UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, October 24, 2016

From my Facebook [Tesla] feed...

AA theorists have got to love this....


Sunday, October 23, 2016

UFO research: Is there such a thing?

The Fourth Edition of The Craft of Research, Edited currently by Joseph Bizup and William T. Fitzgerald, updating Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams [The University of Chicago Press, 2016], the premier, academic work on what is research and how to do it, correctly, is my reading material of late.

I’ve always been curious as to why or how some UFO buffs assume the mantle of researcher when it is palpably obvious they are nothing of the sort.

(I, myself, am a miserable UFO “theorist” and I have no illusions that I am to be taken seriously by the UFO hoi polloi.)

So, let me see if I can discern for you, using the book cited above, why some ufologists are not “researchers” and why a few can be said to be so….

My pal Kevin Randle has assumed the mantle of UFO researcher for many years now and current UFO buffs can see, by reading his Blog postings [kevinrandle.blogspot.com] that he continues to dig out and ruminate on UFO sightings/events, past and present.

Kevin details his findings, findings not superficial or cursory, as one can find examples of in his latest Roswell book, pictured here:
Complimenting Kevin, surprisingly, is David Rudiak who provides surfeits of information about iconic UFO cases, such as Roswell and Socorro, and dozens of others.
No one, and I mean no one, gives UFO aficionados more details, some so esoteric but important, that they offer ufologists minutiae that completes UFO stories in ways that can only be classified as UFO data that means something.

(The book cited above about research tells readers that such data is the gist of real research, and Rudiak’s efforts exemplify that dictum.)

The problem with David’s research, if there is a problem, lies in his extraterrestrial bias. He sees the working of alien beings everywhere. He may be on to something but that’s not objective and objectivity is the hallmark of any research or researcher.

Bruce Maccabee is an exceptional technical researcher, one of ufology's finest.
And as an objective researcher, as I see it, he has delineated obscure details is such cases (photos mostly) as the Trent/McMinnville flying saucer pictures and the Phoenix lights to name only a few.

Then there is arch-skeptic Robert Sheaffer who nails errant or ridiculous claims by some UFO witnesses, even debunking debunkers like those of the Kenneth Arnold “pelican” theory (Jim Easton’s insightful theory that Arnold saw a flock of pelicans and not a bevy of flying saucers, which UFO historian, and not a researcher Jerome Clark castigated calling those who thought the pelican idea worthy of consideration "pelicanists," like my astute friend, Martin Kottmeyer).

Mr. Sheaffer is one tough skeptical cookie, and an excellent researcher on the averse side of ET oriented ufology.
Nick Redfern is a journalist and his research is highlighted by detailed reportage and searches for that which underlies stories about UFOs and other paranormal categories.
There is no finer a writer or gatherer of “facts” about the strange, and his vast output of books on paranormal topics (UFOs being my favorite) stand alone.

I’ve mentioned Martin Kottmeyer and note Leslie Kean who has researched the military aspect of UFO sightings.
This journalist is noteworthy, not only for her excellently detailed research, but also for her moderation and objectivity which is unparalleled in news media.

Brit David Clarke is an example of a Ph.D. (folklore) researcher who has extrapolated his knowledge of mythology and fairy tales to help explain UFO reports and stories.
He seems to be, for many, a skeptic but I see him as anything but. His observations are acute and often spot on, not derailing the authenticity of UFOs but rather clarifying them with insight that is unique and academic.

There are others, which I’ll touch on upcoming.

But let me note that some UFO mavens, who think they are researchers, are not. These are the folks who scour blogs and web-sites throwing in internet links to support or defile things they are reading.

This isn’t research, not by a long-shot. It’s just a supercilious attempt to seem UFO savvy.

I won’t name some of the miscreants, as that would only feed their egotistical folly, but you know who they are and can ignore their links and input as essentially worthless.

To know what research is or meant to be, get the book I've tagged above.


The Socorro Symbol, bogus or real, can only be human originated

My latest book purchase, A History of Writing: From hieroglyph to multimedia, Edited by Anne-Marie Christin [Flammarion, 2001] contains hundreds of examples of human script, from Paleolithic humans to modern day writers.

And within those examples are “letters” or symbols that mimic the Socorro inverted V with lines through it and the arc over an arrow (lesser of those however).

I’m providing them below, in their full scan, which will show up when you place your mouse or finger over the image (and click/tap it).

My contention has always been that an extraterrestrial writing would be so foreign to us that we would not, could not, recognize it as the script of aliens from an advanced, outer space civilization.

A History of Writing provides the evolutionary paths to various human writings, and while some are so exotic as to seem alien, they are connected by root connections to their time, locales, and history. They evolve, uniquely, by way of their human placement on this planet.

The writing is not mathematical in any sense, so those plugging the idea that mathematics are a sine qua non within the Universe are out of luck.

Someone on Earth created the Socorro insignia/symbol. Matt Gilleece showed us several years ago that one of the symbols re-imagines the logo on one of Howard Hughes’ business cards (not the inverted V).

No matter which symbol turns out to be the actual symbol Officer Zamora saw and drew, both had to come from human hands.

Here are examples from the book cited above. Some have markings that are similar to the Socorro insignia (the Indus script for example) but my point is that Earth’s writing will account for the insignia (even for the symbol that turns out to be the real symbol), whereas an alien script, if there is such a thing, would, in no way, be similar to what are products of writing by human beings:

Sumerian tablet of King Shugli, 2100 B.C.:
From the Chinese period 781-771 B.C.:
Calligraphy of Chinese Emperor Huizong 1082-1135 A.D.:
The Sanskrit Nagari “urban” script that emerged in 900 A.D.:
A seal from the Indus Valley, circa 1600 B.C.:
Writing in a picture [Symbols on an object], 17th Century A.D.:
Shangshu [Far East], 240-248 A.D.:
Vase engraving from Malia, Crete, Circa 1800 B.C.:
Mosaic from the Temple of Hermes, Greece, 189 A.D.:
A created script (outside the evolutionary cycle) for African trade, 19th Century A.D.:
Egyptian, Second Millennium B.C.:

Friday, October 21, 2016

UFOs and ETs are unsocial, not team oriented

I’m reading The Social Conquest of Earth by Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard Professor Edward O. Wilson, who is an expert on evolution and insect societies.
You know my fascination with ants, bees, and other insects that create and live in communities that rival those of humanity.

(Of course, most everyone thinks that such creatures derive their life-styles by way of instinct. I think there’s more to it than that. Instinct is a kind of thoughtful, intelligent behavior, and I believe Professor Wilson might back me up on that.)
But that for another time….

My perusal of the book and other work by Professor Wilson made me realize UFOs and alleged encounters with “beings” that occasionally debark from craft described as UFOs act not in unison with other UFOs or have team members alongside them when they are found landed on the ground.

Social insects (like those noted) work in unison and for common goals.
But UFOs never work (or rarely do) in tandem. The bevy of “flying saucers” reported by Kenneth Arnold in 1947 seemed to be flying in formation and with co-operative intent.
But not those captured on film by Delbert Newhouse in 1952 over Tremonton, Utah nor any of those cited and filmed over Mexico, UFOs splattered in the sky, willy-nilly.
And how often have UFO encounters been reported where creatures or humanoids have been accompanied by a second or third UFO that “lands” with team-members to help scour for flora or fauna?
You might argue that Earth’s astronauts went to the Moon solo and will probably go to Mars without a partner ship or ships containing others.

But UFOs are purportedly from advanced civilizations, traversing the Universe or our galaxy, looking to examine Earthlings or the substances of Earth.
If such were the case, they’d hardly arrive solo. That would be dangerous and ETs are supposed to be intelligently “advanced.”

Even Earth’s “secretive” military units, such as SEALS (and others) are supported by concomitant forces operating covertly but close enough to provide technical backup even if they are not in proximity with a unit that is about to undertake a mission.

Of course, the idea of “motherships” escorting UFOs and their crews might answer my skepticism, but where are the supposed motherships nowadays? They have disappeared into the ether of UFO sightings, just as the onslaught of “beings” have disappeared from UFO reports/sightings.
Human behavior, like insect behavior, is social in nature, whereas UFO behavior is not.

That’s a flaw in the UFO ET believers’ pronouncement, unless you can come up with an alternative conjecture.


UFOs: Cultural memory and “real” memory

The Times Literary Supplement [TLS] for October 7th 2016 has a review, by W.V. Harris, of these books: Memory in Ancient Rome and Early Christianity [Oxford University Press] and Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire [Paul Getty Museum], both edited by Karl Galinsky, the latter book with Kenneth Lapatin.

While I won’t be addressing the Rome and Christianity subject matter, I will point to material in the review that can be applied to the topic of UFOs and UFO events.

Reviewer Harris notes that “Fables about memory feats were … quite common in the ancient world..” [Page 28]

Harris then tells readers that in Plato’s Phaedrus, “Socrates” felt that writing (down events) denigrated memory because writing gives literate peoples an aid that supplants remembering. (Julius Caesar apparently agreed.)

Scholar John Kloppenborg, writing about the alleged sayings of Jesus in The New Testament, thought those sayings were compromised in their transmission, Kloppenborg elaborating in his essay for Memory in Ancient Rome and Early Christianity.

Reviewer Harris also references Maurice Halbwach’s concept of “collective memory” from 1925 (which derives from Durkheim).

How does this discourse apply to UFO events, Roswell for one?

UFO buff CDA has raised the issue of lost or non-Roswell accounts prior to Stan Friedman’s 1978 broaching the matter after a conversation with Jess Marcel Sr.

And this is an important issue.

Where are the diary accounts of what was going on in Roswell in 1947 if the supposed retrieval of a crashed flying disk (with alien bodies) actually took place.

Diary writing was a popular past-time of U.S. citizens in the time-frame, but there seems to be no real diary entries from the July 1947 period.

(Of course, there have been “faked diary entries created after 1978, but no valid entries found for and in 1947 diaries created by Roswell citizens.)

Then there is the absence of photographs, aside from the Ramey PR effort and dismissal of the debris allegedly found by Mac Brazel.

Brownie cameras were all the rage in the 1940s (and earlier) right through the 1960s and later.

Everyone had a Kodak camera and took photos with them to “remember” where they were and what they were doing. (CDA also has mentioned this several times during his blog commentaries at Roswell postings.)

But no one thought to take photos of the alleged military men in town, accompanying Brazel or cavorting with other citizens? (Not even the local print press?)

And no one who had access to the supposed Brazel debris, including Jesse Marcel Sr. (or Jr.) thought to take a photo of the stuff?

(Remember that Farmer Trent had the good sense, if his story is true, to go into his house and grab his camera to capture the iconic McMinnville flying saucer. And this only a few years after the Roswell incident.)

The Romans (and Greeks) created historical references (Herodotus, Thucydides. Livy, Tacitus, et al.) or provided plays (by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Andronicus,  Plautus, et al.) or scuptures (Praxiteles, Lysippos) to recall (remember) significant events.

What does Roswell have? The Roswell Museum, a post 1978 construct.

Harris reminds readers that Kant wrote “recalling the past (remembering) occurs only with the intention of making it possible to foresee the future.” [ibid]

I don’t get Kant’s point (and rarely understand him) but his insight applies to the Roswell memories: Roswellians ,while deficient in capturing or remembering what really happened in 1947, has made it a point to project the mythologized incident into an ongoing and future inspired (ET incursion) possibility, that some UFO buffs (Friedman, Rudiak, and many others) have been and are attracted to, even as illusionary or delusional as it may be.

Ancient memory was encapsulated in various ways, beyond just mental memory (that Socrates extolled) thank goodness.

And that memory has become a collective or cultural memory abetted by the artifacts created to remember it.

UFO events, like Roswell, have not been treated so intelligently.

Artifacts from the events themselves not preserved or captured, leaving only a contrived memory, many years afterwards — memories that are conflated by fraud or hoaxing and the normal vicissitudes of neurological decay.

If only Roswellians or other participants in significant UFO events kept a record of their experience(s), we’d have no trouble identifying what was historical and what wasn’t.


Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Deconstruction of UFO Notables

Celebrities and public figures control their images, if they care about success.

Millennial “stars” and some outliers don’t give a damn: Kanye West, for example, or wannabes, who are striving for recognition no matter what privacy they have to sacrifice.

The truly greats don’t share or provide personal aspects of their lives, they never have.

But in my circle of acquaintances I see a wholesale proclivity by some to display almost everything that makes up their being, private and public.

In my UFO circle, there are two people who have sacrificed personal identity, mostly in their Facebook addiction.

(And one friend allows comments at his blog that demean his credibility and legacy, something I don’t let happen here. If someone wants to debase me, they have to do it in venues far away.)

But the Facebookers aren’t belittled by others, they belittle themselves with disclosure of shortcomings, physical flaws, and bizarre behavior.

The successful UFO notables remain private, almost mysterious, letting their work and writings speak for them, something that noted, “famous” persons learned to do long ago.

I’m saddened to see once articulate, intelligent UFO personages lost to ufology because they now see attention to their banal personal lives as the reason for living.

These aren’t millennials who have a chance to correct their wayward demeanors later on then they approach mid-life. The person’s I’m referring to are already at mid-life and desperate to leave a mark, destroying any chance of that by giving away their mystique for a short-lived Facebook “like” or “congrats.”

We, in the UFO milieu, are now surrounded by lesser lights who neither know what they are ruminating about nor care that they are amidst a nothingness of being, me among them.

But that’s not as pathetic as Facebookers showing their underwear to other asses who don’t really give a fig about anything but a need to connect with someone or something just to prove to themselves they are still alive, and (delusionally) relevant.


UFOs: False Consciousness vs The Null Hypothesis

Our friend Zoam Chomsky is enamored of The Null Hypothesis and uses the concept to deriide UFO reports and sightings, even UFOs themselves.

But there is another view, ascribed to Marxist theory that may better explain what happens in the milieu after a person witnesses what he or she thinks is a UFO.

It's the theory of False Consciousness (from Dictionary.com):

"A Marxist theory that people are unable to see things, especially exploitation, oppression, and social relations, as they really are; the hypothesized inability of the human mind to develop a sophisticated awareness of how it is developed and shaped by circumstances.

Any belief or view that prevents a person from being able to understand the true nature of a situation."

More about the theory at Wikipedia HERE:

And this:
From an abstract HERE

While the original import of the False Consciousness idea pertained to social, economic, and political exigencies, it can be applied to UFO reports and alleged witness sightings, much more sensibly than the Null Hypothesis which is a mix of muddled thought and intellectual scammery.


Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Two perspectives on Earthlings and Earth plus a picture of a MUFON gathering

Facebook: A New Nazi-like Regime?

When Adolf Hitler began his mesmerization of the German peoples, he sucked them into his perverse “theology” that proposed Germans were an exclusive element of human society by his charismatic “charm” and ideology that his “political party” was an all-inclusive membership party for his defined super race.

If one wasn’t a Nazi Party member, one was an outsider.

Even brilliant persons, scientists [Werner von Braun], composers, film-makers [Leni Riefenstahl], and writers [Ezra Pound], and philosophers [Martin Heidegger] became enamored of Nazism. 

Facebook’s attraction of “brilliant persons” and thinkers may be seen by scouring the Facebook membership rolls.

I won’t note the many one-time UFO aficionados, many of them notable in the UFO community, who are avid members of Facebook, attracted to Mark Zuckerberg’s dream of a world-wide society, under the influence of his internet creation. 

Is there the intrinsic evil in Facebook like that which underlay Nazism? 

Certainly not. But the mass [Facebook] membership, of ignorant human beings, is similar in essence to what made up the Nazi party and those who came under its sway: the German people as a virtual whole, going along with Nazi policies and practices, unthinking and obeisant to the machinations of its founder and leader(s).

This is worrisome to some of us, certainly to me.

Facebook is intellectually and politically innocuous at the moment, but in a few years?


Pablo Vergel provides an "exegesis" of Jose Antonio Caravaca's "Distortion Theory" that explains [some] UFO encounters


The Distortion Theory offers a new and revolutionary point of view concerning close encounters with UFO and their alleged crews. In order to do that, this theory has its own terminology to try to define accurately some of the key concepts within the theory. Let us review them to enable a full understanding of their main principles:


This term defines the “operator” or “entity” that interacts, under certain conditions, with the witness’ psyche in order to “manufacture” a so called “UFO experience”. Probably none of the features or actions that are displayed in their numerous manifestations have nothing to do with its true appearance or purpose. The point of this “external agent” is to make the observer believe through a complex holographic projection that they are being witness of the landing of anextra-terrestrial spacecraft and the disembarking of their crew members. But none of this is related to a factual reality neither it has the quality of being persistent in our universe once the experience is finished. Then, who is the External Agent? This External Agent could be a parasitic entity which either feeds on human beliefs or needs human interaction to survive. It’s very likely that the External Agent could be behind of many myths and folklore in the history of mankind disguised under many different manifestations. This camouflage can be identified as a skilful and huge psychic manipulation, as some researchers claim, but it’s obvious that some unconscious mental contents are at play and those are in sync with the sociocultural and historical context at all levels: philosophy, technology, art, etc…

It cannot be ruled out that the External Agent is using latent beliefs within particular societies for its own sake. The External Agent uses then subterfuges and deception constantly in its interactions with human societies and doesn’t seem interested at all neither in fostering any positive social changes nor making the attempt of influencing the fate of mankind. Despite some messages that could point otherwise, the External Agent has no real purpose to convey any scientific or philosophic message beyond those already developed by man itself.


When the External Agent is in touch or interacts with the witness’ psyche, an information transfer is made at an unconscious level,that will be embodied within the experience in a distorted way so the observer is not able to identify as self-made. Whatever is displayed in front of the witness will be a by-product of the symbiosis between both operators, the unknown entity and the human being, and it will be manifested as a holographic projection. Therefore, most of the details and factors that are part of a close encounter can be perfectly tracked down in the observer’s psyche. The most evident and notorious elements nevertheless will be those unique features (Such as traits from a humanoid or technical details from the craft) that cannot be found in similar events.


The information extracted unconsciously from the witness is displayed and rearranged by the External Agent in a distorted way so the observer will not be able to recognize it. The source of this information can be very diferent: literature, TV, work, environment, hobbies, etc…

All these conceptual resources will be used to stage a projection where the witness will be actually convinced that he’s observing, for instance, an UFO landing. This will be the explanation behind why there are so many different types of “flying saucers” and “extra-terrestrials”. The External Agent uses a very different range of sources to create those experiences that their manifestations may vary wildly from one to another.

After the interaction with the witness’ psyche, the “external agent” obtains the essential information to reproduce a holographic projection that will generate an illusoryenvironment where a close encounter with UFO is re-enacted. This projection can be seen externally by a third person but having an unknownpsychic foundation, the perception made by other observer may vary from the one made by the main witness or even some individuals will not be able to be aware of the event at all. The witness will be able to interact with the projection as if he was within a full virtual reality experiment.The witness will be able to touch and feel the elements of the projection as if they were actually there.


The External agent in some occasions can grant to the “holographic projection” a fleeting and momentary material quality in our own reality. Therefore, traces of a landing might appear in some incidents and in some might not, regardless of the terrain conditions.

For instance, in Sangonera La Verde (Murcia) on July 1st 1979 there was a report of an UFO landing. According to several witness a giant humanoid was seen in the surroundings walking around 800 meters but only two footprints were found (One of them partial)

This evanescent matter would be able to explain an array of anomalies linked to UFO close encounters such as:

1. UFO flying through vegetation or power wires without making any noise or impact.

2. The randomness in the traces left behind by UFO where in some cases there are obvious marks meanwhile in others there is no evidence at all.

3. The lack of marks, trails or footprints after a sizeable event has happened involving entities and crafts.

4. The ability shown by humanoids to go through walls or fences.

5. The reported silence that goes along with close encounter events.


The External Agent displays in the generated projections very defined behavioural patterns that can be easily identified to facilitate the assimilation and development of these experiences. Most close encounter events, despite their changing and external appearance, display a very similar pattern. The so-called extra-terrestrials are usually doing some of these three universal actions

1.      Exploring the surroundings
2.      Collecting samples
3.      Repairing their spacecraft.

All these three actions will match with what we would expect from an interstellar human explorer visiting another planet so they fulfill the mission of integrating distinctive human concepts within supernatural experiences.

On top of this, the eventual presence of the witness always provokes a surprise reaction to the extra-terrestrials that leads them to leave the place immediately due to the “unexpected” visit of the observer. This farce is a deception with the purpose to manipulate the witness reaction. If we would buy the idea that we had met by pure chance some alien visitors that they don’t want to be seen, they would avoid populated areas but invariably lot of close encounters are reported in areas with continuous human presence such as roads, cities, villages, etc…

Another trait that is also very common in the behaviour of these UFO crew-members is to dazzle witness with devices that project a blinding light.


The process that leads to the “holographic projection” is defined by the Distortion Theory as oneiric creativity because the way it works is very similar to the patterns displayed by human psyche meanwhile we dream. The unconscious contents of the witness are rearranged and projected by the “External Agent” in a creative process, that we can even label as artistic, that contains lot of the nonsensical elements that we usually associate with our most vivid dreams. The distortion displayed within one close encounter experience is very similar to the distortion that we face when we dream.

This would help us to understand one of the most puzzling issues that we find in Close Encounter: The Mumbo-Jumbo Factor. All these nonsensical elements that we find in the UFO experiences which so far they had served only to invalidate and reduce the credibility of the UFO phenomenon in front of the public opinion.

Nevertheless, according to the Distortion Theory this universal non-sense factor is simplified. The internal mechanics behind the creation of these experiences have built-in and integrated these nonsensical factors that actually they have their source in the witness own subconscious.

Those absurd details then don’t have any special or transcendental meaning beyond the remarked artistic/creative value expressed in a holographic projection which introduces us to a dream-like fiction in what concerns to its development and staging. Although the final purpose of these interventions is still unknown to us.  

Monday, October 17, 2016

The Stanford Socorro Mess

Our pal Kevin Randle has been clarifying, at his blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com] the April 1964 Lonnie Zamora/Socorro event.

While some of you think the “sighting” is old news, not significant, it is neither.

It represents an iconic UFO incident with an exceptional witness, seeing an odd thing on the ground and in the sky.

But, as Kevin makes clear, with his recounting of the “sighting,” the reportage and accounts of Police Officer Zamora’s observation were compromised by military officials, at the time, and ufologists afterward.

For me, the worst offender in the matter was (and is) Ray Stanford, whose oddly titled book, Socorro 'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry, is treated by some UFO buffs (David Rudiak for one) as a Biblical-like treatise.

It is nowhere near that.

Kevin provides a posting of the ongoing, debated symbol that Officer Zamora drew but which is obscured by a red-herring element in the report/sighting Officer Zamora made.

There are two symbols (maybe more) that are proferred as the insignia seen by Zamora, one of which was purportedly provided by Army Captain Richard Holder as a “trick” to foil possible hoaxers.
 Ray Stanford wrote a note (retrieved from Richard Hall’s Socorro materials) that gives a wayward slant to what he, Stanford, posited as the authentic symbol. This is that note:
(Yes, it’s all very confusing, but see Kevin’s blog for a reasonable scenario of the various vicissitudes about the insignia brouhaha.)

My concern here is the instability of Mr. Stanford’s Socorro sojourn, which he made to the sighting site a few days after the event.

That instability shows up in his hand-printed note (above).

I won’t subject you to my proclivities for handwriting analysis, which has been dismissed for a few decades now, but resurging in popularity by businesses and government agencies nowadays. My senior thesis at college was “Handwriting Analysis as a Diagnostic Tool” [for psychologists/psychiatrists].

There a few things one notices about Mr. Stanford’s printed memo:

Note his letter “A” in words with “a” in them. It is remarkably like one of the symbols that Mr. Stanford offers, but dismisses as authentic, reversing that view in his book and currently.

Also, his printing is ramshackle, not neat or aesthetic as one finds in the writing of an ordered, cultured, clear-thinking mind.

Common sense would rebuke such a messy missive, that’s what graphology or grapho-analysis would say, but, minus that iffy consideration, the note, by itself, tells you the mind-set of Mr. Stanford.

It’s not an ordered mind-set.

The problem for ufology and its practitioners is that many UFO old-timers promote Mr. Stanford’s book as the meat of the Socorro event when it is, rather, the gristle.

The insignia is the “smoking gun” of the Socorro incident, despite the claim by some that it is not the nub of the sighting. It isn’t, but it is a major clue, in the Holmesian sense, that could unlock the mystery of what Lonnie Zamora saw/reported.

Kevin Randle and Spanish UFO researcher understand the significance of the insignia, as do I.

It’s a shame that it is besmirched by sloppy investigation then (1964) and still.


Sunday, October 16, 2016

Long-Form Thinking…where is it in ufology?

TIME magazine (for October 24th 2016) has an “op ed” piece by author James Patterson wherein he writes about the current state of reading:

“People age 75 and older read about an hour a day. The habit drops off through each 10-year bracket below that until you get to people ages 35 to 44 years old. They’re reading 12 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays and less than 10 [minutes] during the week. Younger than that, it only gets worse.”

My experience here, at this blog, is that odd, semi-serious infusions, like the “old coin from Egypt with an alien face on it” gets a serious response from our friend, Terry the Censor and others, but a serious, scientific insertion, like “what preceded The Big Bang” gets nothing, no rejoinder at all.

This is true of other cogitative input here.

My Facebook UFO page had a note from Philip Mantle about a podcast from a nascent “new ufology” starter that seems to be geared to an inclusive clientele, membership.

He (Philip) was maligned and desired an apology, which he won’t get, as ufologists today are not about truth but, rather, as he notes, about belief.

This belief comes from cursory readings of scientific materials and thoughtful UFO renderings.

No one has time to ruminate on UFO tales, past and present. Everyone is enamored of the Facebook approach to thinking: simple is the way to go.

Terry, for instance has, he tells us, 1000 non-fiction books in his personal library, but he, then, only provides correctives to postings here and at other blogs, like Kevin Randle’s.

Have his readings, which have to be greater than a few minutes per day, not formed a desire in him to elaborate on ideas (goofy and otherwise) that he comes across in the UFO community output?

There is another guy (unnamed by me because he’s a total ass) who scours the internet for grammatical mistakes in UFO postings. What a waste.

Arch-skeptic Zoam Chomsky is beloved by me because he inundates blogs, like mine, with erudite scoffing.

Where is Lance Moody, another brilliant skeptic? He’s on Facebook, enlivening that venue with bon mots and gratuitous pleas for Facebook “likes” as does his pal, and mine, Paul Kimball.

They seem to have given up on long-form reading and excoriation of nutty UFO postings, mine among them.

We, all of us, are on a downhill slide to banality and irrelevance when it comes to UFOs and intellectual topics of a societal nature too.

Facebook and lazy reading habits are the cause of an increase in ignorance and superficiality.

Zuckerberg and his minions have become the bane of humanity.


Saturday, October 15, 2016

Alien pictured on old Egyptian coin?

Story HERE


Are Aliens Trying to Contact You? Use This Handy Scale

From my Facebook feed. Click HERE


Before The Big Bang

This is from my Media Facebook feed. It's an article promoting some current thinking about what existed before the Big Bang:

Click HERE

The scientific paper referenced in the piece is offered HERE

I note that the concept proffered by the scientists (based on macro-quantum speculation, often poo-pooed by some readers here) may be found in Hindu texts (Hindu "theology"). HERE


Thursday, October 13, 2016

The Big Picture (is made up of small pixels)

The October 27th issue of The New York Review of Books has a review by G. W. Bowersock (an Emeritus Professor of Ancient History at Princeton) of three books about The Bible.

No, I’m not going to go into the content of the books, interesting as that content is, but will note the gist of the review: “An obsession with the big picture has now become widespread in historical analysis. This has meant a salutary breakdown of both chronological and geographical boundaries. Historical inquiry can begin with the end of the Ice Age and roam freely across continents all the way down to modern times.” [Page 35]

Kevin Randle (and others, including me) keeps contending that the classic UFO cases need to be looked at in detail, still, in 2016, to get at the reality of those UFO incidents and UFOs themselves.

The NYRB review tells readers that the big picture is important, but that the big picture needs the supplementary materials of the period events being scrutinized, evaluated with the methodologies of history, as it always has been, but now, today, with the scientific methods at historians’ disposal: genome sequencing, DNA, and other forensic materials and methods.

This goes deeper than “context” which I presented, a few weeks back, as necessary and avoided by me over the years, and still avoided, today, by UFO researchers, who often resort to archaic methods and slipshod investigation.

Since anthropology, archaeology, along with various scientific technologies are needed to really get at what is being studied, from the historical past, such disciplines are needed to get at the truth of a UFO episode.

To dismiss many of the bizarre UFO sightings of the past, because they have been worked to death by UFO buffs and “ufologists,” is wrong-headed, as the NYRB piece suggests, about Biblical tales – one being the corporeality of God; that is, why does God often appear in the Hebrew texts as having form and substance.

But as reviewer Professor Bowersock writes, “ …how illuminating the big picture can be, even without science … to be authoritative it must be a picture created with deep learning and judgment … It is not enough for a picture just to be big.” [Page 37] It needs the tools of contemporary science.

Yes, we can “deep six” past UFO reports and all that attended to them, but that would be shirking our responsibility to get at the truth.

It’s more than fun, as Kevin offered his dissenting readers. It’s incumbent upon us, if we’re truly serious about flying saucer and UFO stories – their history, as it were -- to pursue them with the diligence of real historians and scientists.


Stephen Hawking before God nailed him!

Have you read "God as Hit Man"?


Wednesday, October 12, 2016

The intersection of Dante’s Inferno and Paradiso and Extraterrestrialism

The need for alien (extraterrestrial) contact via UFO incursion denotes a mind-set that is deficient; not mentally deficient but, rather, intellectually and culturally deficient.

In Dante’s Comedy (The Divine Comedy for some) we are treated to the Circles of Hell and the Celestial Bodies of Heaven (with a sojourn around Purgatory’s Rings, which don’t factor into my suggestion here).

My previous and ongoing excursions about the insignificance of Earth and Earthlings relates to how extraterrestrials might see us (or, better, ignore us).

But Earth and its inhabitants (sentient and otherwise) are unique, but not to an extent that would incur alien visitors, and here’s why….

While the Earth is a container for odd, even spectacular, flora and fauna, it is so inconsequential in the cosmos scheme of things – you know my position on this – that only a happenstance reconnoiter by advanced extraterrestrials could account for alien visitation, but even then not in the numbers that UFO reports indicate.

If UFOs are von Neumann-like probes, that, too, could not account for the number of UFOs purportedly witnessed by Earthlings; the numbers staggeringly exceed what a sane, advanced civilization would send forth to our lonely planet.

(Crossover from other dimensions or a parallel universe can be credibly accepted for UFO incursions, but that for another time.)

My point here is that the desire by many UFO buffs to seek an ET explanation for UFOs is a shirking of what is wonderful about our planet.

No outsider civilization could have – even if we could interpret an alien culture – the human products that transcend creativity, even divine creativity.

For instance, the art of Michelangelo, Raphael, vanGogh, Picasso, and the many other painters you are familiar with (and some you aren’t).
The writings of Sophocles, Plato, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Dickinson, et al.
The music of Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Mahler, Schoenberg, and multiple others (most you know, many you don’t).
The scientific and technical genius of Euclid, Newton, Galileo, Leibniz, Einstein, Bors, Jobs, and dozens of others you’re familiar with).
You know the philosophers: Aristotle, Maimonides, Kant, Nietzsche and psychologists: Freud, Jung, Skinner, and political leaders: Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Peter the Great, Washington, Lincoln, and the raft of religious founders: Moses, Abraham, Mohammed, Luther, Smith and other brilliant humans, too numerous to cite here.
These are what one would find and do find in Dante’s Paradise.

Then there are the scourges of humankind: Nero, Attila, Mao, Hitler, and today Trump; just seeing if you’re paying attention.
This group inhabits the lower circles of Dante’s Hell.

But then we have the (non or different) sentient creatures of the Earth: whales, dolphins, octopi, plants, trees, various mammals, and all the glories of life here.

Can there be an advanced extraterrestrial civilization to compare with Earth?
(And don’t give me the meme that that’s why ETs visit here. They don’t even know we and Earth exists.)

We are one of a kind, alone in our brilliance and cultural significance.

Do we need ET intrusions in our existence? I don’t think so.