Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
UFOs, UAP, and classic “flying saucer” cases….one more time
Julien [Hessdalen Lights] is fascinated by the idea that UFOs are really UAP, and maybe akin to the phenomenon from which he derives his online name.
And he has a valid reason for his interest; some UFO [UAP?] sightings are caused by observers (witnesses) seeing a strange, atmospheric light in the overhead.
In a response to a comment of his, with video, I wrote that I wasn’t particularly intrigued (interested) in overhead lights, no matter how odd they might be.
I’m entrenched in the “old school” thinking that some UFOs have shown a preference for thoughtful movement and have a tangibility that bespeaks metal or something like metal, and some apparently disgorge odd creatures or beings, if the witnesses are not insane or have their senses in order.
(I lump many of the creature episodes in an hallucinatory scenario, but the intelligent like maneuvering or metallic-like sheen, again, if the witnesses are compos mentis is indicative of something real but still bizarre.)
The idea of UFOs (or flying saucers) being the vanguard of extraterrestrial visitors is a preposterous idea for me: the Earth being such a backwater, insignificant planet, in the great cosmic scheme of things.
But I do allow that one or two sightings, over the millennia of reported sightings of odd things in the sky or on the ground, might be von Neumann-like probes of intelligent machines or artificial intelligent constructs – a matter I continue to pour forth here.
And let me say this about classic UFO cases/sightings via an analogy:
If you came home from dinner out or a vacation and found that marauders had visited your home or living space, I don’t think you’d set the incident aside, awaiting for a future or new visit.
You’d want to know who or what had invaded your space, yes?
Those who decry interest in classic UFO cases are wrong to bellyache about the concern some of us have about old flying saucer or UFO sightings/events.
This means that the Arnold sighting, Roswell, the Rhodes and Trent photos, Socorro and a plethora of other notable sightings in UFO lore are worthy of continued thought and investigation or conjecture.
So, whether UFOs are really UAP or even figments of the human imagination, they remain a curiosity for many of us, and are worthy of ongoing attention, despite the nagging plea of naysayers for us to move on.
Monday, May 02, 2016
Three "potentially" habitable planets found, not that far away (from Earth): 40 Light Years
Only 40 Light Years.....yah, that's pretty close, for sure. (And why would the potential inhabitants, if they could, show up here, in massive numbers, if UFO reports have any accuracy at all?)
Artificial Intelligent Drone may be stalking you
Plus ça change...
Time traveling cell phone?
Sunday, May 01, 2016
Ufology: Tabula Rasa or Smoking Gun
The dormancy of excitement in ufology, or the world of UFOs derives from, as Gene Steinberg of the Paracast noted in one of his Paracast announcements, a lack of anything new.
That is, the topic is mired in a constant rehash of old cases/sightings (which I’m guilty of myself) and the dearth of sensational aspects of current UFO sightings.
What is needed, as I see it, is a complete blank slate (tabula rasa) for old cases, a starting over from scratch, eliminating all the accretions that have accumulated from the outset of sightings, including Kevin Arnold’s iconic sighting, Roswell, Socorro, Rendlesham, to name a few.
Or, even better and easier, a search for that one clue (or smoking gun) in each sighting, old or new, that brings an epiphany.
This is what happened recently with UFO-Sweden and the Ghost Rocket episodes of the mid 1940s, as noted here a few days ago and is now being hyped by Chris Savia who sees the value of the UFO-Sweden effort.
(UFO-Sweden became privy to a recent sighting, by credible witnesses, that mimicked the 1946 Ghost Rocket sightings over Scandinavia. This encouraged the Swedish UFO group to re-examine the Ghost Rocket sightings, which turn out to be more mysterious or exotic than the “explanations,” among them that they were Soviet missile experiments.)
The cases where a smoking gun or “clue” may be present is Roswell (yes), where the so-called Ramey memo is ensconced, or Socorro where a symbol or insignia is prominent.
David Rudiak’s attempts at deciphering the memo have been extensive and could yield something worthwhile and decisive if only Rudiak and his pals would use or call upon those outside the UFO community for help, such as art curators who know who might be able to provide assistance with cleaning up the befogged photo image of Ramey’s memo which they do when it comes to determining the authenticity of an artist's signature hidden by years of over painting or chemical degradation, even forgery.
And there are highly efficient devices, which appeared in The New Yorker a while back (and noted here), that can discern obscure markings and traces in objects, admittedly at some cost, but a worthy consideration for those hoping to cement a final assessment of what happened near Roswell in 1947.
The Socorro symbol has been considerably treated here (and elsewhere) and continues to be so, as it might tell us who or what made the device Police Officer Lonnie Zamora saw in the desert and accurately reported.
Unfortunately, the Socorro symbol and the Ramey memo have been diluted by all the input from hacks and dopes who’ve intruded upon the discussions/debate with inane and banal observations.
Kevin Randle continues to scour the Roswell record and research materials he's accumulated over the years, hoping to spot that one clue or “smoking gun” that might lead to something concrete and final.
He is to be applauded for his effort(s) too, just as UFO-Sweden is or David Rudiak is.
A starting (tabula rasa style) over or re-examination (à la Sherlock Holmes or Columbo) with old, classic cases (and new ones also) is needed, to re-invigorate the moribund study of UFOs.
What do you, often quiet buffs, think?
Friday, April 29, 2016
Cave Art or an Ancient Astronaut presentation of UFOs (flying saucers) for your amusement?
(I'll go into the hypothesis more upcoming, but for now let me say it's wanting in my mind.)
David also listed various theories [Page 117 ff.], from others, for the paintings, which I'll touch on also upcoming:
The shamanistic theory (already noted here in my posting, a weeks ago, about Jean Clottes book What is Paleolitic Art and R, Dale Guthrie's The Nature of Paleolithic Art)
The magical and mythological theories of Abbé Breuil and Leroi-Gourhan.
The cosmogenic theory of Chantal Jègues-Wolkiewicz
And the extraterrestrial theory, which I took to the internet where I found this elaborate effort.
Whoever put together this site did so with élan and a belief, it seems, in the Ancient Astronaut theories of UFO sightings.
I discount the view, as you know, because advanced alien civilizations would be remiss in spending so much time surveying this lonely, backwater planet, but some of you might find the panoply of images provided by the web-site creator fascinating.
The cave art topic is another matter, unconnected to AA ramblings, but relevant to what mankind perceives and notes, artistically and otherwise, UFOs part of that madness....er, perception.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Is Facebook a new religion or a cult like Scientology?
What has this to do with UFOs? Facebook has usurped many if not most UFO buffs, who use the internet site to provocate their UFO views.
Facebook pages have replaced a lot of UFO web-sites and blogs.
(I, too, have several Facebook pages: one for media, and one that has a UFO tinge but only a tinge, and a few others.)
CNBC’s financial pundits exclaimed recently [4/28], after a hefty increase in the share value of Facebook, that Mark Zuckerberg’s creation is a “religion.”
I see Facebook as a devious created entity, much as I view L. Ron Hubbard’s goofy-based cult.
Facebook participants, and there are billions, are so attracted to the site that many have abandoned reason and life to fill their days with Facebook fluff, which is ubiquitous and egregious.
Facebook is an insidious intrusion into thoughtful living, and the bulk of commentary at Facebook is moronic, most of it inane beyond inanity.
Yet, Facebook attracts people in ways that religions or cults have never been able to do. Why? It’s not just herd-instinct. It’s something more dangerous.
That Facebook use by UFO buffs has diminished protracted, reasoned discourse about the UFO phenomenon, exchanging discourse for emojis and the desire to be liked is saddening.
But there is nothing to be done. The membership in Facebook is a tsunami that will increase unabated, taking all of us into its comforting arms of feigned friendship.
Not only will ufology succumb, but other artifacts of society, and culture, replaced by doltish input which dumbs down civilization in ways that religions or cults only wish they could.
Reality is Not Reality!
My academic buddy, Bryan Sentes, provided this Atlantic (magazine) piece to his friends on Facebook:
Yes, we do live in a computer simulation
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Ghost Rockets: 1946 [More interesting than you think]
UFO notable Chris Savia (The Anomalist, Daily Grail contributor) is heading up publicity for an ongoing project about Scandinavia’s Ghost Rockets, spurred by UFO-Sweden and Clas Svahn – UFO- Sweden's vice chairman and journalist, about whom you can read here:
Most of you know something about the Ghost Rocket episode(s) of 1946 but here’s the Wikipedia take on the sightings:
UFO Sweden is a ufology group, which is highlighted in a film about a recent Ghost Rocket-like sighting that UFO Sweden undertook to research, because it had all the earmarks of the 1946 Ghost Rocket sightings.
The film, which is leisurely by usual documentary standards, is interesting insofar as it shows a typical UFO buff group [UFO Sweden] and its machinations about a foray to the lake where the above-noted sighting took place.
The two people, who had the recent Ghost Rocket-like sighting, are a credible, rational example of UFO witnessing, and what they describe is fascinating (to me).
Also, the quasi-philosophical musings by some UFO Sweden old-timers are right up my alley: our place in the Universe, the possibility of UFOs from extraterrestrial civilizations (or not), and the still-exciting curiosity that UFOs (or Ghost Rockets) instills in them.
Here's the trailer for the film:
While the Ghost Rocket sightings, like many classic flying saucer/UFO sightings or events, are passé for many UFO mavens nowadays, such sightings (referenced in the documentary) are grist for some of us, as they engender the mystery of the phenomenon which drew us to it.
Check out the film, be patient – let it wash over you. It is quiescent but soothes the savage breast of ufology hereabouts.
Monday, April 25, 2016
What happened to the recent Ramey-memo review?
A select group of Roswell mummy “decoders” and others were called upon to extend David Rudiak’s long-time attempt to decipher the Ramey-memo content.
A lot of commentary ensued but then the matter seems to have disappeared into a ufological black hole.
If this is the extent of UFO research by UFO buffs, it’s pretty sad.
Enthusiasm and seriousness, like all things UFO related are short-lived (usually non-existent).
When scientists, researchers of various disciplines, and serious hobbyists get hold of a thing that they find interesting or unexplained, they dig in and tackle the matter until there is a resolution, or a denouement of some kind, even one that concludes the explanation sought cannot be forthcoming, a rare denouement, as real curiosity is not so easily sated.
So, where does the Ramey-memo scrutiny stand?
Nick Redfern on Albert Bender/James Constable and an MIB occult connection?
Saturday, April 23, 2016
SuperIntelligence, the Singularity, and Roko's Basilisk
(I'll have more about Professor Bostom's ideas, in the book, upcoming.)
A few weeks ago, Joel Crook sent me an e-mail touting Eliezer Yudkowsky and content about Roko's Basilisk. Joel provided these links:
Roko Basilisk link
The material impacts the super intelligence dialogues online.
There is consternation, all over academia and the internet, about The Singularity, machine intelligence, and AI (artificial intelligence).
What this has to do with UFOs is grist for speculation here that the enigmatic phenomenon may stem from von Neumann-like probes, scouring the Galaxy (Universe or Cosmos), probes which are intelligent [AI] machines.
For instance, in Albert S. Rosales' book, Humanoid Encounters: The Others Amongst Us 2000-2009 [Triangulum Publishing, 2015], setting aside the plethora of insane, hallucinatory accounts, there are several reported incidents that seem to indicate intelligent machines showing themselves to witnesses. For example, on Page 64 is a June 1-4, 2001 sighting in Narli Esme, Usak, Turkey:
Three villagers, on their way to their farm, saw a "strange figure" hovering just above the ground. It was about 70 cm in height and robotic in appearance, wearing a shiny, silvery outfit, yellow colored torso, and red boots. It had a large, rounded head with small slit like eyes.
The villagers threw stones at the thing, which rose up, to about 20 meters and shot towards a nearby water tank and disappeared from sight.
Other villagers saw strange lights and others saw the "alien" in their farm and also threw stones at it, making it fly away.
I've recounted other UFO reports which seem to show machines interacting with humans -- the 1979 Robert Taylor "attack" in Scotland, for one.
Give a read of the Yudkovsky material, linked above, and make an attempt to get your hands on some of Bostrom's thinking, along with that of Ray Kurzweil.
You'll see that a case can be made for super-machine-intelligence, perhaps showing up here on planet Earth from inter-galactic probes, stumbling upon this pathetic ball of life, eons ago and programmed to check back, over and over again as species evolve here.
(The Roko Basilisk scenario is just odd and fictionally frightening.)
Friday, April 22, 2016
Kevin Randle opens the door to an ET event at Roswell, while not opening a door
This is the opening salvo of an exegesis by Kevin Randle, at his blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com], about a letter from Lt. General Nathan Twining in September 1947:
“There are those who believe that Lieutenant General Nathan F. Twining’s letter of September 23, 1947, closes the door on the Roswell crash.”
Kevin goes on the elaborate upon the views of some in the United States military during the 1947 burst of “flying saucer” sightings/reports. Kevin allows for those views and investigations to provide a patina for the Roswell incident.
It’s an interesting ploy, to keep Roswell on Kevin’s front burner about UFOs. (Roswell nags at Kevin, and he can’t shake it. I call Roswell Kevin’s “Moby Dick.”)
Kevin’s hermeneutics on UFOs and, in particularly Roswell, are always interesting and intelligent, while many of those who comment at his blog are far from interesting or intelligent.
That said, let’s look at what Kevin is implying with his exegesis:
That there is a possibility, from the flying saucer accounts he provides, from credible military sources, that flying saucers are extraterrestrial craft or were, at least, in the 1947 time-frame.
But as CDA might contend, where are the scientific analyses or commentary for such a spectacular speculation?
Kevin’s posting brings in the dichotomy between Top Secret and Secret designations by the military, allowing for a knot-hole escape by Twining and some top level military men (and the U.S. government); that is, Twining and others in the military were not privy to Top Secret activities and such things as Twining’s letter, the gist of Kevin’s post, would be a curlicue around what was really going on in the inner circle of the government.
Kevin’s two-prong explanation for Roswell and flying saucers, in 1947, was that they were thought to be Russian technology captured from the Nazis at the end of World War Two or they were something from outside the Earth, based upon their maneuverability mostly.
Yet, what has happened since 1947? Have flying saucers, now epitheted as UFOs, been accepted by many as ET craft or by others as hoaxes or mental imaginations, even a new, unknown phenomenon?
Where is the extraterrestrial proof? (And, yes, where is the mental aberrational proof or the unknown phenomenon proof also?)
The idea that UFOs (or flying saucers) are the vanguard of an ET invasion, now going on since time immemorial, as Wonders in the Sky, indicates, is ludicrous.
A crashed ET disk near Roswell is a possibility, of course, but one so remote, considering the vastness of the Cosmos, and the pathetic place of earth in that Cosmos, that to keep pummeling UFO buffs with the idea is a kind of madness itself.
Yes, Kevin can’t let it go. He is obsessed, rationally, not in the way that David Rudiak is obsessed, irrationally.
Check out his musings, and stand by for the insane commentary that shall ensue. It’s all part of my feeling that humans are in a state of sublimated or repressed madness, and UFO buffs, especially Roswellians, more mad than the rest of society.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Not quite synchronicity but still an odd coincidence?
Several weeks ago I ordered , from Amazon, a used copy of Michel Foucault’s Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.
The book I got was filled, up to page 135, with ballpoint pen underlinings and margin notes. The markings stopped at Hysteria and Hypochondria, half-way through the book, where the writer/owner left his business card: Brian R. Cocivera, Guard Division Manager for Elite Protective Services, Chelsea, MA 02150 (617) 887-**17.
Today I received another order, a used copy of Foucault’s Madness: The Invention of an Idea.
And I’ll be damned. The book is filled with ballpoint pen underlinings and margin notes, by the same guy: same ink, same writing up to page 66, almost half-way through the book, (no business card).
The first book came from a dealer in Boston, the second from a dealer in Illinois.