatchers …, caused a mild uproar among ufologists, not because it dismissed the Roswell incident but because if offered a thoughtful and well-documented alternative to the ET scenario that UFO buffs, especially Roswell addicts, applied to the 1947 alleged crash of a flying disk near Roswell, New Mexico.

Nick’s thesis then, as now, is that what really happened at Roswell was a highly classified government sponsored human experiment that involved birth-defective Japanese children and proto-typical balloons (aircraft).

His argument in the new book is spread out over 23 Chapters and 260 pages in which the whole of the Roswell saga is presented and, as usual with Nick, much that followers of the Roswell story have never heard, details and intrigues that bolster Nick’s premise.

Like many of you and Nick, I came to believe that Roswell didn’t involve an extraterrestrial craft that crashed and disgorged small-framed ETs, all badly disfigured and dead, except for one or sometimes two as the Roswell Johnny-come-latelies had it.

Something happened at (or near) Roswell and Nick provides the various theories and dog-eared “revelations” over the years, all of them.

But in this book he narrows the episode down to one: a military experiment that was sinister and evil that required a real cover-up, even to this day.

(That military and governmental experiments on humans, defective and not, were multiple has been mentioned here and in other places, the book Against Their Will: The Secret History of Medical Experimentation of Children in Cold War America [Palgrave MacMillan, NY, 2013] and others providing documentation that supplements Nick’s theme.)

Names common in the Roswell storyline appear and it seems that Nick has something on (or about) all of them.

I liked, particularly, Nick’s Chapter 18, Body Snatchers – The UFO Community’s Reaction – which is enlightening and sort of hilarious. (I suspect there will be a sequel similar to that with this new book.)

I hope many of you will grab a copy of Nick’s book, at Amazon ($14.49, paperback) or other book outlets.

You will not only be edified in many ways, about more than Roswell or UFOs, but also will become a witness to real down and superb journalism, something Nick Redfern keeps giving readers of his books.

As usual, I’ll have supplements to this “review” off and on as the book deserves more than the cursory romp given here.

RR

The ET Visitation Psychosis

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Even The Anomalist’s Chris Savia has become enslaved to the idea that extraterrestrials have been and maybe are on the doorstep of our planet Earth.

His noting of a Daily Grail piece about the possibility of alien visits, long ago, that left artifacts which have been demolished by the corrosive activity of longevity and other Earthian factors that ultimately determine(d) the state of possible alien evidence goes to the desire of UFO buffs and paranormalists to establish that we, humans, are not alone in the Universe.

It’s the classic Freudian mental condition known as “wish fulfillment.”

And it’s the preliminary step to psychosis, if not stemmed by psychoanalysis or some other form of psychiatric manipulation.

Again, in the vast cosmos there surely must be other sentient life, but I quibble with the notion that Earth has been visited or is being visited by that sentient life.

First, there is the belief that Earth is a kind of unique repository of a special creation. It is, but only from a human perspective. Projecting the idea that humankind represents an exceptional incarnation is a leap of non-intellectual faith.

Second, that an alien civilization has discovered this special creation or even seeded it is a desire d’embléé or primordial delusion.

Primitive man believed that he was not alone in the Universe, begotten by a God or gods, and many present day humans believe the same thing.

And the idea that aliens (ancient and contemporary) visit(ed) the Earth is a staple of Ancient Astronaut Theory – an imaginative speculation in which the sobriquet “ancient astronaut” is used as a substitute rubric for the word God.

The jumping off point for sensible persons, such as my pal, Christian Savia, is SETI, which has the patina of a scientific endeavor, and it is, SETI searching for radio signals from alien civilizations, assuming that ancient (ET) civilizations would employ radio signals, having developed them much like Earth’s humans developed them using engineering insight and mathematical formulae specific to human inventiveness.

But SETI is just one more form of the delusional desire to find other species, off Earth, who co-exist with us and desire to find like-beings by scouring the galaxy or cosmos in the hope of finding their sentient brethren.

My beleaguered suggestion that Earth is a non-player in the cosmological scheme of things irks AATs and UFO buffs; that is, the Earth is such a pathetic planet at the outskirt of the Milky Way and hardly prominent by any definition, no advanced species would find us or know about us, unless…..
I’ve conjectured, as have others, that perhaps a probe sent through the galaxy or even the Universe itself might have stumbled upon this planet, and finding life, now persists in re-visiting or visiting here à la carte.

Yes, that’s a real stretch, for this reason: if an advanced civilization sent probes into the cosmological ether, they would do so from a point (or points) omni-directional; that is, they would be probing from a number of points, making it highly improbable that they would luck-out and send a probe or two in a line that leads them to Earth or our slim solar system.

The same holds true for SETI signals.

An advanced species or civilization sending radio signals out for detection would also be flummoxed by the radii points they’d have to use to cover a spectrum of the Universe or galaxy.

There are just too many directions to which a signal or spacecraft could be sent to make it logically feasible for radio or UFOs to get a hit: Earth.

We humans have to accept the idea that we are, for all practical reasons, alone in the cosmos, only noticed by, perhaps, an omniscient thing call God.

And to persist in pushing the “Life is out there” meme bespeaks a psychotic mind-set or an intrinsic ongoing psychotic episode.

Image at top from http://www.tracesonline.org/

RR

Friday, May 05, 2017

A stark example of Ufological schizophrenia!

Click HERE

Thursday, May 04, 2017

Update for Nick Redfern's new Roswell book

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/05/roswells-body-snatchers-resurface/

UFOs: There’s something to it, but what?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Reading through Michael Swords’ book (pictured) of Center for UFO Studies cases gathered by John Timmerman one can see that there is something profoundly odd that is lumped under the rubric The UFO Phenomenon.

I’d like to instill UFOs as phenomena, rather than a phenomenon, as one can see from all the sightings extant, which the book above lists, that UFOs are not just one thing but many things.

That’s what’s so delicious about Professor Swords’ listing of CUFOS reports: they tell us that UFOs have a reality, not just an ephemeral existence in the minds of people, and that the UFO reality is multi-faceted.

Sure, I’m advocate of a neurological or psychological reality for UFOs but I’m convinced that within the vast canon of UFO accounts lie real observations and experiences that seem to show a phenomenon (or phenomena) worthy of the tagline “actual” or “real.”

The CUFOS gathering, presented by Michael Swords, contains every kind of UFO sighting we UFO buffs are familiar with or have read/heard about: disks, cigar-shaped craft, weird lights, triangle-shaped vehicles, amorphous entities, et cetera.

What intrigues is that the reports cited come from regular, normal folks, not "wackos" or psychotics.

That UFO sightings may be created by something affecting the neurological elements in a human brain is fine but to accept my pal, Bryan Sentes’ call to see trace residue after a UFO event as substantive, one has to agree that mental hallucination or neurological malfeasances can’t account for some documented sightings. And I do. (Grassroots UFOs provides examples.)

UFOs fascinate because they offer a multi-reality much like that with quantum particles: existent corporeality that becomes incorporeal when looked for (at) seriously. (Google Heisenberg)

Some say UFOs don’t exist or that UFO reports are flush with errant accounts, the latter easier to skeptically address as UFOs, defined by sensate persons, obviously exist.

Of course UFO witness testimony is befouled by the clumsy recollection of those who see and were excited to see something that could be called a UFO.

But at the core of UFO reports rests a mystery, one that belies mental illness or criminal intent; people don’t usually lie about what they’ve seen or think they’ve seen.

Even misperception can be set aside. No group of human beings can misperceive within the quantity that UFO sightings supply. The odds are against it.

Get the Swords book – it’s only a few dollars (about $16 when I last mentioned it here) – and indulge yourself in a swelter of UFO sightings that indicate there’s something to UFOs, something real, unknown but tangibly real.

It will bolster your UFO interest, even if the idea that UFOs are ET vehicles isn’t particularly mentioned.

RR

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

Define UFO (rather) specifically and ufology will move forward

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
UFO: Unidentified (obviously), flying (of course), object (something seemingly tangible)

A UFO should be something with apparent tangibility, an object that is flying above or near the ground, and is blatantly not something familiar to the observer.

A UFO isn’t a light in the sky. Lights in the sky can be anything, meteorological phenomena that is odd, for instance.
Unless a weird light seems to be attached to something equally weird, such sightings should be ignored, dismissed.

Those kinds of sightings have cluttered the UFO data streams, and divert investigators from checking on flying anomalies that appear to be solid craft or something with a substantive corporeality.

Observers, who mistake Venus, for a UFO are not qualified to be named in UFO witness lists. They are stupid people, merely compromising UFO sightings with ignorant sensory data.

UFOs are things flying above, not blobs or lights in water.

Something (un)identified should have proximity to the viewer, the observer. Flicks of light or dark forms seen far off could be anything – an errant cloud, a balloon, a large bird, a kite, anything that gets airborne.

(Here's a photo of a kite but one that also has captured a UFO -- boxed in red -- from snowdeal.org)
A UFO should be close enough to be seen as truly odd.

A UFO designation should only be ascribed to something that moves with purpose, even if that movement is erratic but not deviating from seeming intention, as a balloon in the wind might.

Sticking with a categorical definition of UFO, as the term was intended initially, will eliminate the massive accumulation of sightings that are meaningless for the searcher of odd craft that could be something flown by sentience.

Discarding the term UAP, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, will winnow the flying saucer litany to that which purports to be something worthwhile to investigate, rather than a catch-all for stuff that is the purview of people attracted to anything that is up, up and away.

UFO: an unknown, flying object.

RR

Many ways to perceive things (UFOs among them)

Click HERE for explication of theme. (It will edify you about how perception has more facets than one.)

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

Who will be remembered in Ufology?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
I have a blog based upon a premise in the Sci-Fi novel A Canticle for Leibowitz: what should be saved for posterity if civilization(s) end?

Media friends of mine have been asked to offer that which lies just below the rubric “famous” that should be noted and saved (extolled even), which got me to thinking who in the UFO community (ufology) will be remembered as time goes by.

(Not the sightings but the people who inhabit ufology or once inhabited it.)

Persons attached to iconic flying saucer or UFO events and sightings will be recalled and remembered when their UFO episode is brought forward by those, in the future, who look back at UFO lore, should anyone still find UFOs relevant a few years from now.

But from today’s perspective, who seems likely to be remembered as a major element in the UFO mythos?

Of course, early adopters of the phenomenon, such as Donald Keyhoe and John Keel, will show up in a perusal of the UFO oeuvre (and you know the names of others of their ilk who are tied to the phenomenon because of their efforts on behalf and about the phenomenon).

And I'm not addressing the obviously famous: Hynek, Ruppelt, Vallee, et al., just those who aren't in the well-known category, but strut there way around the UFO landscape as if they are.

So, in the UFO community today, who stands out and seems likely to be a part of the UFO history when it is written by an historian of the future?

Persons I know, who have enough cachet to show up in a UFO historical record, include Stanton Friedman (because of his entrenchment in the literature), Kevin Randle (because of his work on Roswell and his plethora of UFO books and articles), Nick Redfern also, (because of his vast journalistic paranormal output). These fellows won’t be famous but they will be remembered by astute UFO aficionados.

Will Ray Stanford be remembered? As a footnote, because of his silly-named book about the 1964 Socorro incident.

What about Gene Steinberg and his Paracast show? Not so much. Gene has been around for a long time but The Paracast show is not (and has never been) a fount for the UFO phenomenon, engaging peripheral UFO entities to highlight. (And Gene killed any legacy he was trying to muster with his need to panhandle survival monies for a few years now, drowning what little cachet he had or thought he had).

Errol Bruce-Knapp, once a UFO celebrity because of his UFO Update thing, has already been forgotten except by those who were integral to his circle.

What about Jerome Clark? He has a few books that will stand forth on UFO bookshelves but as a UFO notable, he won’t register, even now little known by UFO newbies.

What about persons that most of you don’t know, even now, or care about? Greg Bishop, Jeff Ritzmann, Jeremy Vaeni, Tyler Kokjohn – all at the outer limit of ufology.

Most of you have already forgotten Bruce Duensing.

Whitley Strieber is a future no-show, his output placed in the “remainder bin” of book-shops.

What about Isaac Koi or my pals at The Anomalist? Few will remember them as they are little known even now, much as the reporters at People magazine are subsumed by the celebrities they write about.

Then there are such good writers as Micah Hanks. Micah? Many will ask years from now.

Or Red Pill Junkie? Who?

What about my pal Paul Kimball? He won’t be remembered for his UFO work but will be known for his political aspirations and films.

Jose Caravaca will be alluded to by his Spanish amigos, and French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, likewise, by his French colleagues, but no one else.

The Brits, David Clarke, Andy Roberts, Joe McGonagle, already unknown outside the Empire.

The skeptics, Robert Shaeffer and Tim Printy, are skittles in the great skeptical lexicon, removed from note by such scalawags as Phil Klass.

There are other names, at the rim of ufology, but so despicable that I am loath even to note them as losers.

What about me? I’m not even a footnote to a footnote, sad as that is personally.

And what about you?

RR