UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, April 24, 2015

UFO Fascists and those slides

The Roswell Team, while pursuing more information on the so-called Roswell incident, were apprised of some slides that intrigued Tom Carey and his colleagues.

Anthony Bragalia was particularly entranced by what he saw on the slides.

Thus, he and his fellow team members started to check into the slides and used others to tell them what they were seeing.

The team was curious, and in their pursuit they found other intriguing elements.

They’ve arrived at a spot where a May 5th event is scheduled to display the slides and the peripheral aspects that the Roswell Team find odd and interesting, to them.

But then we have UFO fellow-travelers hoping to squash the event and anything that is presented about the slides.

From what I know, which is little, there are things about the slides that cause mystery, maybe minor mystery but mystery nonetheless.

All of us – UFO aficionados – have a UFO sighting or event that baffles or we find strange to the point that we keep looking at the sighting/event, hoping to understand it.

Yet, we keep getting strife from persons who want us to quell our curiosity; they want to stifle our pursuit or interest. They want us to be uncurious.

Why can’t the Roswell Team create an event to present their curiosity item?

Persons seeing hokum can ignore the event. And persons who want to spend their time and money by going to the event should be free to do so.

The Roswell Team should be free to spread their ideas and thoughts about the slides, or anything else, if they want to do that.

The American ideal of free speech, thought, and expression should apply, to everyone, ufologists and nuts as well, so long as no one is egregiously harmed in the process.

If any of us wants to be foolish or sometimes serious, who has the right to shut us up?

No one.

So, anti-sliders, shut up. Let the Roswell guys do their thing, If they make fools of themselves, that’s on them.

If they come up with some interesting material that pertains to Roswell or UFOs, or not, that might benefit us all.

It’s something they have to do, it seems.

That’s okay with me.

I have the right, I hope, to question or agree with their findings as do the Ufological fascists.

I’m a little sick of all the vitriol spilt because of the slides.

Persons are attacking the Team more than what the Team plans to disclose.

After all, none of us, outside the loop, are privy to exactly what they have.

They should have given what they have long before this, but they didn’t, and that’s their prerogative,

I’ve bitched about the holding back by them, but I understand their hesitancy to disclose.

Maybe some of them want to make some money off their find, or hope to amend their flawed legacy, or want to know if what they have pertains to Roswell, or alien contact.

No matter which, it’s all okay with me.

I want to hear all voices when it comes to UFOs and lots of other things too.

But some would try to prevent me from that hearing. F*ck them.

RR

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Jose Antonio Caravaca: Jaime Maussan on the slide(s) body

Maussan says the humanoid in the slides was 48 or 72 hours in the desert exposed to more than 100 degree heat, it is appreciated in that the body has a kind of "mummification by desiccation", but it has some parts where is observed "fresh flesh", so it is supposed the slides were obtained 2 or 3 months after the recovery of the bodies. Maussan said that "there are so many anomalies in the picture (slides) with respect to a human being: the head, the... shoulders, the number of ribs, the size of the arms, the size of the feet, the narrowness of the hip, all these elements seem somehow present in some cases of humans, as a syndrome, but by separate, not all together, for that a person with all these syndromes in one body to reach the adult stage is virtually impossible, he would die just months or a year of his birth, and this is a being that is larger than one meter would then have to be a young boy (...) geneticists who are investigating every possible illness, they will indicate all those that can be applied, but at the end, there is not a case historically recorded that actually presents all these symptoms in one body (...) if this being is, supposedly, on display in a museum, could exhibit the body of a child in a museum if have undergone a necropsy? ".... 

Maussan believes it would not be ethical show this corpse in a museum.... (!)


JAC

TBT? (Throw Back Thursday)

An Anthony Bragalia posting from 2008 (at one of our blogs) that has been referenced several times recently:

http://ufor.blogspot.com/2008/11/roswell-liars-by-anthony-bragalia.html

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Jose Antonio Caravaca and Jaime Maussan "debate" the alien slides

From the radio discussion, linked below:

Jaime Maussan: He (Caravaca) says they are not grotesque , I assure you they are grotesque . It is a picture that they took and with which they wanted to base all the research. It is a figure that is not very clear , it’s something they stretched , then modified and adjusted . I say it is more like the canary Tweety from the cartoons, the one who is always against the cat and well ... it looks more like Tweety than reality.
Jose Antonio Caravaca: B...ut, Mr. Maussan, Adam Dew himself, who is serving as a bridge between the current owner of the slides and the researchers conducting the investigation, has assured that there are specialists who have doubts that it may be a mummy.
Jaime Maussan: Adam Dew is not an expert, that first. We do not know, I mean, he does not know if the creature is in the process of mummification or not, because he has no image. Trying to be based on what someone said or not said is absolutely irrelevant. We’re talking about the evidence and we will present the facts to the world.


 

Extraterrestrial writing or schizophrenic renderings?

This site provides examples of alleged alien symbols and writing captured mentally by abductees and/or persons who say they've been in contact with UFOs and their entities:

http://www.abduct.com/symbols/s20.php

Here are two examples, a star chart and an indication of an alien alphabet:
The linked site has many others, some not unlike the Uruk example of writing or symbols (circa 8000 B.C.) which you can read about at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing

Again, do such representations come from an alien source or mental representations from those with neurological or psychological quirks?

It seems to me that any example of extraterrestrial writing would have some consistency with these categories of writing found in the Wikipedia article:

A logogram is a written character which represents a word or morpheme

A syllabary is a set of written symbols that represent (or approximate) syllables

In all the examples of abductee or UFO remembrances (at the site noted) one does not find a "logic" as one might discover in a philological study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philology

What causes people to thrust these outbursts into the UFO ether, mental derangement or an actual belief that they captured alien writing?

George Adamski provided such scribblings in his representation of Orthon's shoe imprint:
And then we have Lonnie Zamora's drawing of the insignia he saw on the egg-shaped craft he spotted in Socorro, 1964. (Oh wait, that's a logo on a Hughes Aicraft test vehicle):
RR

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

ETs may not be interested in Earth but what about our inter-dimensional neighbors?

ETs may not be interested in Earth but what about our inter-dimensional neighbors?

Re-highlighting (yellow pencil) Michio Kaku’s Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation. Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos [Doubleday, NY, 2005] it dawned on me that UFO intrusions, even the alleged Roswell/alien body seen in those damnable slides, may not be from a galactic civilization but, rather, come from another dimension, one that bumps up against us (a “brane” scenario as outlined in String Theory for Dummies, Wiley Publishing, Inc. Indianapolis, IN, Pages 195-196).

The idea of an existent culture slipping through a portal between our universe and their universe is easier, for me, to accept than the concept of an alien species trudging their way to Earth, bypassing all the other more manifest glories they’d experience on a trip to our backwater site in the great scheme of our visible universe.

Kaku infuses his book (all 428 pages of it) with asides about teleportation, quantum mysteries and theories, Darwin’s evolution, the paradox of Einstein’s relativity theories, M-theory, and almost everything else that theoretical physicists conjure with.

Kaku’s Chapter 8 (Page 241 ff.) covers the idea of a Designer Universe, displacing the God argument with the rationality of physical science, and how science is seeking to locate planets in our galaxy that may fall within the Golidlocks Zone, which you reading this understand I’m sure).

That we, as a curious species, might allow us to think that another curious species have been looking for planetary life elsewhere, and found Earth (an argument that Eric Wargo addressed here in my disparaging post about ET visitation).

And I suspect that an alien civilization may have stumbled upon Earth and was wowed by what it found.

But the plethora of UFO sightings/reports seem to preclude an occasional foray into the Earth’s sphere, and I can’t imagine an alien culture spending so much, time and effort, no matter how odd Earth and its diverse life-forms appear to them, coming back, again and again, indulging in what appear to be ridiculous surveillance.

That opens the door for a doppelganger dimension abutting ours which, on occasion, produces visitors through a glitch or contrived portal; those visitors showing up as religious/mythical entities in our history and folklore and UFO accounts like those found in the Vallee/Aubeck book, Wonders in the Sky.

I looked for quotable material from Kaku’s book to include here, but was overwhelmed with all the treasured information he provides: notes about literary figures (Shakespeare, Dante, Poe, et al.) and philosophers/scientists (Bruno, Kant, Nietzsche, et al.), artists (Dali, Duchamp, et al.) and contemporaries or colleagues (Schrödinger, Gamow, Gödel, Sagan, Green, and many, many more).

This is a book you should seek and read. It’s flush with information that many in “ufology” use in comments but really misunderstand (me included).

My point here, is that UFOs and their alleged entities don’t have to come from galaxies far, far away.

They may come from a universe or dimension atop us or right next door.

Even the so-called Roswell slides creature might be from an inter-dimensional place, or our own future.

See why or how via Michio Kaku’s terrific book.

RR

A new Roswell slides piece by Nick Redfern

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/roswell-slides-and-the-ant-people/

Monday, April 20, 2015

Jose Caravaca provides more slides news

Maussan insists that in USA medical, geneticist, etc have not examined the slides.

[I think] Anthony Bragalia said that US experts had seen the slides ... Maussan says no

The humanoid does not have elbows or wrists or nipples and has 7 ribs,

Mexican journalist says it's not a mammal (!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HW48TramA

JAC

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Huffington's Lee Speigel blunders through some UFO crap

In the Huffington Post piece (linked below) Lee Speigel touts The History Channel's Hangar 1 and its recent airing of UFOs reportedly seen in war zones.

UFO cognoscenti know that Hangar 1 is a flawed theatrical program, fraught with erroneous fact and much fiction about UFOs from MUFON.

(Mr. Speigel's rendering of the supposed 16th century woodcut showing a host of UFOs warring over the city has been addressed by me, showing the woodcut as an "editorial cartoon" about the religious turmoil of the time.)

Mr. Speigel's cavalier journalistic endeavors will remove any idea of credibility for Huffington, just wait and see.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/19/ufos-during-wartime_n_7046472.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

RR

UFOs and the conflict with personal realities

The research and expected explanation of UFOs (flying saucers) has always been marred or obstacled by researcher bias and entrenchment in subjective realties.

Recent dialogues I’ve had, online, with some of those who continue to delve into the UFO mystery, show me that we’ll never arrive at a reasonable consensus as to what UFOs represent or are.

That is, I keep finding that those who are enamored of the UFO enigma always, and I mean always, really want to impose their subjective realities and belief systems on the phenomenon, to the detriment of objective thinking (or research).

We all are subject to what we’ve been reared to believe or have come to believe during our life-times.

But that often disqualifies us from being objective or scientific when it comes to examining a phenomenon or topic in the current zeitgeist.

Pressing UFO people to be sensible and open-minded doesn’t work, as I’ve experienced it.

I keep getting suggestions as to what UFOs are, supported by egregious reference to belief systems and preferences for various theories or hypotheses that are interesting but still just theories, belief systems, and/or hypotheses.

I’ve often mentioned Edward De Bono’s books and ideologies about how to think, but this has fallen on deaf ears.

Persons locked into modal thinking, refracted by personal exigencies and preferences, are tough to deal with; they are cemented into thought processes by mental glitches or neurotic, even psychotic-like subjectivity.

What causes this erratic subjectivity?

Psychological malfeasances they’ve accumulated over the years or actual neurological malfunctions.

In my UFO journey I’ve come across all kinds of nuts and crank and, currently, suffused with suggestions, in comments here that border on insanity.

Let me exclude such ravishing real thinkers as Eric Wargo or academic Bryan Sentes and creative, investigative reporter Nick Redfern.

These men offer real thought and objectivity.

But Tim Herbert and I see the mental configurations that intrude on the search for a UFO explanation, and these mental configurations are rife in the UFO community, online and off.

Kevin Randle allows, at his blog, an open ended commentary where some of the nuttiness intrudes, although Kevin is becoming more circumspect about who or what can appear in his blog’s comment section. (I applaud his stance.)

Here, I will allow obtuse, erratic commentary if it is creative or humorous, inadvertently so even.

But overall, I have to eschew the nonsense that comes my way and often engulfs the UFO topic everywhere else.

But I am fully aware that much of what I’m getting in the way of commentary or private e-mails is material steeped in wayward thinking or mental disturbance of a minor and sometimes serious kind.

And if many of you think Zoam Chomsky is on my list of nuts, you’d be wrong. His anti-UFO spiels make more sense than anything one might get from David Rudiak, who is a brilliant researcher, besmirched by a belief that ETs are the sole explanation for Roswell and UFOs generally, bereft of any evidence to the contrary.

So, I am not gulled into presenting ideas that come from disturbed minds – except my own – or from persons who don’t really think in a way that bespeaks intellectual acumen.

That may sour some, who believe they are intelligently presenting UFO-speak when, in fact they are offering crumbs of insanity, disguised by posturings of high-readibility and intellectual refinement.

The UFO enigma deserves better, does it not? Zoam?

RR 

Roswell Slides Dating from and by Jose Antonio Caravaca

One of the principal arguments has been put forward to defend the authenticity of the famous Roswell slides is their age, and specifically its correspondence with the last years of the Forties, between 1947 and 1949. Both Anthony Bragalia ufologist, and more recently Mexican journalist Jaime Maussan have argued that different analysis of the slides confirm they are old and have not suffered any recent manipulation. But how was it determined that the Roswell slides were taken between 1947 and 1949?

Their arguments are based on some very unproven premises and assumptions. The cardboard sleeves used to protect its Kodachrome slides were manufactured between 1939 and 1959, until they were replaced by those made of plastic. However the specific sleeves containing these Roswell slides belong to the first generation of this type of housing that was only manufactured between 1941 and 1949. Therefore, Bragalia and his colleagues came to the conclusion, focusing on his obsession with Roswell Incident, that the most date for the slides to be taken was between 1947 and 1949, ruling out other possible dates. But it should be noted that this dating completely lacks any scientific support in the form of analysis. And although the Kodak company ceased production of the aforementioned type of cardboard sleeves in 1949, it does not mean that in any camera store in the United States stopped using them. They would have continued until their inventory of them was exhausted, the switched to the new Kodak sleeves. Therefore, the evidence surrounding the dating of the slides is circumstantial and supported only by refutable arguments, because following the premises of the researchers involved, we could not rule out, so lightly, the years before 1947. But obviously an earlier date ... even January or May 1947, would mean that it could not be a Roswell alien... and that would ruin the expectations of Maussan and his colleagues ...

JAC

Friday, April 17, 2015

Why ET visitation is ludicrous

I've always maintained that the Earth is inconsequential in the great scheme of the universe and, thus, wouldn't be an attraction to an alien culture or civilization.

For example. here's the Earth as seen from Mars:

Here's North America in comparison to Jupiter:

Here's our solar system within the Milky Way:

And the Milky Way in context of the Universe:

The article with more:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/17/8432733/space-maps

RR

The Roswell UFO and “Randy” Lovelace by Nick Redfern

Nick's latest post at Mysterious Universe:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/the-roswell-ufo-and-randy-lovelace/

Thursday, April 16, 2015

An erudite and terrific site, about fringe things

I've mentioned Eric Wargo's interesting site a few times earlier here.

The Anomalist often cites his site as one of best reads about paranormal items extant.

But it is more than that. Mr. Wargo provides brilliant ruminations and thought about UFOs and things somewhat related.

Those of you who pretend to be intellectual should visit often and make relevant comments, if you think you're smart enough to do so.

If you want insight(s) and intelligent material that is unique and above the dross we often find online, even here at this blog, then take a look/read:

http://thenightshirt.com/

RR

God is dead….so we need extraterrestrials (and those slides)?

After World War II, and the aftermath of the Holocaust, there was a cultural realization that God wasn’t about to help his chosen people (The Jews) nor anyone else.

This brought about an undertow of thought that maybe intervention from outside the Earth could bring about salvation for mankind.

The  early adopters of the subliminal thought were sci-fi writers and flying saucer fanatics; that is, flying saucers became the panacea for Earth’s ills.

If God wasn’t going to intervene in human affairs, maybe an ET presence would do so, to help mankind.

Yes, some flying saucer believers and sci-fi writers/film-makers thought that ETs might be as disinterested or evil as God, but generally the thought was that ET’s might bring peace and cures for humanity.

That thought process was rife from the late 1940s into the late 1960s, and then common sense took over. 

UFOs became, for most, a phenomenon as distant as God, but there persists a remnant of core believers in the “ETs will save us, if God won’t” meme.

Today those believers have settled on those Roswell/alien slides as proof of an ET presence and the idea that if ETs exist, humanity will be saved by them and their supposed advanced technologies, medicines, and cultural know-how.

Sure, some of those promoting the slides as an ET proof are doing so to salvage their tattered legacies and UFO reputations, but some are also hanging on to the belief that the slides are evidence of an ET reality and that reality may be able to bring humans relief from a world gone mad.

Slide skeptics are composed of those who know God is dead and ETs are a fantasy for those who are looking for new gods.

But some of us know, in our heart of hearts, that not only is God dead, but alien beings are a figment of a neurotic need to see help on the horizon of a dying mankind, as noted by Freud in Civilization and its Discontents.

RR

Monday, April 13, 2015

Phenomenology and UFOs

No, I'm not going to subject you to a discussion of phenomenology, as such.

(I find, as some of you know, that philosophy, quantum mechanics, and other academic or scientific disciplines are, virtually always, presented in abstruse terms with arcane logic and thought to leave the impression that the topics are rarefied and only accessible to adepts -- the priests of the disciplines.)

But there are elements within the thought of phenomenology as presented by its notable "originator" Husserl and his acolytes Heidegger, Sartre, et al. that might help define what happens when one sees or reports a UFO.

Past and present UFO sightings might be explained by the vicissitudes of phenomenology.

I'll highlight, in the segments below (pulled from the internet sites, linked) that which might be helpful when one is trying to decipher classic or contemporary UFO accounts and sightings....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_%28philosophy%29

Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This ontology (study of reality) can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.

Whether this something that consciousness is about is in direct perception or in fantasy is inconsequential to the concept of intentionality itself; whatever consciousness is directed at, that is what consciousness is conscious of. This means that the object of consciousness doesn't have to be a physical object apprehended in perception: it can just as well be a fantasy or a memory. Consequently, these "structures" of consciousness, i.e., perception, memory, fantasy, etc., are called intentionalities.

According to Heidegger, philosophy was not at all a scientific discipline, but more fundamental than science itself. According to him science is only one way of knowing the world with no special access to truth. Furthermore, the scientific mindset itself is built on a much more "primordial" foundation of practical, everyday knowledge. Husserl was skeptical of this approach, which he regarded as quasi-mystical, and it contributed to the divergence in their thinking.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions.

Conscious experiences have a unique feature: we experience them, we live through them or perform them. Other things in the world we may observe and engage. But we do not experience them, in the sense of living through or performing them. This experiential or first-person feature — that of being experienced — is an essential part of the nature or structure of conscious experience: as we say, “I see / think / desire / do …” This feature is both a phenomenological and an ontological feature of each experience: it is part of what it is for the experience to be experienced (phenomenological) and part of what it is for the experience to be (ontological).

As we interpret the phenomenological description further, we may assess the relevance of the context of experience. And we may turn to wider conditions of the possibility of that type of experience. In this way, in the practice of phenomenology, we classify, describe, interpret, and analyze structures of experiences in ways that answer to our own experience.

In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality. 

Originally, in the 18th century, “phenomenology” meant the theory of appearances fundamental to empirical knowledge, especially sensory appearances.

Phenomenology studies phenomena: what appears to us — and its appearing

In Franz Brentano's Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874), phenomena are what occur in the mind: mental phenomena are acts of consciousness (or their contents), and physical phenomena are objects of external perception starting with colors and shapes. For Brentano, physical phenomena exist “intentionally” in acts of consciousness.

Phenomena are whatever we are conscious of: objects and events around us, other people, ourselves, even (in reflection) our own conscious experiences, as we experience these. In a certain technical sense, phenomena are things as they are given to our consciousness, whether in perception or imagination or thought or volition. This conception of phenomena would soon inform the new discipline of phenomenology.

Realistic phenomenology studies the structure of consciousness and intentionality, assuming it occurs in a real world that is largely external to consciousness and not somehow brought into being by consciousness.

How I see or conceptualize or understand the object I am dealing with defines the meaning of that object in my current experience.

Consciousness is a consciousness of objects, as Husserl had stressed. In Sartre's model of intentionality, the central player in consciousness is a phenomenon, and the occurrence of a phenomenon just is a consciousness-of-an-object.

Neuroscience studies the neural activities that serve as biological substrate to the various types of mental activity, including conscious experience. Neuroscience will be framed by evolutionary biology (explaining how neural phenomena evolved) and ultimately by basic physics (explaining how biological phenomena are grounded in physical phenomena). Here lie the intricacies of the natural sciences. Part of what the sciences are accountable for is the structure of experience, analyzed by phenomenology.

“Phenomena”, in the Kantian idiom, are precisely things as they appear in consciousness, so of course their appearance has a phenomenal character.

Intentionality is a crucial property of consciousness, according to Brentano, Husserl, et al., the character of intentionality itself would count as phenomenal, as part of what-it-is-like to experience a given type of intentional experience.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/phenom/

Kant endorsed "transcendental idealism," distinguishing between phenomena (things as they appear) and noumena (things as they are in themselves), claiming that we can only know about the former 
phenomena are things as they appear. They are not mental states but worldly things considered in a certain way. 

Phenomenology, then, is the study of things as they appear (phenomena). It is also often said to be descriptive rather than explanatory: a central task of phenomenology is to provide a clear, undistorted description of the ways things appear.

In ordinary waking experience we take it for granted that the world around us exists independently of both us and our consciousness of it. This might be put by saying that we share an implicit belief in the independent existence of the world, and that this belief permeates and informs our everyday experience. Husserl refers to this positing of the world and entities within it as things which transcend our experience of them as "the natural attitude."

The subject matter of phenomenology is not held hostage to skepticism about the reality of the "external" world. 

It is possible that the implicit belief in the independent existence of the world will affect what we are likely to accept as an accurate description of the ways in which worldly things are given in experience. We may find ourselves describing things as "we know they must be" rather than how they are actually given.

It is vital that we are able to look beyond the prejudices of common sense realism, and accept things as actually given. It is in this context that Husserl presents his Principle of All Principles which states that, "every originary presentive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition, that everything originally (so to speak, in its 'personal' actuality) offered to us in 'intuition' is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there." 

RR

Sunday, April 12, 2015

What you don’t get, about those Roswell/alien slides.

From what I know, and it isn’t much but it is worthy to note that the slides Tony Bragalia and his buddies have been working on have nuances and elements that are significant and the fellows have been tracking those nuances and elements seriously, lots of money and time spent.

While many of us have pressed for disclosure of what they’ve found, and some have tried to assuage our begging for information, before May 5th (and when news of the slides first surfaced many months ago), we have all – all of us – pressed for information, information that wasn’t ready to be hashed over…not because it was being held in abeyance but because it wasn’t grist for discussion in its primordial state.

That is, some of the findings and hints, with the slides, opened inquiry into other facets that seemed pertinent to UFOs (maybe Roswell) but had to be vetted, and that takes time.

I pushed for openness more than anyone and got a few snippets, things that were proffered to throw me off the track (or scent), the fellows (Mr. Bragalia in particular) irritated by my probing, my nosy insertion into their investigation.

Yes, there is a lot of hoopla and hype going on in anticipation of the May 5th event and I, for one, like the hoopla.

It will bring new attention to UFOs and Roswell, and we all would like to see more attention to both, especially by serious researchers, not the rag-tag band of “ufologists” who are mostly nuts or goofy, myself included.

Yes, there are questions to be answered, and lots of loop holes to be filled...

But let me state that some revelations on May 5th will startle and provoke further investigation of the slides, the persons involved with them in 1947 and now, and will also open the door to more speculation that is good for the UFO/Roswell mystery.

We have all been privy to some of the slides materials and context but there is so much more.

And I can’t wait to get my nose involved, as I see that some of that material and context as intriguing and worthy of pursuit, by those who continue to find UFOs and even Roswell an interesting topic (or myth, if you will).

So, while I’ll continue to dribble slides material sent to me online, I’m trying to be patient about the May 5th presentation (or circus, if you like – and we all like circuses don’t we?).

RR

Further Roswell/alien slides information from Spanish UFO researcher, Jose Antonio Caravaca

" ... Maussan said that the Roswell slides [were taken at the White Sands airbase] ...She (Hilda Ray) was a good friend of Eisenhower's [wife. Mamie].... Through ... this friendship, Hilda could see the images....

In the minute 32:28 [of the video linked below] Maussan said that one of the humanoids was transferred to the base of White Sands for the General XXXXX (you understand the name).


RR

Friday, April 10, 2015

Roswell/alien slides set-back?

I've been notified that, "The owner of the slides [is] a businessman named Joseph B. in Arizona ... he has [the] slides and these are not going to travel to Mexico, viewers will be able to see copies only .."

RR

Thursday, April 09, 2015

Why Mars?

While re-reading Wonders in the Sky [Vallee and Aubeck, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, NY, 2010] I came across an account, on Page 51 that told of a young boy who appeared during an upheaval period in Chinese history, and claiming to be from Mars (or as Wonders has it, claiming to be Yung-huo, the Star-God, Mars) cited as an account from the Wu kingdom during the wars of The Three Kingdoms [222-280].

I found more about the Three Kingdom Wars at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Wu

And this passage about the incident reported in Wonders:
Many stories have reported martian encounters within the Wu kingdom. Evidence is identified in a story by Eastern Jin writer Gan Bao. The story is part of Gan Bao's writing called In Search of the Supernatural.
The story states within the Wu kingdom, the ancients recorded an event where playing children encountered a child with a strange appearance who stood at 1.3 meters tall, was dressed in blue and possessed shining eyes. Since the children have never seen this creature in the past, they surrounded it and asked it many questions. It replied, "I am not from the earth, but from the Mars, I saw that you are playing so happily so I came down to see you." The being also said, "The state of having three kingdoms standing will not last long, In the future, the world will belong to the Sima family.The children, became frightened and reported this to the nearby adults. However, when the adults came to the sight, the strange being disappeared by shrinking and jumping into the air. When people lifted their heads upward to watch him, they could only happen to see a white silk cloth dragging along a long belt, flying fast towards the sky above. The event was so bizarre, nobody would … speak of the event again

I've emboldened "Many stories have reported martian encounters within the Wu kingdom" because it would be interesting to see those stories.

But also intriguing is the stipulation that the "child" says he came from Mars, and this from an account written in (circa) 260.

What would allow a writer of ancient times to zero in on Mars as the site from which an wondrous visitor would show up on Earth?

(Yes, Mars, because it was red in the night sky, invited humans to give it inordinate attention, as was the case with the Greeks and its God, Ares, or for the Romans, its God, Mars.)

Was Mars, once a place, with canals and civilization, that was decimated by a cosmological disaster or a cataclysmic internecine war or even a termination by something outside of itself, and in the not too distant past?

Wonders in the Sky indeed, and here on Earth also.

RR