UFO Contemplation

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum!

Real pals are ilfakiro (my Italian amico), Kevin Randle, Gilles Fernandez, and Jose Antonio Caravaca.

RR

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

From my Facebook feed

(And many are sending UFOs here?)

RR

Martian Secrets?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.


FOX news reported that UFO Hunters were gaga over a NASA rover picture of what looks like a petrified tree:
The image does look like a tree, admittedly, but commentary offered that it could also be a rock, like those in the background, a rock that was flipped up by some geological action.

It’s possible, as I see it, that Mars once was verdant and may have contained life, even sentient life.

But we will never know for certain, even after astronauts reach the planet, because I don’t see the government or military sponsoring a Martian expedition proffering what they find to us Earthlings.

Is there some other way to procure Martian information, bypassing NASA or scientists who hold their observations and thoughts close to the vest?

RR

Monday, April 24, 2017

Does credibility matter any more?

Anomalist provided a link, Monday, 4/24, to a Mysterious Universe post about the Voynich Manuscript that indicated Russians had deciphered the "work" which is a little hard to believe.

I provided a scholarly review, from The New York Review of Books, of the manuscript a few weeks ago:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/search?q=Voynich

Anomalist must have thought my posting was chopped liver; they didn't note it, even though it had (and has) the cachet of academic veracity.

(Voynich image used above from NPR.org)

RR

A Biblical miracle/myth or psychotic episodes, not unlike some UFO accounts?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

There are two odd accounts about Jesus, after his death and alleged resurrection, in The New Testament Gospel of Luke, Chapter 24:13.
Two disciples, walking along a road in Emmaus, were approached by a man (Luke writes it was Jesus) who struck up a conversation with the men and accompanied them to the village where he sat and broke bread with them, whereupon the men purportedly realized that the man was Jesus, who then vanished before them.
Later, while relating the incident to the other disciples (apostles), the man (Jesus, Luke writes) appeared before them all.

He showed them his wounds and asked if they had anything to eat. They gave the man a piece of broiled fish which he ate. Then he instructed them in the mission they were to perform, and accompanied them to Bethany, “and, raising His hands, He blessed them. While He blessed them He was parted from them and taken up into heaven.” [Luke 24:50-51]
Here we have an actual visitation of a resurrected Jesus Christ or a mass hysteria, a folie à plusieurs ("madness of many").

The incidents strike me as ufological-like: a being appears suddenly, imparts “wisdom” or relates events, (sometimes asking for food or drink), and then disappears (or enters a craft and departs into the sky).

Luke’s discourse offers an example of a psychotic episode in the first related account, when the two disciples don’t recognize the man they met and spoke with, even when they sat close up at dinner.

The second account provides an example of an induced hallucination when another group of disciples/apostles see and talk to a man, providing “confirmations” that makes it appear he’s the Jesus they all knew, and who had seemingly died shortly before.

What’s at work here, a mass psychosis or a truly miraculous event?

(I address this further, without the UFO underpinning, at another blog of mine.)

RR

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Our “romances” with UFOs and the banality of benign UFOs today

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Most UFO buffs of a certain age have a UFO case (sighting) or two with which they had a “romance” – romance as a “love affair.”

For me it was the 1964 Socorro incident that newspaper tied me to because of a visitation to the site and the 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter “swamp gas” sighting(s) because of my work for The Detroit NEWS at the time.

For my pal Kevin Randle, I think Roswell is the one UFO (flying disc) event that he’s attached to, reminiscing about the “affair” still.

For Ray Stanford, his George Adamski and Socorro attachments remain libidinous.

Stanton Friedman, a solid family man, has given attention to many UFO events (Roswell, the alleged Hills “abduction” et cetera) properly and restrainedly, no heavy breathing for him.

For Frank Warren, the UFO Chronicles maven, his romantic interludes have centered on the Aztec tale and the purported 1942 Battle of Los Angeles.

For those a bit younger, such as my buddy Nick Redfern, his attachment to all aspects of the paranormal are similar to a rock and roller visiting a brothel; he loves it (them) all.

A guy like asexual Mac Tonnies (rest his soul) was attuned to UFOs and other oddities like a poet, abstract in his “love” of out of the ordinary things, UFOs among them.

I could go on, but you know who is attached romantically to certain UFO affairs and who isn’t, persons without a libido or romantic bone in their body.

Today’s UFO aficionados (buffs), the youngsters among them, have no romantic attachments to any of the older flying saucer sightings or events, except as a hint of something exciting they missed out on.

UFOs today don’t offer a chance for “romance,” being benign and banal compared to the “loves” of the past, when a flying saucer or UFO incident raised blood pressure and some parts of the anatomy.

It’s a Freudian “reality” of which I am writing, and some of you understand, I’m sure.

Image above from http://pastorkylehuber.com/

RR

Saturday, April 22, 2017

A book review that got me "fired"

I used to review books for New Page Books, a publisher of many UFO books by people we all know in ufology.

Warwick Associates was the PR firm that sent the books for review.

I did a review of an "Area 51" book by Tom Carey and Donald Schmitt.

You can find that review here -- the-explicator.blogspot.com -- it is just below my non-acquiescence to a request by New Page to edit my review....to punch it up with encomiums to replace my less-than-favorable take on the book.

(I've never received a book for review from New Page since.)

RR

Friday, April 21, 2017

The young Betty and Barney Hill

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
I stumbled upon this photo of the Hills from a YouTube clip I think. (I removed, sloppily, the "run video" button that was in the middle of the photo.)

It shows the happily married, young bi-racial couple at a time when such a marriage was not acceptable, as it is now.

It's a lovely photo of a seemingly normal couple.

Could they have gone "off-track" later in life? Perhaps, but I wish to believe they remained happy and sensible right up to their (imagined?) incident.

Something happened to the Hills. What that was may have been psychological (a folie a deux?) or an actual traumatic event: alien kidnapping or human assault.

I've always thought Betty Hill was a sweet person, caught up in the mob hysteria of ufologists, and made off-kilter by the attention she was subject to.

That is, she was a victim, in some way or another.

RR

Something from Nothing?

Two books I'm dealing with elsewhere.

If you are interested in either (or both), leave a comment and I'll provide more info, but you should be able to find them online (at Amazon and other booksellers).

RR

“Use only the essentials.”

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
That “mantra” – the title above – came from Arnold Schoenberg (pictured) as advice to American composer, a student of his, Lou Harrison [d. 2003], who was profiled by Alex Ross in the April 24, 2017 issue of The New Yorker [Page 18].

The advice would be helpful for ufologists who want to get at the nub of various UFO events or incidents: Arnold’s sighting, Roswell, Socorro, the Hills’ “abduction,” et al.

To extricate the core “facts” of UFO sightings, new and old, investigators would do well to eliminate all the extraneous detritus that encrusts those sightings: third party commentary, accretions by investigators, researchers, and ufological wannabes.

This would take some effort, most iconic UFO cases flush with adornment or "decoration" that becloud cases. (The effort a form of Ockham’s Razor.)

But if “ufologists” want to find the truth of a case or even an explanation, they have to exclude the draperies of nonsense that have become attached to most, maybe all, UFO cases.

UFO buffs do want to know what UFOs were or are, yes?

Then heed composer Schoenberg’s advice to a musical genius.

RR

Ufology’s philistines

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
I have been soaked or dampened by UFOs (flying saucers) for most of my long life, a life longer than I express if I can avoid doing so.

(I noted, once, a thing I did years ago, and I lost a raft of followers, people who are prone to ignore geezers, as I do, usually.)

In my UFO sojourn the one thing that is palpable, blatant to me is that there is little or no refinement or culture in the UFO community; that is, I have rarely, if ever, met a cultivated, cultured, refined person inside the UFO society.

I don’t know, today, any person in “ufology” that I consider a sophisticated, urbane individual.

What spurs me to write this was a request from well-read, as far as I know, Terry the Censor who suggested that I provide links to my book-review sites, some new and one that’s been around for a long while as cognoscenti know.

To provide links would be, for me, casting pearls before swine, something I feel I often do here, at this blog.

Now I’m not being obtuse with this minor rant. TIME magazine, in its, current issue [4/24/17] for its page about books accented a hot book, Monsters in the Ivy League, that outlined, by the authors (Spy magazine staffers), a slew of Ivy Leaguers they know who they class as ne’er-do-wells, liars, criminals, wimps, anti-Semites, et cetera.

Currently, persons deemed to be less than what they pretend to be, are vilified in academic and social venues, including notables in the arts, old and new.

Since this blog is centered on the UFO community, ufologists, I felt it was necessary to point out that the category, ufology, is riven with ne’er-do-wells, and uncultured waifs, persons who wouldn’t know a Paul Klee painting from a Disney logo.

Mentioning Charles Ives’ The Unanswered Question, a musical “essay’ about the plight of humans in the Universe – something that UFO buffs feel also, if they have any sense at all – has never brought comment, making it clear to me that UFO readers here and generally have never heard the piece.

A posting I made about the important clues to relationships and situations in classical music that clarify those relationships and situations – insight of which could be applied usefully in ufology -- went unnoticed, even by persons who sometimes list my postings in their amalgam of sites that paranormalists might find interesting.

The post ignored because the persons seeing it understood, subliminally at least, that UFO people and paranormalists were not refined enough to get the message intended.

UFO people are clods pretty much. Yes, that’s a generalization that holds true as I see it, and I can’t imagine anyone coming forth to “debunk” my view.

They don’t have the wherewithal to do so.

RR

Thursday, April 20, 2017

All talk and no action?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

UFO buffs want to talk about UFOs, especially the old cases (sightings).

No one wants to really investigate anything, even new sightings that have cachet.

Debates about Roswell, Rendlesham, and other convoluted UFO events that involve lots of people (alleged witnesses, investigators, and wannabes) are grist for ongoing, interminable discussion.

And we all know that once a gaggle of people enter into an event, rightfully or wrongfully, the odds for finding the truth are diminished by factors of ten or more, much more.

Now I know that investigating older cases is daunting, for a number of obvious reasons.

Yet, a few UFO people do it admirably: Spanish researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca (who’s had a Roswell book recently published and has done exemplary work to support his Distortion Theory), French Skeptics Gilles Fernandez (whose exegesis of old and new UFO cases often drops them into an irrelevant bracket), Nick Redfern (who applies journalistic techniques to ferret out subliminal information latent in iconic UFO events), and others.

Me? I’ve gone slumming in a few cases, the 1964 Socorro episode for one.

I grabbed a slew of symbol books (pictured) to see if there was a source for the insignia (symbol) that Police Officer Zamora saw on the craft he encountered.
But after a tedious perusal of symbols, I was reminded that Ray Stanford had proffered that the symbol Officer Zamora drew for public consumption was a ruse, not the actual insignia he saw.

The Air Force officer involved in the initial investigation had Officer Zamora replace his observed symbol with another to, ostensibly, throw off hoaxers who might come forward with a purported symbol on a craft they allegedly saw.

That meant I had to go through all the books (and symbols online) again to see if the “new” Zamora symbol was replicated somewhere in human society.

Tiring and an effort that many UFO buffs saw as non-important. (I disagree, but further effort seems useless from a practical standpoint.)

Then, I got a request for more on the Nedelcovic offering that the 1957 Vilas-Boas “abduction” said, by CIA operative, Nedelcovic, to be a military psy-operation.

Gathering the material I had once posted online at the RRRGroup blog, and re-inserting it, the person requesting more info never checked back in, my effort(s) for naught.

Another visitor here asked for more details and a better scan of a few items I had inserted. That person never checked back in either to see the additional material I added for him.

So, I see that working to provide more information about a UFO event or sighting often goes into an abyss of ennui by those who pretend to be interested.

Thus, UFO buffs stick to ongoing discussions about UFO cases, mostly from the past, when they gathered a few snippets of information and want to share it now so their efforts were not wasted.

Yet, such activity (mine included) is without value. UFO sightings, old and new, need fresh, invigorated, imaginative investigative effort(s), not just rehashed colloquies by persons often strutting the pretense that they have an intellectual demeanor, which is blatantly obvious as skeptics like CDA, Lance Moody, Gilles Fernandexz, and Zoam Chomsky make clear by rebuttal.

Yes, lots of talk, and little or no (important) action, as Monsieur Fernandez implies with his genial meme: “That’s ufology.”

RR

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Not so much skepticism as a fight against ignorance

Lance Moody keeps getting called out for his comments at Kevin Randle’s blog, Kevin and his sycophants thinking Lance is a little harsh in his barbed commentary.

But I applaud Lance for trying to clear the UFO air of gross ignorance that often abounds at Kevin’s blog, in the comment section, just as it does at most UFO sites and blogs.

Many UFO buffs hate being shown they are stupid and their thinking befouled by illogic and a need to believe.

CDA is also confronted when he notes that such UFO “events” as Roswell or Rendlesham (the current topic of note at Kevin’s blog) are never going to be resolved, mucked up by the insertion of incoherent suggestions and “theories” by the hoi polloi of ufology.

Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in “ufology” is daunting, indeed, and French skeptic Gilles Fernandez sums it up with “that’s ufology,” his meme that the effort (ufology) is a mix of nonsense and intellectual barbarity.

I know that many visitors here dislike my rants about UFO nitwits, but the topic has to be cleansed of idiocy, as Richard Hall told me, years ago, about the fetidity known as UFO UpDates.

Otherwise, UFOs will slide further into the ignorant maw that already engulfs it, in the public mind.

RR

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

A book that whets my UFO appetite

I have received Grassroots UFOs by Michael Swords [Anomalist Books] from Powell’s Books  in Seattle (for $19.93 plus $3.99 shipping). (I couldn’t get it from Amazon where it was listed for $16.18; there was a delay in shipping. Amazon didn’t have it in stock.)

Since it was a book I purchased, I won’t review it, as is usual with previews, but offer that it has 250 pages of sightings culled from The Center for UFO Studies, without commentary, except for a few remarks that open each chapter.

It also has small, illustrative drawings, for many sightings, that are uniquely Dr. Swords.

If you are a collector of UFO materials and books, you need this one for your hoard.

RR

Monday, April 17, 2017

A change of focus?

I’ve gotten a request to do some academic book reviews, about topics that have nothing to do with UFOs.

And I have accepted.

I will be putting those reviews on other blogs of mine, and fleshing out some ideas or thoughts that are also not UFO related, at the rrrgroup blog (which is suffused presently with UFO material from a few years ago).

RR

Sunday, April 16, 2017

This drives me crazy…

I make it a point to check Kevin Randle’s blog daily, to see what UFO gem or gems he’s providing.

And I’m often rewarded with a UFO jewel that is foreign to me.

But then along comes those who wish to comment and muck up the material that Kevin has provided.

This happened the other day when Kevin broached the 1948 Chiles-Whitted sighting of a cigar-shaped UFO or a misperceived bolide (meteor).

Kevin was trying to determine what the original (pilot) witnesses actually said about the thing causing prop wash or turbulence when it flew by.

But then Larry, a NASA engineer, and Anthony Mugan weighed in with a lugubrious and tendentious back-and-forth about cloud cover, meteor speed, and lots of other stuff that could in no way be verified today or matters.

They besmirched the sighting with their attempts to appear brilliant and well-informed about such things, which Larry may be, but all-in-all the glut of nonsense they spewed took this reader away from the discussion.

Moreover, their time spent on the sighting turns out to be non-relevant or important and what was to be a supplement to the 1948 sighting, itself forgotten by most UFO buffs or uncared by them, tuned into a backwash of UFO jetsam and flotsam, doing nothing but augmenting the florid egos of the two guys strutting their useless stuff.

And if that wasn’t enough, Kevin’s podcast of a Rendlesham participant has brought forth another person hoping to indulge his ego and bore the rest of us with his knowledge of that botched escapade.

(Kevin has got to be more circumspect with whom he lets loose on the UFO community; nitwits are a dime a dozen in society, but do we need to have them flourishing in UFO venues?)

This is what has happened to Roswell; so many persons have indulged themselves of ignorant observations about that event that the incident is now seen as an albatross around the neck of ufology.

The Socorro/Zamora sighting of 1964 was a clear-cut case, witnessed by a solid observer and rather simple in its cascade of detail.

And the one thing that could have very likely cleansed the event of mystery – the symbol on the craft seen by Officer Zamora – was obfuscated by long-time UFO gadfly Ray Stanford who promoted the idea that the popular image shown to the public and media was not the real symbol (or insignia) but, rather, a contrived ruse to keep hoaxer offerings at bay.

That old saw about too many cooks spoiling the broth aptly fits most, if not all, UFO accounts and reports.

Imbecilic and self-aggrandizing persons are constantly interfering in UFO matters, and many UFO buffs abet them, in an effort to promote their own vain-glorious attempts to be something special in an activity, ufology, that is, all by itself, nonsense flush with nonsense, including my own.

RR

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Another mystery to contend with?

Happy Easter to my fellow UFO buffs and intrepid readers.

RR

Friday, April 14, 2017

UFOs: What are we looking for?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
While scouring another older UFO magazine in my collection, I came across an article by Jerome Clark and my (now deceased) friend Lucius Farish about the wave of airship sightings in 1909.

The accounts were reminiscent of the 1896 Airship reports (that Clark and Farish also distilled in magazine articles).

This got me to thinking about what we UFO buffs are doing now and have done, or not done, in the past and recently with or about the UFO phenomenon.

The 1947 Roswell incident is, for all practical purposes, tapped out when it comes to information that isn’t a rehash of the cluttered material accumulated from 1978 to today.

The Socorro/Lonnie Zamora event of 1964 has been thrashed to the point of ennui.

The Betty/Barney Hill “abduction” is also flattened by the contradictory elements that have crept into the Hill’s tale since the story became overt in the mid-1960s.

You can name a number of other UFO accounts, from Kenneth Arnold’s 1947 sighting to the array of unidentified lights that persons are reporting everyday lately, accounts that don’t matter.

In the golden age of flying saucers, the mysterious phenomenon engendered excitement because it was fraught with odd or quirky subsets that intrigued curious minds.

But today all we have is the flying saucer mythos, besotted with egregious accumulations of fancy more than fact, and a few weird lights flying overhead.

There is no there there, or here.

We UFO buffs have nothing to chew on, the old UFO bones gnawed to ossified remnants, offering nothing to sustain our once avid hunger.

Lights in the sky are of little interest to the real ufologist.

“Objects” with seeming tangibility or encounters with potential other-worldly beings or creatures are grist for enthusiasm but neither appear any longer.

So what are we to do, rehammer and hammer again the gristled remains of old UFO sightings, as a few followers of Kevin Randle’s blog are doing with the Chiles-Whitted “flying cigar” or misperceived bolide sighting of 1948?

Do we hope that an overhead light drops down for a closer look allowing its photographic capture with the technology of today?

Or do we produce a bona fide theory of what flying saucers were once and how they turned into the boring things called UFOs today?

I have no answer, obviously, and find that no one else does either.

We are all fritzing around with the topic, treading water, in an ocean of silliness and moronic colloquies with like-persons.

Something has to be done, something disruptive and transcendental, or final, thanatopic.


RR

Those old UFO magazines!

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

While some who visit here loathe those UFO magazines of a few decades ago, I often find nuggets of information I didn’t know.

For instance in True’s Flying Saucer and UFOs Quarterly Spring and Winter 1978 issues I found a few articles by NASA skeptic James Oberg, one a paean to encounters of the third kind (the movie and UFO encounters too) and another about robot space explorers.

Then there was a Wendelle Stevens piece, in the Winter 1978 issue, about the plethora of UFO sightings, one, in 1975, that mimicked the 1965 Kecksburg object:
The Oberg piece in the Spring 1978 issue told me that UFO skeptic Robert Sheaffer was a “colleague” of Phil Klass. (Now it all makes sense.)

Oberg also related the “problems” that Charles Hickson (of the Pascagoula abduction) had: fired from his job for extorting loans from subordinates and bankruptcy. Hickson also hedged, Oberg reported, on taking subsequent polygraph tests and was furious about other people making money off his [Hickson’s] UFO sighting.

Oberg provided some Betty/Barney Hill material that hasn’t been noted particularly by UFO buffs: that psychiatrist Benjamin Simon, who was instrumental in the Hill’s remembrance, by hypnosis, of their “ordeal, thought the “whole case [was] based on fear-induced fantasies in Betty Hill’s mind.”

Then there was a piece by N. Oserowsky, in the Winter 1978 issue about the alleged Lake Champlain “monster” that told of a 1953 encounter near Paris that involved green stocking capped dwarves, part of the 1950s wave of little beings seen all over Europe:
So, while those “lousy UFO magazines” are excoriated by haughty UFO aficionados, they often contain detritus that clarifies UFO stories and reports that have become iconic in the UFO canon.

RR

Thursday, April 13, 2017

The “Big Bang” Psychosis

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
In the book, The Logics of Madness [Karnak Books, London, 2016], psychiatrist Salomon Resnik discusses a metaphorical designation that expresses an acute psychotic crisis: the “Big Bang” theory.

Resnik writes, “I find that in many schizophrenic patients the “Big Bang” theory plays a very important role. The acute psychotic crisis is experienced in a cataclysmic phenomenon …

“As Delsemme (1994, p. 366) puts it: ‘Our era has an open mind about the cosmic origins of the adventure of being human.’ The scientific fantasy or awareness of the Big Bang stimulates unconscious fantasies … In many people, and in particular in psychotics, the interest in metaphysical and cosmological preoccupations is fundamental.” [Page 12]

Resnik offers in his book a psychological [psychoanalytic] approach to delusions and fantasies.

But here I’m enthused with the idea that the “Big Bang” is usurped by psychiatry to explain psychotic episodes.

Firstly, Georges Lemaître, is the Catholic priest who is identified by science as the originator of the Big Bang idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Lemaître, of course, was no psychotic, but he was immersed in the Bible’s Genesis tale of the origin of creation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; the earth was waste and void; darkness covered the abyss … God said ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”  [Bible, Confraternity-Douay version, Catholic Book Publishing Co., NY, 1957]

The Big Bang designation came from astronomer Fred Hoyle, as a pejorative term that ended up being the accepted rubric of physicists.

(Hoyle was a "steady state" advocate.)

Lemaître’s expansion of the universe theory, preceded Hubble’s expansion “proof” and is accepted as the premise for the Big Bang scenario.

But Lemaître’s ideas stem from Lemaître’s theological leanings, I think; he wanted to apply Biblical (Catholic) belief to scientific theory, and thus his Big Bang suggestion does just that.

So there’s that.

But further, as I’ve often noted, there is a psychotic tinge to the demeanor and ideas of physicists.

That is, physicists remind me, when they become avidly agitated about their ideas, of a person relating a psychotic episode to their therapist.

(The perky infantilism displayed by physicists when they are explaining their area of “expertise” is obvious to cognoscenti.)

Thus, the Big Bang theory has its roots in a kind of madness, which explains why it doesn’t make sense to many. (Even some current physicists are losing faith in the Big Bang explanation of the universe’s origin.)

I’ll have more, upcoming, about Salomon Resnik’s ideas, as they intersect with Jose Caravaca’s Distortion Theory, Jacques Vallee’s “others” idea, and ufology, generally.

(The image above comes from the bbc.com)

RR

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Physicists found their Higgs particle: Ufologists found their ???

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
In the world of the paranormal and ufology, there are lots of misses and no hits, none at all: no ghosts, no Big Foot, no Loch Ness monster, not one UFO or even a bona fide photograph of one, nada.

Meanwhile scientists, especially physicists, have captured something more elusive than a UFO – the Higgs boson.

The Higgs particle was conjectured, predicted by creative, brilliant speculation, deduced from an examination of the quantum milieu, and nothing more.

Science is wonderful – psychotic at its roots (about which I will present, upcoming, some supporting comments for thinking so) – and able to conjure truths, often from nothing more than intuitive insight by persons who pursue hypotheses and theories doggedly.

Meanwhile there has been and continues to be a UFO milieu, funky, but more tangible than the quantum “reality” from which the Higgs was garnered, and nothing has come forth of value, at all, from “study” and hypotheses or limp insights of that UFO milieu.

UFOs or flying saucers have been with us, allegedly, since 1947, and before.

The Higgs was only suggested in 1960, thirteen years later than the initial spate of flying disks appeared.

Yet, the Higgs has been verified and flying saucers, UFOs, not at all – nary a scintilla of verification, nothing tangible or even semi-tangible, just a canon of witness (or witless) accounts.

Why is this?

Are UFOs more elusive than quantum particles, more evanescent?

Or are those who’ve been on the trail of flying saucers or UFOs not as skilled at coping with something as mysterious or baffling as UFOs (or those other paranormal things named above)?

There are data from or about UFOs that make quantum particle data look like a primer for simpletons.

Yet, no UFO datum has produced one iota of substance from which a person might come to a probability or theory that proves UFOs actually exist.

There are reports, as UFO skeptics acknowledge, but nothing more – nothing substantive, nothing to grab hold of, nothing to indicate that UFOs are real phenomena.

Where is the Peter Higgs of “ufology”?

RR 

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Phenomena: the book

The book (shown above, with author Annie Jacobsen) got a mention in the current New Yorker for April 17, 2017 [Briefly Noted, Page 72].

Jacobsen provides a batch of declassified material, the New Yorker calls "richly researched," which outlines "the U.S. government's secret investigations of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis" during the Cold War.

Psychics were used, the New Yorker writes, to track Soviet submarines, to find the Ark of the Covenant, and even to "go back in time to discover who shot J.F.K."

The book sells on Amazon for $14.64 in hardcover, and should be read as a supplement to UFO writers' views (Nick Redfern, et al.) about the U.S. government's use of UFO psy-operations, as in the Vilas-Boas "abduction" that CIA operative Bosco Nedelcovic said was a military experiment.

RR

Monday, April 10, 2017

Against Their Will (support for Nick Redfern’s “Body Snatchers" thesis)

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The book Against Their Will: The Secret History of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America by Allen M. Hornblum, Judith L. Newman, and Gregory J. Dober [Palgrave and MacMillan, NY, 2013] is a book I’ve mentioned in the past, one that provides accounts of how the medical profession used children for various, horrendous experiments, mostly defective children, as early as the 1920s.

Nick has a new book coming, as noted here a few days ago, elaborating on his original tome, Body Snatchers in the Desert, which is a possible explanation for the Roswell incident.

While many think Nick is out on a limb with his suggestion, the book cited above gives support for his intriguing conjecture.

(I know none of you will get the book cited but I do hope you will give Nick’s new book a read, to see how reasonable his views are.)


RR

Saturday, April 08, 2017

Why UFOs and ufology are so difficult to deal with...

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
In various human endeavors or obsessions, people can cope with the vicissitudes of the endeavor or obsession because the endeavor or obsession is limited in scope; that is, what people get hooked by (whether it’s science or gambling or housebuilding, et cetera) is not convoluted, not even quantum mechanics.

The UFO topic (or study of it: ufology) is rife with a variety of elements that maximize the topic, the phenomenon extruding a number of possibilities, laden with all kinds of interpretation.

UFOs are like quantum artifacts: UFOs do not exist until they are observed and they behave erratically, mysteriously.

But unlike quantum artifacts, UFOs have not been amenable to study (scientific or otherwise).

There are no tests or formulae to deal with UFOs.

UFOs need an observer. But then the observer (the measurer) becomes part of the equation, the observation convoluted by those observing the observer – the UFO researchers and investigators who bring an extra dimension to the observation.

And you know the flaws with UFO researchers and investigators.

UFO observers add ingredients to the observation that have to be taken unto account: perceptive abilities, neurological and psychological conditioning, intellectual or mental qualifications, cultural conditioning, et cetera.

A book, Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation, edited by Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence [Oxford University Press, 2007] provides much that impacts how artifacts are perceived.

The 358 page book is not for the intellectually faint-hearted; it’s abstruse and complex, much as the UFO enigma is, even though ufologists (UFO buffs) have dumbed down the enigma and the reportage of it.

I’ve called for “forensic” study of sightings, old and new, but UFOs need more than forensics. It needs the intense scrutiny of many disciplines, most of which are outside the ability of UFO researchers and investigators, an inept lot pretty much.

(I don’t write that cavalierly. It’s just a palpable “fact.”)

There are many examples of the ineptness of UFO buffs, serious and otherwise, one can see here, at this blog, by me and by those commenting.

The UFO phenomenon has been treated badly, since the onslaught of sightings beginning in 1947 and the study of the phenomenon retroactively also.

The book cited above tells me that UFOs have gotten nowhere the study that is required to understand or explain the things or the people who think they’ve seen one of two.

Can that change? Not with current crop of UFO dullards “debating” (and I use that word lightly) the phenomenon.

And millennials or the Gen Z crowd couldn’t care less.

Image above from Pinterest

RR

Friday, April 07, 2017

A Balanced UFO Magazine?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc
The magazine pictured was a 1967 issue (Volume 2) of TRUE’s efforts to provide an objective skein of flying saucer material, at a time when UFOs were yet to be fully ridiculed by The Condon Report, news media, and the public.

Lloyd Mallan was a featured writer in the issue [ Articles on Pages 9, 18, 26, 32, 44, 50, et cetera], along with John Keel and J. Allen Hynek.
I’ve lauded Mr. Mallan in the past:


But he’s been less appreciated by James Oberg (and others):


Yet, the TRUE magazine, in which he’s featured, is not overboard with its repository of flying saucer accounts, touching on a few notable items, the Betty/Barney Hill kidnapping and Lonnie Zamora’s Socorro sighting.

Frederil Pohl, in his piece The Fanciful World of Saucer Books [Page 48 ff.], noted that “The Hills don’t claim their experience actually happened.” [Page 75, italics in article]

And that “The evidence for the Hills may have existed – Betty and Barney say there were certain strange markings on their car which looked like chemical discolorations. But NICAP sent an investigator down; they still had the car then, they said; they told him about the markings; but he didn’t bother to scrape off a sample. And now the car is gone.” [Page 75]

While accepting that Officer Zamora is an honest man, “he’s not a liar,” Mr. Pohl does take Zamora to task for losing his glasses during his sightings, Pohl saying he tried to view, when he visited Socorro, the marks (dents) left by the craft Zamora claimed to have seen from the spot where Zamora’s police car was stopped, and where he dropped his glasses. Pohl “couldn’t see much detail. His [Zamora’s] eyes may be better than mine, I don’t know. I only know that I wish he hadn’t lost his glasses just then.” [Page 75]

Pohl doesn’t tell readers that Officer Zamora saw the craft before he lost his glasses and its symbol, only losing his glasses when the object took off and Officer Zamora running back to his squad car, losing the glasses when he fell.

But the magazine added this photo to the back cover, highlighting a faked photo, and its maker, to show that some (many?) flying saucer photos were fake? [Notice the similarity to the Trent/McMinnville UFO photos – the attitude of the saucer and the wires above.]
Yes, there was a skeptical patina to the issue, something that changed in the years following, for most, if not all, UFO magazines.

RR

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Okay, Earthians....pay attention!

This is our Milky Way galaxy, of which Earth is an infinitesimal part:
And this is a portion of the observable Universe in which our galaxy exists:
As any dope can see, the Earth is inconsequential, no matter how hard or stupid some would have it otherwise.

The Earth, in context with the cosmos is insignificant, in the great scheme of things.

This doesn't mean I denounce the planet upon which I exist. It simply means that I understand Earth is but a grain of sand in the whole of the Universe, and not a place standing out for UFO visitations in the numbers indicated by UFO reports or lore.

RR

Fake news or Odd news?

Missing UFO "fan"

Click HERE

RR

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Does Jose Antonio Caravaca’s Distortion Theory explain almost every fantasy?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

In reading a New York Review of Books review by G.W. Bowersock about the new book The Kingdom by Emmanuel Carrère that transposes Carrère’s autobiographical effort to Christianity, The Acts of the Apostles by Luke, St. Paul, the Damascus episode, et cetera, I see a UFO connection. [NYRB, 4/20/17, Page 60 ff.]

The review might only be interesting to Gilles Fernandez and other intellectuals so I won’t bore you with a synopsis of the review or book.

What stirred me was the reprise of St. Paul’s hallucinogenic episode where a light from Heaven surrounded him [Paul] asking, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Saul was Paul’s Jewish name, as you know.)

I’ve always thought this was an epileptic-like hallucination brought on by Paul’s guilt for persecuting followers of Jesus.

But in the context of other similar episodes – Moses and the burning bush, Ezekiel’s vision of an odd wheeled object, Socrates “conversation” with a mysterious phantom soldier, Joseph Smith’s brush with the angel Moroni, the appearance of a specter in Malcolm X’s jail cell, et al. – and the many weird encounters filling the pages UFO lore, I think my pal and colleague Jose Caravaca’s Distortion Theory with an external agent conjuring up images and incidents, using the psyche of the person involved, may be a cause and explanation for such events.

Of course I lean toward a neurological episode to explain such visions and/or sounds, but that such things happen to persons without further psychotic like incidents beggars the neurological etiology.

That is, persons having such “hallucinations” don’t go on to have more, usually, and the incident they experience is unique to time and place.

Why? I do not know.

But Señor Caravaca’s “theory” opens the door to a possible “external intrusion” but, again, to what end?

In the Moses or Smith visions (“hallucinations’) the purpose seems to be a catalyst to further a “plan” of Caravaca’s “external agent” whether it’s God, a demon, or just a being from the id or someplace else (another dimension, time, or universe).

I hope some of Jose’s erudite Facebook friends see this and offer suggestions.

Image above from patheos.com

RR

Dream Interpretations (from the Civil War era)

From Facebook:
Click HERE

RR

British Ufology no longer matters?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Where are the vibrant British UFO buffs? They seem to have gone all Brexit on us.

A 1992 article provided an overview of British ufology then:


My pal Nick Redfern, a Brit through and through, is more American than I am.

Of course we all see Nick Pope all over the place but he’s become Americanized.

And the old-timers. Jenny Randles, Martin Shough, and the recently deceased Peter Sturrock show up now and then in UFO circles.

And the younger “geezers” such as David Clarke, Joe McGonagle, and Andy Roberts pop up often on Facebook but not in U.S. venues as they used to.

CDA (Christopher Allan) is a UFO regular at a few blogs (this one, Kevin Randles, and a few others?) and the only voice I hear from the British Empire, besides Nick, who really has become an American UFO voice.

Noting those above doesn’t mean they influence, as the Brits once did, ufology very much.

Nick does certainly, and Pope is a cable network “star,” as is Nick, but do you know the others, aside from CDA?

No, you don’t.

The Brits, once, dominated UFO conversations, but have withdrawn into a cloistered Facebook circle, dealing, not with UFOs very much, but everything else that Brits think matter.

A loss for us UFO buffs.

We still have Jose Caravaca’s Spanish ufologists and Gilles Fernandez’ French skeptics, but where are the Canadians or Australians, who make a splash now and then but not the UFO tidal waves they used to?

Without the British Empire ufologists we are left with the American dolts, and I mean all those excepting Nick Redfern, a de facto American, or Kevin Randle; the Americans a motley, incoherent group pretty much.

Do the Brits know something the rest of us don’t?

RR

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Two new books: Roswell and Socorro

From Nick Redfern:


From Kevin Randle:

Monday, April 03, 2017

What would extraterrestrials want with or from the Earth?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

If aliens from an advanced culture or civilization are visiting this planet, in droves, as UFO data indicate, why?

Does Earth have something that a supposedly gazillion other planets in the galaxy or, certainly, the universe doesn’t?

All the elements, chemistries, and exotic materials, including water, abound in outer space scientists tell us.

So what keeps ETs reconnoitering our planet?

Could it be the diverse flora or fauna, and especially we humans?

That seems unlikely, as science tells us, or tries to, that diverse life and sentient beings are plentiful in the cosmos; that’s why science, in its many forms, is seeking life elsewhere.

And Earth is so remote – such a backwater – in the great scheme of the cosmos, why is it, according to acolytes of the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis), the place of places for alien visitors?

Earth is special for we inhabitants, a unique repository for grand human creativity and effort. (Those who are attuned to the humanities can cite all the great works that are part of the human oeuvre.)

But what alien culture could appreciate Michelangelo, Beethoven, or Shakespeare et al.?

Even highly sentient, brilliant, advanced beings could never fathom anything created by mankind except, maybe, its edifices.

Even human behavior would be a constant mystery, something even humans don’t fully understand.

And the behavior of animal, even plants, would be baffling to visitors from worlds elsewhere in space and time.

Don’t give me the nuclear explanation. Atomic power is primitive and would be to beings that are able to traverse the cosmic void to come here.

I can’t, for the life of me, think of any reason that ETs would come here, and in the numbers that UFO reporting seems to indicate.

Nope. We are not being examined or spied upon by advanced sentient beings flying about, willy-nilly in craft we call UFOs.


RR

Old dogs and, of course, no new tricks

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Time magazine for April 10, 2017, had, on Pages 52/53, thirty-six popular podcasts that its readers might find interesting. No paranormal or UFO podcasts were listed.

(A while back I said that podcasts were passé or dying. I was wrong as usual. Even a few news media people I know quit their jobs to do podcasts full time.)

So why aren’t UFO or fringe podcasts getting noticed?

Well, they are pretty much amateurish and full of quirky, offputting sounds pretending to be music, and the guests are usually not about to talk eloquently or sensibly, as I noted recently in my post about a Greg Bishop Radio Misterioso guest.

But then podcasts geared to UFO buffs or Forteans have nothing new to offer, just rehashes of old stuff that the podcast audience has heard or read about ad nauseum.

I, too, post a lot of stuff about old UFO sightings or events, but I try to, at least, offer a new slant or take on those old sightings.

My pal Kevin Randle resparked the Chiles-Whitted cigar-shaped UFO or bolide encounter the other day.

Kevin, too, tries to approach old, iconic UFO events with a fresh take but his followers and readers always, and I mean always, hark back to the old arguments that have been sliced and diced, over and over again, none coming up with new ideas or interpretations.

The commentary is bogged down as if surfeited with molasses from eons ago.

This is the problem with ufology, one of the problems: no one (or few) are looking at the old cases or new cases with fresh eyes or ideas.

And if you look at the list of the popular Time magazine podcasts, you’ll see that they offer new meat to old ideas or something totally fresh.

Ufology is just too entrenched with senile geezers or madmen (and madwomen) who think their encrusted commentary is grist for hearing or reading. It isn’t.

The UFO phenomenon is slathered with geezer goo or the machinations of mad minds, smothering or absorbing the tired topic, as the “alien” in Alien did to the crew of the USCSS Nostromo.

The image above comes from UrbanDharma.org

RR

Sunday, April 02, 2017

The Big Bang never happened!

https://healthfoodsoul.com/big-bang-never-happened/

RR

Saturday, April 01, 2017

The Voynich Manuscript: From a mad world or outer space?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The New York Review of Books, April 20, 2017 issue has a exegetical review, by Eamon Duffy, of the new replicant issue of The Voynich Manuscript [Yale University Press, $50].
Reviewer Duffy is Emeritus Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge.

The Voynich Manuscript, as some of you know, is a mysterious book of scribbles – an unknown language? – and odd drawings, many of plants or herbs that are unknown to botanists.

The Manuscript was written or derives from the 15th Century but was originally thought to have been a work of Roger Bacon, the 13th Century Franciscan polymath. (Various testings, such as carbon dating, proved that the work comes from the 1400s, thus Bacon could not have been its author.)

The book (manuscript) was bought by Wilfred Michael Voynich, a Polish-Lithuanian bookdealer and adventurer, Professor Duffy tells us; Voynich acquiring the work from the library of Athanasius Kircher, a 17th Century Jesuit polymath.

The manuscript has had several owners with the Yale getting it from Hans Peter Kraus, in 1969, after a circuitous raft of owners who tried diligently to decipher it or get it deciphered.

The first 130 pages consist of the “herbal” drawings, “followed by a cluster of large foldout pages decorated with circular zodiacal or astrological diagrams, and this in turn gives way to a section of ten folios containing yet more unrecognizable text, interspersed with decidedly unerotic drawings … of plump naked women, bathing in pools and conduits of blue and green water.” [op. cit. Page 44]
Another group of large foldout pages with astronomical images followed by more “herbal” images “embedded in the text … alongside objects … that resemble pharmacological jars … The books closing section consists of twenty-three pages of closely written text without illustration, made up of short paragraphs of just a few lines apiece, each paragraph prefaced by a star or asterisk.” [ibid, Page 44]
Wikipedia provides a lucid offering about the work:


Reviewer Duffy presents the view that the work may have been a Medieval hoax, to what purpose unknown.

He also writes “That leaves lunacy or lucre as possible motives [for the work’s creation]. Madness can’t entirely be ruled out: mania takes many forms, and a well-to-do obsessive convinced he (or she) held the key to great secrets might drive the production of such a compilation.” [ibid, Page 46]

The “herbals” or plants are not representative of anything botanistic on this planet: “Roots and branches bifurcate and then rejoin again to form a single stem … two separate stalks are joined by a single lateral branch or end in the same single leaf … slender stalks emerge from holes in the thick flat surfaces of toots that have been cut across like sawn tree trunks … and spiky leaves exactly mirror the forms of the same plant’s improbable roots.” [ibid, Pages 45/46]
So, we have a unique work – a manuscript – that may have come from a “brilliant” mad person, or from another mad world, (in another dimension or on a planet elsewhere), a world where plants do not grow as they do here.
The Voynich Manuscript is one of those mysteries that have intrigued scholars, vibrantly, in ways that UFOs haven’t.

But is the “manuscript” an artifact left on Earth by visitors from afar, or another universe abutting ours?

Or is it merely a wonderfully creative fake from the mind of a person too creative to have lived in the Middle Ages?

RR

Those ET bastards!

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
The April 3, 2017 issue of The New Yorker has a lengthy article by Tad Friend, The God Pill, about Silicon Valley’s search for a cure to aging, even death, page 54 ff.

I won’t bore you with the details, fascinating as they are, but came away wondering about a few things that have to do with UFOs or, rather, UFO abductees.

I’ve broached this topic once before here, in reference to why ETs have never provided a cure for those they’ve allegedly encountered who were ill or had a death progressing disease, such as Barney Hill had.

In the context of The New Yorker article, with its litany of new attempts by Silicon Valley’s tech wizards to find out why we age and die, I wonder why, if extraterrestrials are from an advanced civilization or even our future, “they” haven’t saved or cured a human that they have allegedly kidnapped or abducted, since it seems likely that an advanced species or humans from our future would have the knowledge or “pill” that the Silicon Valley wizards insist will be forthcoming, the technique or medicinal that stems aging and death itself.

Has there been any research or study of purported UFO abductees (experiencers) indicating they have remained young or haven’t aged as rapidly as the rest of us?

Has any abductee been saved from a death-dealing disease, such as cancer?

It seems likely, to me, that if aliens from afar or time actually exist, and they have taken humans into their milieu, they would, if compassionate or medically astute, impart some knowledge or actual medical wherewithals to those they supposedly borrowed and examined as so many abductees tells us happened to them, Travis Walton comes to mind.

Image used above from keranews.org 

RR

Friday, March 31, 2017

Iconic UFO photos that intrigue (me)

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

In the October 1978 issue of UFO Report [pictured], long-time UFO researcher Hayden Hewes provided a “scientific analysis” of the July 7, 1947 photo [below] of a UFO taken by William A. Rhoades of Phoenix, Arizona.

The photo has become iconic and discussed ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseum, some would say.

The analysis via Mr. Hewes seems thorough and diligent, using “Color contouring, edge enhancement, digitized for pixels, computerized, digitized, and with a high-pass filter” the magazine indicates with examples.
There has been the usual skeptical and belief arguments about the photo, and scrutiny by a few UFO buffs who used to frequent this blog or Kevin Randle’s and comment on the photo.

What intrigues me about the photo is something I’ve mentioned about the McMinnville photos taken by farmer Paul Trent on May 11, 1950, also discussed to the point of tedium but also iconic and rife with controversy.

This photo, one of two by farmer Trent, is from ufoevidence.org:
Note the UFO or flying disk is flying overhead, askew to the ground. That is the UFO is not flying level with the ground; it’s tilted.

And if William Rhoades’ photo is genuine, his UFO (or “flying heel” with an intriguing underbelly light or spot) is also askew with the ground, flying with a tilt as if ready to zoom upwards.

You, who’ve looked at older flying saucer photos, have noticed that almost all of them show the “object” askew, some in such a weird fashion that one intuitively thinks the photos are hoaxed: no flying machine would be flying around so haphazardly.

Yet, the 1947 and 1950 photos, by Rhoades and Trent, ostensibly non-hoaxed many believe, seem to show a flying disk and “heel” not following the terrain in a serious way.

The “objects” are oblivious to the ground, as if the mission isn’t to surveil anything underneath but rather to just make an appearance, for whatever reason.

Now if both the Trent photos and the Rhoades photo are concoctions, why didn’t those who created their contrived models place them level with the ground, as it would seem a person, not throwing something in the air, would do?

The trouble that both parties went to, if they were indeed hoaxing, would call for a stabilized “craft” – not unlike that one sees when an airplane is flying over, unless …

… in the Trent case, the alleged mirror some say he used as a model for his object went atilt because of its unbalance on the purported string used to hoist the mirror into position for the faked photo(s).

As for Mr. Rhoades’ photo, if it were a thrown-in-the-air thing, then it would be askew.

Mr. Rhoades, like Paul Trent, took two photos. The first showed a cigar configuration, then we have the second shot, shown above, of the heel-like object.

The other thing that has always bothered me about the photo-taking is that both men were not privy to the objects when they first appeared.

Paul Trent was told of the sighting by his wife and had to run into the house to grab his camera and set it to take a photo when he got back outside, where he took his two shots.

Mr. Rhoades heard a “whooshing sound” as he was approaching his workshop in the rear of his house, and thinking it was a low-flying jet, grabbed his camera and ran outside to take his two snapshots.

Now, either Trent’s flying disk or Mr. Rhoades’ flying heel were both lallygagging (flying slowly and without purpose), allowing the men to snap their photos or the pictures are fake – taken with care and easily because the “objects” weren’t really going anywhere.

RR