UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, December 05, 2016

The Piltdown Man Hoax and the Koi/Roe Imbroglio....It's always something.

The acrimony and internecine squabbles of the Piltdown discovery mimic the ongoing ufological "quarrel" noted here the other day.

Click HERE to read about the Piltdown affair (which included Conan Doyle and Teilhard de Chardin among others).

This is a link, from my Facebook feed, that allegedly uncovers the Piltdown forger:

http://www.archaeology.org/issues/233-1611/trenches/4925-trenches-england-piltdown-forger-unmasked

RR

Sunday, December 04, 2016

Perspective


Saturday, December 03, 2016

UFOs as Artificial Intelligence Probes....one more time!

A review, by Steven Shapin, in The London Review of Books [12-1-16, Page 15 ff.] of Jessica Riskin’s book, The Restless Clock: A History of the Centuries-Long  Argument Over What Makes Living Things Tick [Chicago], while a bit too academic for readers/visitors here I’m guessing, does provoke a recurrence of my view (speculation/conjecture) that some UFO sightings may be of von Neumann-like probes (artificial machines with sentience or intellect, created and evolved from an advanced extraterrestrial civilization from our galaxy or beyond).

Most of you know my stance: AI machines, scouring the galaxy or universe in an exploratory mode stumbled upon Earth with its diverse life-forms.

One (or more) of these AI machines communicated back to its home base, using (and here comes a new speculation) entangled quantum particles that the AI intelligence(s) have made into a communication language that allows instantaneous messaging.

This would account for the onslaught of UFOs, reported over the eons, and especially in our modern era.

The “evidence” for AI UFOs, for me, stems from a few notable flying saucer/UFO events: the 1948 Gorman dogfight, the 1967 Michalak, Falcon Lake “attack,” the 1973 Coyne helicopter incident, the 1976 Tehran encounter, and the 1979 Robert Taylor “assault.”
There are others, but these UFO “bouts” consisted of AI machines interacting with machines that the probes thought were AI machines like “them.”

The Taylor incident is, obviously, not a machine confronting a machine but the description of the “object” that terrorized Robert Taylor has all the earmarks of a probe, one that mistook a human for a sentient being, so unusual compared to other contacts with actual machinery, that the probe “insisted” on getting to the crux of its discovery.

This is where the book under review comes into play.

The author provides early accounts of automata and the discussions that ensued from such “creations.”

She [Ms. Riskin] offers, at one point, that the Church’s use of automata, in the form of statues replicating Christ’s agony on the cross, ascending Virgin Marys (using screw devices), and other “theatrical” contrivances in the late medieval and early modern eras, produced the philosophical and theological debates about the difference between matter and spirit (by Descartes and others), agency and consciousness, which have led to discussion of human-machines and AI, today.

That we, many of us, see machines approaching sentience, one can, as I do, see a processed gaggle of AI machines being used by a race of beings in an advanced machine civilization, or that advanced civilization being composed of AI machines only, having displaced their creators ages ago, and now searching the universe for like-beings.

Such AI machines, as I’ve noted before, to some controversy by a few, would be attracted to machines, especially flying machines like aircraft, as in the RB-47 encounter or nuclear installations where machines seem to have a computational intelligence, primitive when compared to the extraterrestrial AI visitors but interesting as a possible sentient life-form on our diverse, animated planet.

At any rate, the book is replete, it seems, with rumination about machine life, animated mechanisms that mimic human life, and the arguments of creation by design (via God) and atheism, and all the concomitant exigencies that accrue to such weighty matters.

UFO buffs would do well to take in such discourse, to fulfill their goal of being intelligent rather than loopy, with obeisance to Roswell and other forlorn UFO tales.

RR

Friday, December 02, 2016

A Ufological Brouhaha

Isaac Koi is a long-time ufologist, a barrister in England who uses his nom de plume to keep his legal profession separate from his UFO work.
Ted Roe, of the International UFO Congress, seems to have had some disagreement with Isaac and outed the barrister, jeopardizing Isaac’s professional career.
Isaac announced, on Facebook, that he will be dropping out of the UFO community, which would be a real loss, as those of you familiar with his efforts over the years (archiving old and new UFO publication and materials for free access by UFO buffs) know.

The disclosure of Isaac Koi’s real identity is a kindless act, that is horrendous ufologically as it removes one of ufology’s key players and an all-around good person who has served the UFO community for many years, asking nothing in return.

The outpouring on Facebook has favored Isaac, and excoriated Mr. Roe.

The matter is ongoing and I’ll provide more as it becomes available. Why? Because Isaac Koi is a “friend” and a man of distinct ethical behavior, whether in ufology or life itself.

RR

Thursday, December 01, 2016

How to research UFO stories, old and new

French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez provided some clarification (and kinds of rebuttal) to my recent postings about the 1896 Airship craze and Jung’s Flying Saucer book and views.

The Anomalist noted a link to my Airship item and a link to Gilles’ superb and elaborate counter to the Airship lore which can be read HERE

Gilles’ work exemplifies, for me, how UFO tales and reports should be examined, codified, rebutted, or confirmed.

Read the material from his blog about the Airship sightings in the late 1800s to see what or how a real case study of UFOs should be.

RR

Macro-Quantum and UFOs

I've posted, several times here, that UFOs may be manifestations of a macro-quantum particle or effect.

Yet a few people dismiss the idea, citing the barb that quantum particles (and the whole quantum "universe") only operate in he micro-world.

But, for those of us who know better, quantum effects appear in the macro-world regularly, as this article indicates...HERE

This is a statement, from the article:

“This is a macroscopic manifestation of [a] quantum field”

RR

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Jung was right....for a while

Most of you are familiar with Carl Jung’s book, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky.
In it, Jung , on page 131 of the (paperback) Bollingen  Series [Princeton University Press, 1978/1991], writes “ … in spite of the interest I have taken in the subject [UFOs] since about 1946 …”

1946?  What UFO (or flying saucer) accounts were extant in 1946? The “Ghost Rockets” reported over Sweden? (Jung lived in Switzerland.)

Then he offers “ … but I have found it impossible to determine even approximately the nature of these observations. So far only one thing is certain: it is not just a rumour, something is seen.” [Italics his]

This counters Zoam Chomsky’s “null hypothesis” argument that UFOs do not exist and never have, but then Jung provides this:

UFOs are psychical projections, a manifestation of the mandala, an “individuation” symbol, that derives from a myth, and is an unconscious archetype. [Pages 20/23]

This gives sustenance to French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, who insists that UFOs are mythic, aberrant cognition by “witnesses.”

Gilles may be right.

At the end of the 19th Century, time when great composers, artists, and writers were dying off, and culture was heading into an anxiety-ridden era – European upheaval, leading to World War I, and the vicissitudes of the Industrial Revolution – (matters that Jung addressed in his Modern Man in Search of a Soul, 1933, Civilization in Transition, 1970, and Man and His Symbols, posthumous), flying saucers were not a prominent feature of societal life.
It wasn’t until World War II and its atomic aftermath that flying saucers/UFOs came to prominence, as a paranoidal observation (perhaps), in the psychological genre that Jung advocated in his book: hallucinatory events brought on by the neurotic anxieties of the time.

When The Cold War ended (or seemed to), UFOs began to be diminutive in scope, which accounts for the lack of observations, which were once a kind of norm.

Now, UFOs are rarely witnessed, compared to the 1947-1970s heyday, and interest in them is paltry by any account.

Human anxiety is different in the 21st Century. Terrorist attacks and the economy present the current societal angst, not the total annihilation of humanity.

Jung was correct for the times his book covered. The UFO myth is no longer fecund, dying actually, and only the remnant inhabitants of the Cold War era keep the myth alive, but barely so.
RR

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

A blog post you need to read....really

http://www.highstrangenessufo.com/2016/11/beating-dead-ufo.html

The commentary is by Mark O'Connell, who was recently on Kevin Randle's "radio/pod" broadcast, which can be heard HERE, and excoriates the ongoing Roswell discussions, Mark providing opprobrium of a few Roswell diehards.

Mr. O'Connell holds a view with which I can't disagree. (I have received some private e-mails that also support the anti-Roswell trend, and even chastises my pal Kevin Randle for flogging the topic.)

RR

Monday, November 28, 2016

Ancient Astronaut Theorists and their “Sky Gods”

Ancient Astronaut “theorists” continually offer the idea that ancient man referred to gods coming from the sky, implying that such “gods” were aliens (extraterrestrials) visiting Earth/

But a review of such books, as those pictured above, especially that of the great academic Mircea Eliade, indicates that early mankind’s gods were anthropomorphized from things Earthly, not from alleged visitors from outer space – the sky.
Mircea Eliade via Wikipedia HERE

From Professor Eliade’s three-volume History of Religious Ideas [University of Chicago Press, 1978]:

During the “Neolithic Revolution [9000-7000 B.C.], primitive mankind thought "food plants [were] sacred." [Page 39]

“Certain texts describe the perfection and bliss of the ‘beginnings’: ‘the ancient days when each thing was created perfect,’  … the true Paradise [from which the gods come] seems to be Dilmun, a country [sic] in which neither illness or death exists.” [Page 58]

In Section 51: Page 156 Professor Eliade  presents the confrontation between the gods Baal and Mot, Mot being the personification  of Death. Baal’s messengers “find Mot seated on his throne in the mud, in a region covered with ordure [dung].”

Hardly an alien being.

In The Encyclopedia of Gods by Michael Jordan, not the basketball star [Facts on File, Inc., 1993] one can find in its 337 pages a plethora of divinities from places such as the seas [Poseidon, Page 207], the mountains [O-Yama-Tsu-Mi, page 197], underworld [Dis Pater, page 67], husbandry and crops [Liber, page 146], et al. None from outer space and few from the sky.

In the classic work Man and His Gods by Homer W. Smith Grosset’s Universal Library, NY, 1952-1957] one reads “In all the speculations of the physiologoi, the gods were dismissed as no more than barbaric superstitions, or at best literary and poetic images.” [Page 145]

And worship of the phallus (covered here a few months back) played heavily in the adoration and worship of the gods, and we all know that ETs don’t have genitalia.

The emphasis on “gods from the sky” by AA theorists overlooks or underplays the reality of where early man got his ideas of the divine entities that we read as gods.

If the idea of god(s) did not come from the sky, Ancient Astronaut believers’ premise for their whole speculation – that alien entities established or worked with humankind in the early ages of humanity – is based upon a falsehood or ignorance of what we know about how primitive men and women thought of divinity.

RR

Sunday, November 27, 2016

An 1896 Airship Newspaper report

Zoam Chomsky poo-poos the story, saying it's a newspaper creation: fraudulent reportage or a hoax.

If it is a hoaxed account, it's a delicious one, nicely done.

French skeptic Gilles Fernandez has provided much about the late 1800 airship stories, allowing that many were mistaken observations of the planet Venus, an interpretation that I find hard to take.

No matter what the truth is, the 1896 et al. reports, hoaxed or misinterpretations of Venus, or real, actual observations of something odd seen in the skies of America, fascinate, sociologically, psychologically, ufologically.

Should we dismiss the tales, because they are from a by-gone era?

RR

Two things from my Facebook news feed


Saturday, November 26, 2016

Reality, Consciousness, and UFOs

Those of you reading here (and me too) have no idea what “reality” is, nor do we have a grasp on what “consciousness” is either.

We have some thoughts about each, but no one I know (or know about) has any idea what the reality of reality or consciousness is.

And while we concentrate, here, on UFOs, in the context of reality and consciousness, we are assaulted by a few who try to tell us that UFOs are as ephemeral as reality or consciousness, and some even go so far as to say that UFOs do not exist and have never existed, a view that is syntactic madness, and logic gone berserk.

All we can do, we UFO buffs, is try to understand the UFO phenomenon as it exists in our reality, our consciousness, setting aside, sometimes, other exigencies of intellectual curiosity.

That means we have to pull apart, forensically, old and new UFO “reports” to see if any have clues to what the core “reality” of the phenomenon is.

We can’t dismiss the topic because a few fevered skeptics would have us leave the matter aside, something they have done cerebrally is seems, for who knows what psychological reason.

UFOs (and “ufology,” that wayward sobriquet) are a pastime for most of you visiting here.

It’s a lighthearted assault on something in the social milieu, mostly from our younger lives that we can’t shake loose from (and that, itself, is grist for psychological evaluation).

So, while I’m happy to indulge the manic mannerisms of wild-eyed and mad (angry and/or insane) skeptics, I’ll continue to probe the UFO mythos (and “reality”) as if it were as important as “reality and consciousness” itself.

After all, what else do I (or you) have to do that is more important, except to live as if our lives have meaning, which is another matter that is open to discussion, no?

N.B. Image above from dreamcatcherreality.com

RR

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Plants are the ‘aliens” visiting Earth!

Many of you know that I think plant life may have evolved elsewhere (off Earth), as the movie The Thing From Another World so presciently told us in 1951.

Two items that I add to my ongoing “thesis” include a review in the December 8th, 2016 issue of The New York Review of Books and a Science Magazine article.

The review in the NYRB is by Thomas Pakenham on Page 46 [What Trees Say]: The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate – Discoveries from a Secret World by Peter Wohlleban (Translated from the German by Jane Billinghurst), [Greystone/David Suzuki Institute]

A team from the university in Vancouver “discovered … a vast underground network, called a mycorrhiza, in which fungi connect trees of different species by passing chemical and electrical signals among the trees’ roots. It was an arboreal Internet – christened the ‘wood wide web.’ [haha] Trees could actually communicate by exchanging carbon through their roots. The exchange offer mutual support …

“ … trees not only benefited by mutual exchange of food. They exchanged vital information …

“ … if a tree’s leaves are bitten by a caterpillar. It will send a message through the mycorrhiza, prompting other trees in the network to release chemicals that repel caterpillars …

“ … that, in their own way, trees had feelings, that they knew how to communicate with one another, and that the strong were able to assist the weak.”

The Science Magazine (online) article tells us plants exude “light” through their roots to see underground.

Click HERE for that article.

My speculation has been and continues to be that plant life elsewhere in the Galaxy (or Universe) evolved into thinking, mobile beings and while on scouting missions stumbled upon Earth, with its abundance of water and nutrients, necessary for their existence.

They now come here to sustain themselves or bask in the glory of a liquid planet.

Fortunately, they are not carnivorous like the “carrot” in The Thing film, although some mutilated cattle and Snippy might disagree.

RR

A Rocket Propellant (derived from UFOs)?

Click HERE

RR

Monday, November 21, 2016

A Rebuttal to Non-Locality (quantum entanglement)?

A review by Tim Holt in The New York Review of Books [11/10] about George Musser's book on the quantum theory of entanglement (covered here a few weeks back) has received a "clarification" (cleansing) by theoretical physicist Jeremy Bernstein in the December 8, 2016 issue of The NYRB,  Page 62.

Dr. Bernstein wrote that the idea of faster than light quantum entanglement espoused  by some is patently absurd.

And Tim Holt responds, showing that there is as much back-and-forths in science as there is in the folly known as ufology, the difference being that ufology's arguments are often goofy whereas debates in science, while often scintillating, are based in a reserved decorum, as you can see in the encapsulated article here:
(I've left the piece in a major pixel mode so you can click on it to read it.)

RR

A Scientist rips off Theology….sort of….

The Anomalist provided a link Monday [11/21] about an article by Columbia University astrophysicist Caleb Scharf.

Scharf proposes an intriguing but odd idea that alien life is everywhere, within us even and it evolved into an advanced intelligence over the billions of years after the Big Bang.

Here’s a link to the article: SCHARF

Dark Matter (and I think Scharf meant dark Energy too) hides or cloaks an advanced, ubiquitous life, and Scharf goes further by speculating that math equations are not means to an end but the ends themselves; that is, equations are life itself or living things, the living “intelligence” that controls the universe, life itself, and consciousness too.

(Some scientists have offered the proposition that Math – equations – may be God.)

This is, of course, seems to be madness, lunacy actually.

The great Jesuit scholar and theologian, Teilhard de Chardin gave a view in his magnificent (once banned by the Church) book, The Divine Milieu (which I’ve covered here and at our other blogs many times).

“Christ today is not just Jesus of Nazareth risen from the dead, but rather a huge, continually evolving Being as big as the universe. In this colossal, almost unimaginable Being each of us lives and develops in consciousness, like living cells in a huge organism. At various times, theologians have described this great Being as the Total Christ, the Cosmic Christ, the Whole Christ, the Universal Christ or the Mystical Body of Christ.

“With the help of all the human sciences as well as the scriptures, Teilhard shows how we—the cells and members of the Body of Christ—can participate in and nurture the life of the Total Christ. He also shows, thanks to the continuing discoveries of science, how we can begin to glimpse where that great Being is headed …”

Click HERE for Wikipedia’s take on Teilhard.

The Scharfian idea is non-biological whereas Tielhard’s theological suggestion has a biological patina to it, but both are in a realm that is similar.

And both are seemingly absurd, but that’s what physicists appear to be – absurd – and some theologians too, although I am an avid fan of Teilhard and have been since my early seminarian training (by Jesuits, as some of you know).

RR

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Keeping UFO discussions on track

One of the problems with the UFO community – and there are many – that is irritating in the extreme, is the wayward direction(s) that debate takes.

I only regularly visit a few web-sites and blogs (Kevin Randle’s. The Anomalist, Eric Wargo's TheNightshirt, and sometimes Mysterious Universe) and the one that gives me the most heartburn is my pal Kevin’s.

Kevin allows some of his visitors carte blanche to be discursive and/or ignorant. And he gives David Rudiak free rein to hog-tie readers to protracted sidebars that often have little to do with the topic at hand.

At this blog, I keep a tight rein on comments, as you know. Few avatar-identified commenters show up in the comment sections.

(I know that most UFO buffs are homely and have to hide photos of their real façade, but couldn’t they pick an avatar that has some class instead of the goofy-ass images they often adopt?)

In Kevin’s recent postings about the 1964 Socorro event, he has suffered side-tracks, mostly from Mr. Rudiak. That bear no, or little, relationship to the point(s) that Kevin is trying to make.

This is typical of many UFO aficionados. They have particular interest in a UFO case and some minute detail in it. (For me, it’s the symbol in the Socorro sighting, as you well know.)

When a UFO case, old or new, is proffered for discussion, those who have an obsession with some aspect of the case impale readers with their obsession, no matter how irrelevant it may be.

In the Socorro incident, Mr. Rudiak, for example, is locked in to the whereabouts of Officer Chavez, a fellow-cop with Lonnie Zamora.

Readers often tell me that the symbol is insignificant, in context of the whole Socorro episode, but I’ve never seen a distaste for Mr. Rudiak’s Chavez obsession, except from Mr. Randle.

Mr. Rudiak’s modus operandi has always been, especially in the Roswell incident, to lead readers away from the truly significant elements, taking them to minute aspects that can’t be pinned down or explored because they were so under-reported at the time, and even now have no value in pursuit of the Roswell truth(s).

Yet, Mr. Randle consoles Mr. Rudiak’s misplaced adventures, because Mr. Randle is a polite gentleman.

At other blogs and websites, the owners of them want to stuff their venue with anything so as to appear popular or to accrue web clicks and gather a few pennies from advertisers. Frank Warren’s site, The UFO Chronicles is like that, an observation I made a while back, losing his friendship for pointing that out.

There are dozen’s of distractions that take UFO buffs off course in their belabored pursuit of the UFO reality.

Again, here, at this blog, my “friend” Aaron Sakulich [aka Zoam Chomsky] likes to badgers commenters and me with his idea that UFOs do not exist, and never have, because there is no concrete evidence for their reality, only reports of them: nothing tangible has ever surfaced to show that UFOs exist. He uses the “Null Hypothesis” to bolster his erratic view.

When I was in college and absorbed by classes in Abnormal Psychology, we (the class) often were taken on field trips to Eloise Hospital (Wayne County General Hospital) to interact with and observe patients there who were “diagnosed” with schizophrenia or other debilitating mental aberrations.

The doctors at the hospital and our professor(s) never, as I recall, said such patients had a disease, a matter which Dr. Thomas Szasz has been livid about in many of his writings, and which I’ll be dealing with, in the UFO context upcoming.

The doctors treated schizophrenic patients as if the voices they heard and the visions they allegedly were persecuted by were a reality – for the patient. And I have always thought that such schizophrenic visions and voices had a “reality” that we “normal” folks were not privy to.

This is how UFOs should be seen: as a reality for those who have seen them, or those who think they are real, because “normal’ people have reported seeing them.

To debunk that reality, via the (goofy) Null Hypothesis, takes away the prospect of investigation of an odd perception of something that is rampant in the social milieu under the rubric UFO.

Getting side-tracked or off course when it comes to the UFO topic is understandable, as the followers of the phenomenon are often skewed toward ignorance and non-think, suffused in belief rather than a scientific, intellectual (intelligent) scrutiny of the things.

But those who exploit that ignorance with attempts at derogatory onslaughts or side-trips to meaningless detail merely exacerbate the confusing environment that has evolved about flying saucers/UFOs under the sobriquet of Ufology.

If Kevin Randle would clamp down on his wayward readers and hog-tie David Rudiak’s nonsense and Zoam Chomsky would understand that his Null Hypothesis is just silly, that would go a long way to cleansing the UFO topic of its current effluvia in our neck of the UFO community.

RR

Friday, November 18, 2016

The Socorro Symbol(s)

Thomas Szasz, the eminent foe of psychiatric nonsense in his revelatory book, Schizophrenia: The Sacred Symbol of Psychiatry [Syracuse University Press, 1976, 1988], in the Preface to the First Edition wrote this:

“Every Group or organization whose members are held together by shared ideas and ideals has its distinguishing symbols …

"Persons, both as individuals and as group members, experience … symbols … as their most treasured possessions which they must zealously protect …” [Page xv]

(I’ll be dealing with schizophrenia in another context upcoming, as a rebuttal to skeptics who insist that UFOs do not exist and have never existed.)

My pal Kevin Randle, (in trying to get at the facts of the 1964 Socorro event, in which Police Officer Lonnie Zamora reported he saw a strange egg-shaped object on the ground and then in the air, an object that had a symbol or insignia on it) is struggling to hold readers to his blog and David Rudiak to the essential details of the sighting as they exist.

But Mr. Rudiak and a few others keep throwing red-herrings into the mix and Kevin has tried, valiantly, to keep the discourse on track and true to what is known, for certain.

Mr. Rudiak has slimed a previous discussion about that insignia by encouraging readers to adhere to the reporting malfeasances of Ray Stanford, who wrote a book about the sighting, in which he, Stanford, muddied the waters, about the symbol, to such an extent that no one has any idea what symbol (or insignia) was seen and drawn by Office Zamora.

But as Dr. Szasz noted, that symbol is a “sacred” and “distinguished” element for those who allegedly provided the egg-shaped craft that Officer Zamora was privy to, for a short while.

Mr. Rudiak and a few others declaim that the thing seen by Officer Zamora was an extraterrestrial craft, a ship piloted by “aliens” from outer space.

You know my view: aliens coming to Earth in egg-shaped crafts (or any other kind of craft) is a far-fetchery of great kind but, moreover, if an alien species did show up here, on Earth, it’s highly unlikely that such “beings” would have imprinted a symbol (or insignia) on its vehicle, a symbol with all the hallmarks of insigniae used by Earthian militaries (or businesses) on their vehicles (or products).

Symbols derive from an evolutionary writing process, as I attempted to show in a recent posting here.

That Socorro symbol, whichever one is true, has never been seen on another craft, one of ours or one of theirs.

It is a unique, one-time symbol, displayed for a purpose, but not an “alien” purpose, as extraterrestrial entities, and the supposed advanced civilization from which they originate, would never have any symbol similar to anything created by the mind of Earth’s human beings.

The Socorro symbol has become a tiresome ufological topic, but only because persons like David Rudiak have compounded the topic by adding extraneous material to the discussion, making any debate about the insignia a drudge.

But, again, that Socorro symbol (as Dr, Szasz indicated) is the key to the Lonnie Zamora sighting. It’s the “smoking gun” and to dismiss it, because it has been besmirched by UFO buffs who are immersed, compulsively, to the UFO ET hypothesis, is wrong-headed, in the extreme.

RR

Parallel Worlds Interact With Ours

From my Facebook feed:

Click HERE

RR

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Humanoid Encounters?

I’ve often mentioned Albert S. Rosales’ Human Encounters: The Others Amongt Us books; his series, usually by half-decade, of alleged encounters with alien beings, usually accompanied by a strange craft.

The books are published by Trangulum and I have the 2000-2009 book, copyright 2015, with others on my Amazon Wish List.

Each book has hundreds of “witness accounts” that describe people confronted by or confronting strange entities, the reports coming from various sources, some credible (web-sites and blogs with a good reputation), some without bona fides (obscure media, bizarre web-sites and blogs, and unknown individuals).

Each account is fascinating, whether one believes the story told or not.

Even if one discounts all the stories as bogus, one is left with the conundrum of why such stories are presented in the number they are.

Who would make up a tales as bizarre as those offered? Some examples [excerpts]:

[A woman in Brazil, 2001 had] “direct telepathic contact with a short humanoid with dark skin and large black eyes that exited a small disk-shaped object with small window-like apertures that briefly landed on her farm.” [Source Thiago Luiz Ticchetti, EBE.ET. Page 71]

“A pharmaceutical products salesman was returning [home] along a deserted road when he noticed … in the middle of the roadway an object resembling a shiny pear that was resting on three metallic legs and two individuals standing on [sic] a nearby field.” … He approached the two strange figures … One [of whom] walked away and entered  the shiny pear-shaped craft. [The salesman] “knowing these men were ‘not from this earth’ asked if the remaining humanoid needed any assistance. The humanoid answered and appeared genuinely happy as to [the] offer … but said that everything was in order … [then] said ‘Humans don’t know what they have. Where we come from we don’t have such beautiful scenes, they disappeared a long time ago.’

“The astounded witness [asked] the humanoid where he was from and was told they hailed from another dimension. [Italics mine]

“The witness described the humanoids as about 2.50 meters in height, wide chests and heavy set, thin legs, [with] generally human features, but somewhat ‘refined’ … the suits were very tight fitting made of an apparent synthetic material resembling plastic. Their eyes were very light almost white and their speech was hesitant & accented.” [Source J.M. Garcia, Francisco Padron, Spain. Page 92]

The books are rife with such tales (reports?), all equally surreal or more so.

Are such accounts hallucinatory in nature? Made up stories by persons needing attention?

Or are (some of) the accounts actual experiences?

You know I discount interplanetary visitations, in the amounts indicated by the plethora of alleged alien sightings reported over the years, extraterrestrials unlikely to show up in the numbered droves UFO lore has accumulated, even if Earth is a kind of zoo where species here are exhibited for outer space tourists – a view being regurgitated in some UFO circles once more.

If the tales are hallucinations, then humans are demented in numbers that should make us “normal” types cautious to interact with others.

If the stories are fictive, then many humans are sociopaths peddling nonsense in amounts that stagger the imagination(s) of “normal” people, even Sci-Fi writers.

If the accounts are actual experiences, from beings outside our Universe or dimension, then we “normal” types would have to rethink our reality in new, unnerving ways.

No matter what the Rosales' listings portray, we are amidst oddities that border madness of one kind or another.

RR