The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, July 25, 2014

The FBI wants no part of the Army Air Force or Navy 'flying disk" nonsense

Papers on Misperception (for the erudite among you)


Burden of Proof (explained)

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
1.      Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2.      Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

1.      Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
  1. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
    Jill: "What is your proof?"
    Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
  2. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Thursday, July 24, 2014

A document derived from a FOIA request that some may find interesting

The Trent/McMinnville UFO Model?

This is one of the iconic 1950 Trent UFO photos:
Is this the model that farmer Trent used to create his photos?
More about this, upcoming.


Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Another domain of life -- the fourth!

Our friend, Dawson College's [Montreal] Bryan Sentes, a true intellectual, provided a link, at Facebook, to an article that offers the suggestion that there might be a fourth domain of life, which bespeaks that life is more diverse and odd than we might imagine:

Why aircraft never evolved from alleged UFO design

UFOs: The Unread Crowd

I’ve harped on this before, so forgive me for being redundant, but this is an issue that needs to be redressed.

I see from comments and e-mails that many readers here haven’t read Scully's Behind the Flying Saucers but presume to speak about the book and its contents.

And among the books I cite for my speculations, few, if any, have read or have them but they, too, presume to comment on my citations.

And what about those of you who haven’t bought Nick Redfern’s book, Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind, or any of Kevin Randle’s offerings?

Yet you quidnuncs continue to pontificate about their content.

This is the height of hubris, ignorant hubris.

That UFO people don’t support those who author credible, worthwhile tomes about the UFO topic is more than disappointing; it’s disgusting, you bastards!

I’m sure many of you buy cigarettes and beer, but opt not to support those who grind away at the UFO mystery, using their personal funds and time to enlighten the ufological masses.

That some of you deign to comment on esoteric books and postings about them that I bring to this venue makes me intellectually sick.

You oafs are not respected nor esteemed, but I allow your comments out of a sense of courtesy, for the mentally challenged.

Go forth, buy Nick’s books and Mr. Randle’s, and anyone else who has credible cachet in the UFO community.

And if you choose to comment on my fantasy offerings, do so with the background of knowledge you’ve garnered by reading and understanding the material proffered.

The UFO clan is awash in dolts. Let’s keep them far from this blog.


Tuesday, July 22, 2014

The insertion of alien faces in ancient imagery?

Again, in this book, there are images, from old art-works, that contain what appear to be faces of those damnable little gray beings that UFO witnesses keep seeing.

This is The Wheel of Becoming (19th Century Tibet) [Page 400];
 The “alien faces”?
This is Yama and Yami, The Lord Death and his Shakti (19th Century Tibet) [Page 409]:
The “alien faces”?
This is Chakra-Samvararaja and His Shakti, Vajra-Yogini (18th Century, Tibet) [Page 404]:
The “alien faces”?
Did the creators of these works see little gray beings? Or did they have a neurological epiphany?

N.B. No, they're not impressions of skulls; they have the flame of life on their tops


The Electrical Connection to UFOs and the Other World(s)

In the book pictured here [Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974] resides images that derive from various cultures over many years, millennia sometimes.

Some of the images seem, to me, to be similar to electrical schematics, too nearly so to be discounted as something imagined from thin air.

Here are two, this first comes from a sand painting of the Navaho people, early 20th Century [Page 188]
Another -- from the Aztec civilization, 15th century, A.D. [Page 189]
 This is an IBM computer chip diagram:

This is an electrical circuit:

This is Quetzalcoatl’s Heart of the Underworld (Aztec/Pre-Columbian) [Page 176]

This is computer wafer chip:

The [speculative] point I’m trying to make is that there appears to be a metal intrusion on ancient and current artists [Jackson Pollack], a mental intrusion that has similarities to electricity or electrical circuitry.

While early man, in its cave paintings, produced “realistic” images of their surroundings, some cultures -- Indian, in the sub-continent, Indian, in middle America – appear to have been affected by mental images that have co-incidental similarities to electrical design and circuitry. Why?

That UFOs are often reported to affect electrical circuitry in automobiles, atomic or military weaponry circuits, and power plants indicates that UFOs may have an integral electrical component or essence. [See my previous posting about electrical alien beings.]

Do UFOs affect witness brains, the electrical aspect of the brain?

A matter for research or investigation?


Saturday, July 19, 2014

Jonathan E. Caldwell was the creator of flying saucers (UFOs)?

These two New York TIMES clippings from August 20/21, 1949, reproduced in Flying Saucers Over Los Angeles: The UFO Craze of the 50’s by Dewayne B. Johnson and Kenn Thomas [Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, Illinois, 1998, Page 272] …
…tells of two flying saucers [Flying Disk “prototypes”] found in a barn near Glen  Burnie, Maryland, which is about eleven miles south of Baltimore.

It was determined that the constructs had been invented by a man named Jonathan E. Caldwell, who disappeared in the winter of 1940/1941.

The Air Force initially issued a Roswell-like statement: “…'some flying disks had been located  in Maryland,' and that Army special agents made an investigation.”

The Air Force then decided “that the two experimental aircraft … 'have absolutely no connection with the reported phenomena [sic] of flying saucers.'”

The TIMES continues “Less than  twenty-four hours earlier, however, and Air Force spokesman had said there was a 'a good chance' that the two weird devices … might be prototypes or forerunners of the flying saucers or discs.”

Roswell dé-jà vu surely.

But, more intriguing, who was Jonathan E. Caldwell and what happened to him?


Friday, July 18, 2014

UFOs and Electric Beings?

Bryan Sentes, a Facebook friend who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, provided this link to his FB followers:

It allows speculation that, perhaps, somewhere in the Universe, a race of beings has evolved, beings who live off pure energy and may be energy beings themselves.


The Stupidity of UFO Mavens

My god....what's wrong with UFO-interested people?

Are they totally ignorant or insane?

My ideas about speculation have raised havoc with a few readers here, David Rudiak among them.

The consternation comes from persons who, apparently, think that UFO accounts and reports bespeak a reality, that flying saucers and UFOs contain extraterrestrial visitors from outer space.

They think the Aztec and Roswell tales contain actual, real accounts of dead alien bodies and an ET presence.

That I suggest those tales are speculation really irks these people. They have come to believe those two tales (and others) are true or real.

It's a matter of fanatic faith for them, like the existence of God.

No wonder that skeptics get berserk with these folks.

No UFO report or event has ever proved anything, except that something odd was seen in the air or on the ground.

Again, Roswell generated the Aztec story. Aztec is a fiction. Roswell was an odd event, far from settled as a flying disk crash.

One can only speculate about both: why Aztec was created and what really happened near Roswell.

To think there are facts or data proving either was a real ET event is insane, intellectually.

The thought processes expressed here, in comments, show delusional thinking at its worst.

I'm embarrased to have allowed such comments, and I'm chagrinned to think I've quartered here a raft of ravings that normal people can see are stupidity in the extreme.


Thursday, July 17, 2014

Ufology’s Academic Mistake(s)

David Rudiak is irked by my approach to the Aztec and Roswell stories.

Let me explain so that even he understands what I’m doing…

Aztec is, for me, a fiction. I tackle it as a fiction.

Roswell has become mythic. One should deal with the 1947 event as a myth, using the academic methodologies for mythology.

George Adamski’s tales are a contrivance (created for reasons not quite clear, but concocted surely). One should treat Adamski and his contacts as part of a self-generated creation.

Many of the UFO accounts provided here and at his blog-site by Jose Antonio Caravaca are delusions, and should be treated with psychological methodologies.

Mr. Rudiak sees Roswell as a substantive 1947 event and treats it forensically, which is admirable, in an odd way.

French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez, Lance Moody, and CDA (perhaps) see Roswell as a myth, developed by Stanton Friedman’s 1978 intrusion and developing as a mythos until today (2104).

To deal or treat Roswell as something other than a mythos grates the skeptics.

Treating Aztec as a real event, with real chronologies, data, and facts, when it is a fiction, created by Silas Newton and exacerbated, unknowingly as a real event, by Frank Scully, would be foolish.

To try and obtain factual material for a fictive event or story would be stupid on the face of it.

One can gather supportive materials that underlie a fiction, but to take that supportive material into a realm of reportage and fact would be a nonsensical activity.

Mr. Rudiak doesn’t get what premises my speculation, even though I gave him and readers here a heads up with the two New Yorker excerpts in the posting preceding this one.

I like Mr. Rudiak. I think he has accumulated much about Roswell and UFOs generally that is valuable.

But he isn’t academic in his approach. He misses the nuances of speculation. He’s a tyro when it comes to how writers work, what they are trying to do, what truths they are trying to determine using something other than concrete facts or data.

When I say Aztec derives from Roswell, that seems, to me, to follow from the time-line, the persons involved, and the details that intersect between Aztec and Roswell: downed flying saucers, with bodies and a military cover-up.

Mr. Rudiak wants more. He wants me to concretize a fiction.

I’d like to accommodate him, but his obsession is not mine and I’m not going to chase that dog’s tail, just to assuage his obsession with the ETH.


A Doorway to Shaver's "Inner Earth"?

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Ufological Speculation

The current issue of The New Yorker magazine [7/21/14], in Briefly Noted [Page 81] has this about writers who’ve written books, one about Freud and one about The Beat Generation.

In the paragraph about Becoming Freud by Adam Phillips (Yale), is this:

“Talking [Freud’s] admonishments about writing biographies, Phillips, a psychoanalyst himself,  attempts ‘a Freudian life of the young Freud.” The result is anti-biography. Phillips eschews scene setting, character sketches, and chronology, in favor of a string of musings on the first fifty or so years of Freud’s life.”

And this from the notation of American Smoke by Iain Sinclair (Faber) “ … the result is beguiling, full of sparkling prose and odd, unexpected detours … his trip is mostly a journey of the imagination.” [Italics mine]

This is what writers do. The conjure up the truth from associations and connections that spur their imaginations, causing a fictive work that approaches truth often more truthfully than a factual rendition of data and information that is gathered from disparate and controversial sources.

Great writing – Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Joyce, et al. – is a product of imaginative speculation that harbors truths that facts often miss.

David Rudiak gathers facts and tries to allow those facts to bespeak truths that aren’t exactly there but seem to be – his Ramey speculations, for example. (His Ramey thesis is interesting and imaginative but shorn of proof. However, had he allowed his views to be speculative rather than a presentation of reality, his observations would have been more readily accepted by UFO cognoscenti.)

David bludgeons his followers with a treasure trove of information, but while less is more, for him, more is more and he provides a cascade of information that doesn’t gel in the imagination of his readers.

David writes, a lot, but he isn’t a writer.

He now is taking me to task for my speculative views on Bernerd Ray, Silas Newton, Roswell, and Aztec, pressing for proofs and “facts” that are just not available at this late date.

I’m left to speculate on what may be a truth that I imagine – Silas Newton was presented some photos of a Roswell incident that Bernerd Ray had captured on film; Silas Newton taking the story as a ploy for nefarious activity, creating an Aztec scenario, that he got Frank Scully, a writer/reporter, to see as an actual account – Skully’s imaginative faculties filling in the blanks that Newton’s tale were fraught with, and so we have Behind the Flying Saucers.

Speculation can get one in trouble sometimes and particularly when it comes to criminal investigations, if one isn’t careful.

But in ufology or cosmology or anything else, imaginative speculation is a doorway to truths, as Einstein found out as well as and, in particular, quantum physicists who discovered that when dealing with the evanescent aspects of quantum mechanics.

Theoretical physicists are prime examples of speculative thinkers (and writers).

One has to take what exists in the way of information and mold it to portray a truth that they see as possible – not true perhaps, in the factual sense, but true in another way: encompassing possibilities that could be real.

David Rudiak did this with his Ramey hypothesis, but his presentation is hammered too hard, causing readers of his foray to shy away. Mr. Rudiak is proselytizing, on behalf of his bias, that extraterrestrials exist, fly in UFOs or saucers, and crashed near Roswell in 1947.

It’s an acceptable view – to me.

But when I conjecture that Bernerd Ray and Silas Newton were in contact (or more), derived from their similar professions, locale, and circumstantial employment situation, Mr. Rudiak questions my speculation, as do Frank Warren and Scott Ramsey, all of whom think Aztec happened as Frank Scully told it.

But Aztec did not happen as Frank Scully had it. He was, unknown to him at the time, regurgitating the Roswell tale as reconfigured by Silas Newton (for the reasons I have enumerated earlier here).

David Rudiak can’t accept my speculation which has more grist than the vague blotches in his enlarged Ramey memo.

That’s okay with me. After all, as French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez often remind us, “That’s ufology.

UFOs and its pseudo-science are too silly or ephemeral to get worked up about.

Even the so-called Roswell slides are nothing to get worked up about: they will end up proving nothing, except that someone took photos of a strange thing, in an unknown place, at an unknown time.

But speculative writing about UFOs and its mimesis will continue here, and elsewhere I hope. It’s entertaining, and I would hope approaches truths that facts can’t emulate.


Despicable Ufology

An often complaint by UFO aficionados is that science, scholastics, and/or academics don’t study or examine the alleged “good UFO cases.”

And why don’t they?

One reason is the inherent lunacy of most UFO mavens.

But another reason is that the UFO crowd is adorned heavily with unethical people. Persons who steal material online, posting it as their finds or even original thoughts and writings, not providing attribution of citation(s).

Many plagiarize material and pass it off as their own.

Writings of ours, input here, can be found all over the internet, at UFO web-sites and blogs, without a link or sourcing notification.

Such scummy activity is eschewed by academics and scientists – anathema, for them, of a high order.

There is no way to correct the unethical, immoral behavior of the sleazy pirates; they are immune to decency and elegant, legal behavior.

Some even ignore copyright notices – although we have won a few copyright infringement “suits” over the past few years.

(Hosting platforms and other internet venues, wishing not to be sued, will readily stop or remove copyrighted material being exploited by their customers or users.)

But the stealing goes on apace.

We’ll start posting those sites that have taken material wholesale from this venue and presented as their own. (And we’ll sue some of the practitioners.)

But that won’t correct “ufology” in the mind of science or academia. They will remain wary and aloof.

And we don’t blame them.


Tuesday, July 15, 2014

SAGE Publishing/Peer Review Scandal

NASA says we will find aliens in 20 years, but...

... they've already shown up, or so the Roswell slides tell us:

Monday, July 14, 2014

Today [7/14/2014] is Anthony Bragalia's birthday....Happy Birthday, AJB