UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Our dear friend Martin Kottmeyer has addressed the UFO/alien helmet issue

I looked into the imagery of alien helmets back in April 2000:

MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 26

MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 26    April 2000 EDITORIAL

Preview by Yahoo


In Maney & Hall there is a March 1959 essay asserting the existence of 6 cases of diving suited figures and it is contrasted against contactee cases where these are not seen, but they are “what one would expect to find.” (Charles Maney & Richard Hall  The Challenge of Unidentified flying Objects, NICAP, 1961, p.98)

Revised December 2014

1950s:   23
1960s:   18
1970s:   27
1980s:     5
1990s:    10
2000s:      1
2010s:      3

The bump in the 1990s is mostly due to a string of Russian cases, unknown at the time I wrote the original submission.  American cases dropped to 2 in the 1990s and both in the first half of the decade.  The tiny bump in 2010s is trivial and includes ambiguous descriptions.  One however is not, with the alien saying the mixture of gasses was nitrogen and argon, a curious combination indeed.  Earth’s atmosphere is mostly nitrogen.  Argon is chemically inert and presumably can’t be for breathing purposes.

{rjl} Halloween Nightmare.
Gillette, NJ, US

It was the early morning of Halloween, when, I got to the observatory early to look at the stars with the telescope. When, I, got to looking at the stars, I swear, I could see a blue-white light in the telescope. This strange blue-white light, I could swear, was going incredibly fast. So fast that it was probably going at phantom speeds of fifty thousand miles per hour. How was that possible, I thought, an object, if it was an object, could go at fifty thousand miles per hour, and, then suddenly make a sudden turn like that with ease? It was not possible for an object that was gold-copper and flashing randomly a blue-white light to go at phantom speeds of fifty thousand miles per hour. Then, all of sudden, the gold-copper object was getting faster than before. My devices, suddenly, told me, that, the gold-copper object was now going at phantom speeds of fifty-seven thousand and five hundred miles per hour. It was fifteen to twenty minutes later, that, suddenly, the object suddenly stopped, for no reasons, said. With the telescope, I swear, I could see the object, it was a gold-copper rectangular object with windows! Windows! How's that possible?! How is it, that, what I'm seeing, is possible?! It couldn't be a "flying saucer"! A "flying saucer"!!! Upon underneath the windows, where, I could also swear, there was some movement, I saw where the blue-white lights came from. The blue-white lights came from exterior circular objects, that, were underneath the square windows. These exterior circular objects that were flashing blue-white lights were part and attached to the gold-copper rectangle with square windows. Suddenly, I, saw another pair of movement, but couldn't see through the windows, but I could swear to myself, that these beings in the gold-copper rectangle were, physically, human, or at least, humanoid. Then, all of sudden, a smaller cube object, came off the gold-copper rectangle's back. The cube was made of some white metallic alloys, and, it was big as the Apollo Lunar Module, though, much smaller than the gold-copper rectangle object itself. The cube was going at phantom speeds of twenty-five thousand miles per hour, which shocked me. Suddenly, the cube, by my calculations, was going to land in the small town of Gillette, here in New Jersey. I, suddenly, got into my car and drove to Gillette, but then something popped in my mind. How's this also possible that no one else, but, me is hearing and seeing this?! How, and, why, not others?! When, I, got to Gillette, there were some cars driving pass me, and, one person honked me in his car. I waved backed, but he'd drove away, normally. Then, suddenly, the white cube was now above me. Upon, my closer examinations, the white cube was hovering above me, then, suddenly, beams of blue-white lights appeared, and, then, to my shocked face, a humanoid appeared. The humanoid was wearing a silver-chrome skin-tight jumpsuit-like spacesuit with a white metallic space helmet. The face of the humanoid couldn't be seen through the space helmet, because, it look like a one-way or a two-way mirror circular glass upon the space helmet. Also, upon the back of the space helmet-spacesuit was, what to me, appeared to be two white rectangular tanks. I asked the humanoid about them, it told me that, in an almost strange language, that it was argon and nitrogen tanks. Then, I looked at the belt of the humanoid's spacesuit, and, also about it, because, the belt of the humanoid's spacesuit was odd. For example, the middle of the belt was in the shape of a cube and the rest was written in a strange language around it. The humanoid, then, put its left hand around my face, touching my face, for no reasons. The humanoid said, "What are you"? I, being professional, said that I'm a astrophysicist. The humanoid then, again, for reasons unknown, showed me its hands. The humanoid's hands had six, perfectly formed and functioning, fingers on each of the humanoid's hands. The humanoid, then, pulled out a small spherical device from the belt. The humanoid then said something to the sphere, which glowed a glowing and pulsating red color when the humanoid talked to it. The humanoid said, this device, captures and transmits tachyons. Then, suddenly, the humanoid returned to its cube and blasted off, knocking me off my feet. Suddenly, I blacked out. Then, what appeared to be a few hours later, I stand up, and I saw no trace of evidence of what had happened, so I got to my car and droved home. A few days later, someone, was knocking on my door. When, I, answered it, three men in black clothing came upon me with their black sunglasses. The middle of the three men spoke to me and said that nothing happened in the early morning of Halloween. I was confused. Why, and how?! Suddenly, the right man pulled out a black gun and pointed at my face, while, the left man pulled out a small pocketknife and pointed at my throat. The middle man said that they can make me disappear, if I don't tale anyone about Halloween morning. I said, sure, then the three man got angry at me and, in a union, promised to NOT tell. I, scared, said sure. Then, the three men said, again, in a union, that they know where I live and where I work at. Then they droved off in a black van with windows completely covered up. That's why I'am here.

In a set of 27 diving suit alien images from ufo literature, 7 show tubes leading to the helmet.  

Maybe there's something of interest here relevant to your current interest, maybe not - just sharing.

as ever,

Those UFO-Humanoid Helmets!

After posting, recently, the James Ragsdale anecdote, noted in Kevin Randle’s new Roswell book, about the golden helmets he saw (and allegedly collected) from the bodies he says he stumbled upon during the supposed 1947 flying disk crash near Roswell in 1947, I was perusing Albert S. Rosales book, Humanoid Encounters: The Others Amongst us, 2000-2009 [Triangulum Rosales, 2015] and discovered that almost all of the reports Mr. Rosales gathered had witnesses who saw humanoids wearing uniforms and wearing helmets (of varying design and color).

Yes, I know that many of you discount such humanoid accounts, which often come from sensationalizing sources.

But, as there are so many recorded encounters, some of which have to be “real” in the hallucinatory, fabricated, or actual sense, I’m wondering why helmet wearing humanoids (ET-suggested or otherwise) show up so often in the rendered accounts.

Photographs and videos of human astronauts, more often than not, show those astronauts, while in their space vehicles (the defunct Shuttle or International Space Station) without headgear.
Even sci-fi movies and many comic book renditions of alien creatures are often without helmets, not all but many, so helmets are not a universal meme.
Yet, UFO reports, even outside of Mr. Rosales’ collections, have humanoids, seen inside and outside their assumed spacecraft, wearing headgear or helmets: e.g., Doreen Kendall [1970], Carl Higdon’s Ausso [1974], Herbert Schirmer [1967], et al.
So, I ask, what causes UFO witnesses to note helmets on their visualized humanoids?

(The photo at the very top of this post comes from StumbleUpon.com)


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Recent stats

(Mouse over image and click)

I have no idea what caused the blips.....the comments for the days shown were paltry.


Are Nick Redfern’s WIB witnesses nuts?

As some of you know, from reading Nick Redfern’s latest book, Women in Black, an inconsiderable number of persons have claimed they were harassed, scared, terrorized by women in black, much as many UFO witnesses have been, allegedly, troubled by men in black.

But are the encounters, noted by Nick in his 294 page book, real or hallucinatory?

While persons seeing odd things – often having what is ascribed as an hallucination – they actually “see” what they think they are seeing.

But is there an actual, tangible “thing” before their eyes?

Starting on Page 48, Chapter 4, Nick provides a number of MIB, WIB, and even Children in Black episodes that involved UFO author John Keel.

John Keel was “tuned into” many paranormal events, and a proponent of the 1966 Mothman sightings in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, Keel seeming to attract and promote weird events.

(There does seem to be anecdotal accounts of some people favored by paranormal activity; such activity ranging from the earliest times and reaching a crescendo in the Middle Ages and, apparently, in the United States in the 1960s. Nick provides  litany of paranormal activity outside the 1960s time-frame, much of it centered on Men in Black and their counterparts, Women in Black.)

Nick offers a story [Page 153 ff.] about a man named Dan Seldin who told Bud Hopkins, in 1985, under hypnosis (!), about a 1969 experience that has been counted as a UFO abduction.

Seldin related that after his “experience,” he had a “dream” from which he awoke, and saw. “standing in the dark shadows … a trio of large-headed, emotionless [sic] humanoids with black eyes and dressed all in black …Then, as if out of nowhere, the face of a human-looking woman loomed into view. It was a chilling sight for Seldin. The malevolent looking she-hag had long, black hair – which awung, or blew, wildly in Seldin’s face/ In addition, she had dark eyes, and rather oddly, no teeth.

“Seldin was terrified but he admitted that although the woman gave off an air of ‘evil,’ she ‘looks petty too …’”[Page 154]

This is not an atypical story among those provided by Nick.

But what are we to make of it?

One can see a resemblance, minus the UFO/humanoid descrips, to one of Freud’s famous cases: “The Wolf-Man” recounted in The Wolf-Man, by the Wolf-Man: The double story of Freud’s most famous case, edited by Muriel Gardiner [Basic Books, NY, 1971]

The “Wolf-Man” [Sergei Konstantinovitch Pankejeff] was a man treated for his neurotic problems, who had a Don Quixote-like fixation, at one point in his life, on a woman named Therese:

“I had arranged with my mother that after a week I would pay her a short visit … and then return to Therese. On the evening before I was to visit my mother Therese and Iwent to the well-known Berlin variety theater Wintergarten … I was in … high spirits …[but] when we had returned to the hotel [Therese] made a dreadful scene of jealousy. She raged and screamed …

“I lay awake the entire night, trying to figure out … Therese’s outburst of rage …” [Pages 76-77]

Of course, Freud saw The Wolf-Man’s problem(s) as having a sexual orientation, much as he did with patient Dora, a notable case of hysteria [Dora – An Analysis of a Case of Hysteria [Collier Book, NY, 1963]

And this, about hypnosis and “phantasy” in Freud’s famous case of Anna O:

“It was observed that, while the patient was in her states of 'absence (altered personality accompanied by confusion), she was in the habit of muttering a few words to herself which seemed as though they arose from some train of thought that was occupying her mind. The doctor, after getting a report of these words, used to put her into a kind of hypnosis and then repeat them to her so as to induce her to use them as a starting point. The patient complied with the plan, and in this way reproduced in his presence the mental creations which had been occupying her mind during the 'absences' and which had betrayed their existence by the fragmentary words which she had uttered. They were profoundly melancholy phantasies - 'day dreams' we should call them - sometimes characterized by poetic beauty, and their starting-point was as a rule the position of a girl at her father's sick-bed.  When she had related a number of these phantasies, she was as if set free, and she was brought back to normal mental life.”

One could go on and on with the sexual orientation in hysteria and it’s concomitant delusional component hallucination.

More can be found in Sigmund Freud’s Collected Papers, Volume 3 [Basic Books, NY, 1959]

I've always posited that alien abductions have an underpinning of a sexual element, repressed but breaking into the open with fantasies of alien abductions. [See rrrgroup.blogspot.com]

Yet, do encounters with Women in Black (or MIB) denote an hallucination with sexual underpinnings?

I suggest they do, but does that mean the persons being visited by WIB (or MIB) haven’t had a real visitation by actual persons (or beings)?

There are too many recitations, as Nick provides, to discount that all – all – encounters are fantasy-ridden.

A tale of a hissing WIB is told by Nick in his Chapter 25 [Page 250 ff.].

It took place in 1893 in Rhineback, New York, and was reported in the town paper, the Sunday Herald and headlined “A Woman in Black.”
“It is the story of a strange creature who glides noiselessly along country roads at dead of night … She invariably halts long enough to stretch out her long arm from beneath a black veil and at the same time make a hissing noise.” [Sunday Herald]

Nick has a plethora of such sightings, from long ago right up to the present.

Like Kevin Randle’s Roswell liars, can all of Nick’s “witnesses” be pathological, fraught with hysteria and hallucinations?

The numbers belie hallucination, in toto.

Some, like UFO sightings, have to be real – actual observations of WIB. Crazy can’t account for all the overwhelming recounted observations/encounters. It can’t (or else we are living in a society or world that is basically constructed of madness).

Get Nick’s book, and have a good, edifying read. Then let me know what you think.


Tuesday, June 21, 2016

The Psychopathology of Roswell?

While reading Kevin Randle’s new Roswell opus, I was surprised to see just how many Roswell “witnesses” told lies to Mr. Randle and other investigators.

Just one Appendix of Kevin’s book, The Plains of San Agustin Controversy [Page 255 ff.], is replete with a coterie of liars: persons who can be listed as psychopaths, or in the newer psychiatric terminologies, a sociopath.

The names of persons who were “habitual, and chronic liars” (to use a line spoken by the great actor Charles Laughton in the movie Witness for the Prosecution, based on the Agatha Christie play): Barney Barnett, Gerald Anderson, and maybe not a psychopath but an enabler of them, ufological icon Stan Friedman.

The psychological/psychiatric designation(s), psychopath or sociopath, can be found on the internet, but I’m using these sources here:

Psychopathy: Theory and Research by Robert D. Hare [John Wiley & Sons, NY,

Psychopaths by Alan Harrington [Simon and Schuster, NY, 1972]

Borderline Personality Disorders: The Concept, the Syndrome, the Patient, edited by Peter Hartocollis, M.D., Ph.D. [International Universities Press, Inc. NY, 1977]

“He [the psychopath] may lie glibly and show little if any embarrassment when caught out.” [Psychopaths, ibid, Page 15]

“[The psychopath’s] attempts to extricate himself often produce an intricate and contradictory web of blatant lies, coupled with theatrical and often convincing explanations and promises.” [Psychopathy, ibid, Page 6]

“ … some of these individuals have admixtures of sociopathic and schizophrenic symptoms …” [Borderline, ibid, Page 267]

Although Mr. Randle presents the florid fabrications of the people noted above, his book is rife with the slew of other Roswell cast members who developed, as I see it, a kind of psychopathology mostly after the publication of the books about Roswell in 1978 (The Roswell Incident, Crash at Corona, UFO Crash at Roswell) and TV airings about Roswell (Unsolved Mysteries) and radio shows dealing with the Roswell saga (Hieronimus and Company), all delineated by Mr. Randle in his book.

My question is, however, why so many persons, citizens of the New Mexico area around Roswell, chose to lie, to fabricate stories that were, apparently, far from truth?

Professor Hare, in Psychopathy, cites, on Page 11, a study that showed “Pathological lying” to be slightly greater than lying by the general population – a 9 compared to a 35 for anti-social aggression or a 22 for narcissism; that is, pathological lying was 9 times greater among psychopaths than it was among people, generally, not a stupendous difference.

So, how did Roswell's placid citizenry end up with so many liars (psychopaths) compared to the population as a whole?

UFO buffs, familiar with the Roswell tale, know that the bane of investigators, like Mr. Randle, has been the distortions and outright lies foisted upon them during their interviews to find out what really happened in Roswell in 1947.

Mr. Randle’s book and recent blog posts are an attempt, I think, to right the wrongs that he and others committed by believing, initially, some of the accounts presented when he tried to ferret the Roswell truth.

But can Mr. Randle or others who believed persons, like Barnett or even Marcel Sr. be faulted?

I don’t think so, psychopaths are an ingenious lot:

Hare, in Psychopathy, notes the noted American psychiatrist, Hervey Cleckley’s  evaluation of psychopaths:

“… superficial charm and good intelligence … absence of ‘nervousness’ or neurotic manifestations … insincerity … pathologic egocentricity … unresponsiveness … he [the psychopath] mimics the human personality .. his verbalizations appear normal.” [op.cit, Page 5]

Thus, one can see how UFO researchers, not adept in psychiatric or psychological disorders, could be gulled by persons who employ the psychopathic devices listed above.

So, many, if not all, Roswell “witnesses” found in UFO lore lied, or did they?

Here’s the conundrum: Could the small southwestern community of Chaves County contain such a raft of psychopaths?

The proportion of psychopaths to the general population is absurd, statistically.

To have such a number of liars, all living within close proximity either indicates a unique massive hysteria or psychological mania or some other anomaly, unknown to sociology or psychology.

Or, some of the “liars” were telling the truth.

Read Mr. Randle’s book, and decide for yourselves.


Monday, June 20, 2016

Nick Redfern’s latest book: The Women in Black

Nick Redfern’s new book,The Women in Black: The Creepy Companions of the Mysterious M.I.B. [Lisa Hagen Books, 2016] may be read as a kind of sequel to his popular Men in Black books The Real Men in Black [2011] and Men in Black [2015].

(One could provide a psychiatric evaluation of Nick’s obsession with this theme but that for another time.)

As usual, Nick, in 292 pages, offers readers insights and hitherto unknown stories of odd appearances by women, often garbed in black clothing or accoutrements; appearances that scare the bejeesus out of UFO witnesses, paranormal buffs, and normal people too.

He also inserts a chapter (21) on the 1987 play The Woman in Black that eventually became a move, with Harry Potter star, Daniel Radcliffe, 2012’s The Woman in Black, both deriving from Susan Hill’s 1983 ghost story of the same name.

The fictional book, play, and film, good as they may be, don’t hold a candle to stories (true or not) from the late 1800s, all the way to 1950, about women in black who haunted various venues in Britain and the States.

Bu that’s one chapter, surrounded by 25 other chapters of eerie women in black encounters, that caused headaches and alarm among UFO “notables” – contactee Truman Bethurum, Albert Bender, from whom the Men in Black sobriquet comes via Gary Barker’s 1956 book They Knew Too Much About Flying Saucers – and ordinary people who have or had no connection to UFOs, but still were approached or assaulted by women in black.

Even Mac Tonnies’ cypto-terrestrial hypothesis gets a going over, hinting that some women in black may be from Tonnies’ hypothetical species living concomitantly with us humans.

There are dozens of off-beat women in black tales that only a journalist like Nick could ferret out from the recesses of paranormality. That’s his forte as many of you know.

I was a little surprised to see that elderly lady allegedly holding a cell phone in a movie clip from a Charlie Chaplin 1920 silent film, The Circus, added to the possible corps of women in black.

But that’s Nick, gathering all possibilities of WIB appearances.

I can’t list all the WIB inclusions that Nick provides.

You have to get the book, and enjoy his thorough recounting of what he sees as WIB appearances over time and still.

Nick never disappoints, and doesn’t with this book, which you can find almost everywhere books are sold: Amazon, The Anomalist, Powell’s, Hamilton Books, and your local book store, should you be lucky enough to have one.

Meanwhile, I’ll be making sure to further ignore my ex, who loves cats and always wore a black scarf when we went out.


Sunday, June 19, 2016

Roswell and The Golden Helmets

In reading Kevin Randle’s new Roswell book, I found a number of asides (many among the plethora of footnotes, where one usually finds insightful gems in scholarly books),

One that caught my eye was the implanted note in James Ragsdale’s account of the supposed Roswell bodies he came upon, July 4th, 1947, during a hedonistic outing with a lady friend of his:

Randle write, “Using quotes lifted from the January 26, 1993, interview with Ragsdale and conducted by Don Schmitt, McAndrew wrote: Testimony attributed to Ragsdale, who is deceased, states that he and a friend [Trudy Truelove] were camping one evening and saw something fall from the sky. The next morning, when they went to investigate, they saw a crash site.”[Page 112]

The McAndrew cited by Kevin is James McAndrew, the “author” of the Air Force’s book The Roswell Report: Case Closed [Barnes & Noble, NY, 1996, Page 1]

McAndrew included part of a Ragsdale affidavit:

“One part [of the craft] was kind of buried in the ground and one part of it was sticking our [out] of the ground.” “I’m sure that [there] was bodies… either bodies or dummies.”

Kevin goes on to explain how McAndrew’s attempt to use Ragsdale’s “dummies” identification falls flat.

Ragsdale included this in his affidavit, used by McAndrew:

“In his affidavit, Ragsdale would provide more description of the alien creatures he claimed to have seen. He said, ‘The bodies of the occupants were about four feet or less tall, which strange looking arms, legs and fingers. They were dressed in a silver type uniform and wearing a tight helmet of some type. This is positive because I tried to remove one of the helmets, but was unable to do so. Their eyes were large, oval in shape, and did not resemble anything of a human nature.’” [Page 114, Randle]

Yet later, it seems that Ragsdale elaborated on the above:

“There had been some very interesting and exciting information offered in Jim Ragsdale’s tale of seeing the object fall from the sky to the point where he had seen the bodies in the distance. Later he would claim there were sixteen of them wearing helmets made of solid gold which is a tip off. Gold is a soft, heavy metal that is unsuited for helmet. The Air Force would use his descriptions of the bodies as a way to prove their anthropomorphic dummies theory, never realizing that if Ragsdale was making up his tale, then their explanation failed at that point.” [Page 197, Randle, bold print mine]

Now there’s the interesting item: “helmets made of solid gold.”

Ragdale said he buried the helmets he recovered but couldn’t find them when he went back to retrieve the things.

Ragsdale was an uncouth man, a truck driver inclined to partying and frivolity. You can read more about him via these links:

But what caused him to claim the alleged bodies he found were crowned with “solid gold helmets”?

Gold helmets figure in some mythologies:

The Tarnhelm, a gold helmet giving the wearer the ability to change form or become invisible. used by Alberich in Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen:

And in this famous painting by Rembrandt:
Ragsdale wouldn’t know, I surmise, the mythological tales and very likely never saw the Rembrandt painting.

So, why the fabricated reference by him?

Wouldn’t a common man “find bodies” with military-like helmets, popular in movies, comics, and seen in many newsreels of World War II soldiers?

Why gold?

I find the observation and inclusion of such an arcane item to be fascinating.

(Ancient Astronaut theorists could make much of this I bet.)

Ragsdale’s Roswell attributions are bogus, seemingly, but precious in some odd way.


Kevin Randle's new Roswell book....yes, Roswell

Kevin Randle’s new book -- Roswell in the 21st Century: The Evidence as it Exists Today – is a must read for UFO newbies and also the entrenched members of the UFO community, no matter how disenchanted with Roswell or how well-versed they think they are about the Roswell saga.

(Kevin's estimable effort will be available from the publisher as an e-book, July 15th, 2016.)

Mr. Randle has provided broad insights and discriminate minutiae in the first 200 pages of his 332 page “polemic” fleshing out his book with 132 pages of Appendices covering related topics: MJ-12, the so-called Aquarius Project, The Plains of San Agustin Controversy, the Ramey memo, et cetera, et cetera.

There is an extensive (!) bibliography, for those who might like to collect the Roswell and UFO detritus extant.

The Roswell slides affair gets a working over, Mr. Randle offering, as he does with his Roswell input, much that has never been publicly addressed.

I’m not a Roswell aficionado, but have a few books about the incident, and have commented sporadically about Roswell, mostly denigrating the tale.

But this new book makes me sit up and take a better view of the 1947 episode(s).

Everyone, and I mean everyone, who has had a say or stake in Roswell, over the years and ongoing, gets an “examination” by Mr. Randle, as does everything about Roswell that has been aired, published, or discussed in the UFO community and public arena.

Even if you say “Ick, no more about Roswell please,” you owe yourself the chance to find out why some see Roswell as an ET event, and why others do not.

This book will give you the wherewithal to debate or debunk Roswell, as you see fit.

It’s my new standard for Roswellian information.

[Image, above, from classicufo.com]


Friday, June 17, 2016

The 1968 Minot UFO Incident

Destination America [TV channel] had a recap, last night [6/16/16] of the October 1968 Minot UFO incident that has absorbed our pal Tim Herbert, who finds the Minot UFO sightings intriguing:


UFO Casebook (from whom the rendering above comes) has noted the sighting also and an earlier one too::



Robert Hastings, too, has found these UFO cases to have high interest because the episodes involve an airbase that housed nuclear missiles, which seem to have been compromised by the appearance of the UFOs.

Picture from Earthfiles.com:

While some maintain that the UFOs were an extraterrestrial intrusion, I agree, somewhat, in that I propose the UFOs were machine intelligence controlled, either from within, or were AI machines themselves, in toto, from another galactic alien civilization (or perhaps from time or another dimension), probing for like intelligence.

That is, the UFOs were, like their often seen/reported counterparts, AI machines looking to communicate with what they, the machines, thought were AI machines -- the nuclear facility and its missiles -- tethered to the ground.

This case is one that shows us several things, the absurd explanation of it by Blue Book and the impeccable veracity of the military witnesses, with radar confirmations and visual sightings.

That the UFOs did no intrinsic harm to the missiles themselves, or the facility (and its staffed participants) tells me that it was a machine-inspired probe to determine if the technology at Minot was AI oriented, or a like-form [sic] of machine intelligence that UFOs seem to be looking for. (See previous postings here on this.)

Maybe Tim will elaborate on the sighting for me/us. They, the Minot cases, may be a Zoam Chomsky quagmire.


A suggestion for ufologists


“By 2100, our destiny is to become like the gods we once worshipped and feared. But our tools will not be magic wands and potions but the science of computers, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and most of all, the quantum theory.”


Thursday, June 16, 2016

If you’re a UFO buff, you may get rebuffed!

Our pal, Halifax, Nova Scotia resident and noted film-maker Paul Kimball, whom you all know, was considering a run for office in his constituency being encouraged by people in his party to do so, not seeking the nomination on his own.

But his party’s candidate selection committee denied him the opportunity citing his favorable comments, once, for the opponent provincial Conservative party at a time when the Conservative party was speaking out against cuts made to the film industry there by the government.

Paul belongs to a left-of-center party, and he had made many favorable comments about his party’s elected representatives also.

But the coup de grace came when the selection committee brought up that Paul had an interest in UFOs and the paranormal, making films about those topics.

They told Paul they were concerned (or appalled) that this particular hobby might embarrass the party.

(Paul may decide to run as an independent, and I hope he does. He’d bring a semblance of sanity to his pocket of Canada.)

Anyway, my point in telling you this is that if you feign an interest in UFOs or ghosts (or anything paranormally related) and plan to run for political office, woe unto you.

You’ll become a political pariah, perhaps, not one as outcast as a Donald Trump perhaps, but a person thought to be on the iffy side of life.

Even a person as sensible as Paul Kimball.


Time, Kant, Lee Smolin, and UFOs

In a passel of new books I got this week (personal writings of Wilhelm Reich, The Illustrated Guide to God, Greatest Mysteries of the Unexplained, The Cave Painters, Tim Hebert’s recommendation The Big Bang, et cetera) is Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe by Lee Smolin [Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston/New York, 2014].
Smolin’s treatise is about the reality of time; he counters the prevailing view of most physicists and philosophers (and people generally) that time is an illusion.

I shall provide more on his book and the topic upcoming but want to note here that Smolin, like many others in physics, refers to Emmanuel Kant, a favorite of my academic pal, Bryan Sentes.

(Bryan, who, while a poet, and polymath and has an honours degree in philosophy, is gaga about Kant.)

I am loath to be gaga about Kant, knowing a little about his personal peccadilloes and mired mistakes (some of which I’ll present in my Smolin piece).

The point I’m trying to make here, is that one can’t talk about time-travel in regard to UFOs without a smidgen, at least, of Kantian philosophy or Smolin dialectic, along with a patina of knowledge about quantum cosmology, Einsteinian relativity, and other relevant materials.

But time-travel has to be considered in the search for a UFO explanation, if one accepts my view that extraterrestrials would be daffy to keep showing up in this lowly planet’s airspace in the numbers indicated by the raft of UFO reports over the years and still.


Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Ufology: madness, the internet, and hating books

I (and others) have often stipulated that UFO buffs and practitioners of ufology show indications of madness (insanity).

But I  think we have to temper such a harsh criticism of UFO community members.
Michel Foucault, in Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason [Vintage Book/Random House, NY, 1965/1988 Page 13 ff.] writes that “Because it symbolized a great disquiet, suddenly dawning on the horizon of European culture at the end of the Middle Ages. Madness and the madman became minor figures, in their ambiguity: menace and mockery, the dizzying unreason of the world, and the feeble ridicule of men.”

“The denunciation of madness (la folie) becomes the general form of criticism.”

“… the madman is comedy of the second degree: the deception of deception, he utters in his simpleton’s language … the truth of life to the young, the middling reality of things to the proud, to the insolent, and to liars.”

“In learned literature, too Madness or Folly was at work, at the very heart of reason and truth.”

For Foucault, odd behavior and bizarre protestations were a matter of foolishness, not a matter of mental disturbance.

Today we see real madness, as when a person shoots masses or people (as in the Orlando episode recently) or when the Nazi’s exterminated millions of Jews, et cetera.

So, ufology follows in the scheme outlined by Foucault for the beginning of how madness came about: folly not mental illness.

Then there is a rumination about the internet in the latest [6/30/16] New Yorker magazine: What it is like to like: Art and taste in the age of the internet by Louis Menand (Page 73 ff.).
Writer Menand, in a “review” of Tom Vanderbilt’s book, You May Also Like [Knopf], also touches on Virginia Hefferman’s Magic and Loss [Simon & Schuster] , writing that “The Internet is the Truman Show [a 1998 Jim Carrey film]. We’re not seeing reality, or even a simulacrum thereof. We’re seeing what the algorithms want us to see.” [Page 73]
“The Internet is the great masterpiece of civilization,” [Hefferman] says, “As an idea it rivals monotheism” And: “If it’s ever fair to say that anything has ‘changed everything,’ it’s fair to say so about the Internet.” [Page 76]

“A lot of the Internet, and especially popular Web sites like Wikipedia, YouTube, and Twitter, is just ugly.” [ibid]

“Ultimate unreadability is part of the aura of the Internet itself, the ‘postmodern sublime.’” [ibid]

Here we see, by way of Mr. Menand’s [Distinguished Professor of English, essayist and critic, author of The Metaphysical Club] insight(s) that the Internet [sic] is the place where many people go for learning and information, faulty as the internet is.

Most of the readers here, not all, resort to the internet for their discourse, rather than books (which I’ll touch on in a moment), while the UFO community, itself, is awash with information from the web rather than information from erudite books.

The internet (not capitalized nowadays per AP’s usage manual for reporters) has become the main refuge for ufologists (UFO buffs), many taking what they find there as gospel, their sop to the monotheism that Hefferman refers to.

And why is this so?
The Times Literary Supplement [for 6/3/16] has a review of William Marx’s La Haine [hatred] de la Litterature [Minuit] by Ann Jefferson [Page 5 ff.] wherein Ms. Jefferson recounts Mr. Marx’s brilliant accounting of how literature and books have been eschewed by people, famous people too: Plato charged poets with falsity, whereas Thomas Aquinas defended the “unreason of figurative language.” [Page 5]

Plato accused poets of mendacity, mostly for their failure of not applying “their lies on behalf of the state.” [ibid]

(I hope my academic buddy Bryan Sentes, a poet himself, forgives me for bringing this up.)

But Marx’s book is not about poetry, but about how the hostility toward literature has proliferated from the ancient Greeks to today. And the Hefferman arguments (above) substantiate Marx’s argument.

UFO buffs often refuse to step outside UFO lore to enlighten themselves.

I get a few recommendations of literature outside UFO lore, but much of it is related to elements that impact the UFO phenomenon (physics, astronomy, et cetera), very little of a liberal arts nature, which often provides a broader perspective that might open the door to an explanation of the UFO phenomenon.

Ufologists may not be mad, just foolish, but they are not very well-read or intellectual I’m sorry to write.

And the internet has become the milieu for supposed erudition by the UFO hoi polloi, sadly.

When Kevin Randle rightly bemoans the state of UFO research, his argument is underpinned by what the books and reviews above recount.

And I’m with him all the way.


Monday, June 13, 2016

Would these techniques help decipher the Ramey memo?



Nick Redfern's latest book, Women in Black, is available


Article by Nick about Women in Black

Kevin Randle on Ufology

Hie thee to Kevin Randle's blog -- kevinrandle.blogspot.com -- for his take on the state of Ufology.

I'm with him on this....ufology is moribund, not UFOs per se, but the study and research into UFOs.

He provides a lucid commentary on where we are in the investigation and effort(s) to explain UFOs.


Sunday, June 12, 2016

Instinct, thought, and consciousness in plants, sea life, and AI machines (on Earth or elsewhere)

Watching the BBC Channel’s Planet Earth: Life (hosted by David Attenborough) about plants and sea life Sunday [6/12/16] forces me to consider (somewhat) that which makes up thought, intelligence.

Consciousness is intrinsic to thought/intelligence while instinct is said to be “An organized and relatively complex mode of response, characteristic of a given species, that has been phylogenetically adapted to a specific type of environmental situation.” [H.C. Warren, Dictionary of Psychology, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1934]

“An instinct, according to Freud, is a primal trend or urge that cannot be further resolved. From the Freudian standpoint there are two primal instincts, those of life and of death. [Psychiatric Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Hinsie/Campbell, Oxford University Press, London, 1970, Page 400]

“Jung says that ‘the collective unconscious consists of the sum of the instincts and their correlates, the archetypes.’” [ibid, Page 401]

I only stress instincts here as almost everyone would adduce the behavior of sea life and plants, as shown on the BBC series, as instinctual, whereas I see an intelligence at work, primitive intelligence, but sometimes ingenious or creative.

I won’t go into the evolution of thought (or even instinct) here but rather will deal with thought and consciousness as it exists now, for humans (and plants, particularly, or sea life) and AI (artificial life in machines or extraterrestrial visitation via those things designated as UFOs).

Consciousness is an open and iffy topic among academics and science currently, but has been a rubric of philosophical thought since the Greeks and even earlier perhaps.

Yet, we all know what consciousness seems to be: awareness. Is that thought? Not necessarily, but it (consciousness) appears to be needed for thought, although some (my academic buddy Brian Sentes and maybe Eric Wargo) may think otherwise.

Our UFO cohort here, Dominick sees, as do I and Donald Keyhoe before us (along with many others), intelligent movement (or maneuvers) by the odd things spotted by hordes of people over the years and now called UFOs.

While watching the two series segments on the BBC Channel, one can see intelligent maneuvering and apparent thought by sea creatures and plants, for survival and mating, to procreate.

The machinations are deliberate and often brilliant, something more than instinctual as I see it.

Then there are the maneuvers and machinations of UFOs, as reported by normal, sensory adequate humans, some highly skilled at observation: police officers, pilots, scientists (a few admittedly), et al.

There is, of course, consciousness involved in the behavior of sea life, but even so in plants (and insects), as I’ve noted here and will say more about upcoming.

As for machine intelligence, I have to admit that there is not evidence for awareness or thought, yet, not even machine instinct, but many astute persons in today’s society (among computer cognoscenti mostly) see machine intelligence “evolving” (with human help) towards self-awareness and creative thinking.

But, in our area of concern here, one can see thought or intelligent behavior by UFOs, not apparent thought or intelligent behavior (instinct) but blatant, palpable intelligent behavior.

One can assume that such behavior is pressed upon UFOs by humans who have a predilection toward humanizing inanimate things, but the record is too overwhelming that UFOs often behave sensibly and creatively.

Yes, Zoam Chomsky will deny the reportage but there it is. If the records are accurate, and I think they basically are, one can see, reasonably, that UFOs are operated by or with intelligence, either Artificial Intelligence or conscious intelligence by something inside them with the ability to think.

Thought, creative or instinctual, if you will, shows up as a basic element of living things, whether plants, sea life, insects, or primates – even alien creatures should they be showing up here, sporadically and accidentally. (You know my feelings on this.)


Saturday, June 11, 2016

Trillions of alien civilizations?

But we have yet to come into contact with any....
Click here Alien Life

You know my view: the vast number of UFO reports, over the years and ongoing (somewhat), rule out extraterrestrial visitations.

The conglomeration of supposed alien visitations via flying saucers or UFOs (or in any other way) rules out, sensibly, the idea of ETs scouring our galaxy or the Universe itself and determining the Earth is the place to be.

The article, linked above, gets at the heart of the issue. If there are trillions of alien civilizations extant, why would our planet be singled out for special attention?

Yes, I know many of you think Earth and its inhabitants are a special, intelligent species, but that view is steeped in the religious patina of Hebrew and other ancient myths (which I'll be dealing with here upcoming).

This planet is so inconsequential in the cosmos that for other advanced alien civilizations to find us is, itself, incongruous.

But then to keep coming back, as UFO reportage tells us is happening, is ludicrous on the face of it.

(Yes, there may be or has been an intelligent probe on occasion by AI machines probing the cosmos for life, animate or intelligent machine-only, like itself, but even then the idea that such AI entities are coming here in droves bespeaks a jump from logic to bizarre faith and intellectual madness.)


Paul Kimball's latest film: Exit Thread

Our pal Paul Andrew Kimball's new film, Exit Thread, confirms, for me, Paul's brilliance as a film-maker and makes him a polymath as I see it. (His thoughts on many topics rise above the usual grunge one finds online and elsewhere.)

While I'm dismayed that he has had to set aside his musings on UFOs, in order to make this film (and others), one can see an auteur at work with his latest effort.

Check out the film at:


And follow its Festival showings and proffered awards here:


In this instance, you will find a disturbing, wicked film (with a professional overlay that is missing in many of the indie films being made today).

I enjoyed the film immensely, and I'm a hard guy to please when it comes to movies, but you all know that.


Fermi's Paradox isn't Fermi's

Joel Crook sent us this: