UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, March 24, 2017

No ET visitations says astronaut Alan Bean

 Astronaut Alan Bean said this for The New York Post, march 24, 2017:

“I do not believe that anyone from outer space has ever visited the Earth,” Bean told news.com.au from his home in Houston, Texas."

Click
 HERE for full article.

RR

The more things change ....

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The UFO Report for November 1978 (pictured) is fraught with tidbits, almost 40 years ago, that are still resonating with UFO buffs today, confirming the literary cliché, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same).

For instance, on Page 6/8, where Messages to the magazine appear, there is a letter from a Bill Hamilton of Los Angeles, California which opens with this:

"Since I was present with Ray Stanford when he made his visit to George Adamski in early 1959 …"

Ray Stanford visited Adamski in 1959 and was in Socorro in 1964? Mr. Stanford has been in the thick of the UFO hubbub for a very long time and is still going strong. I’m hearing that more about Mr. Stanford is about to surface. God bless him.
Beginning on Page 20 of the magazine, an article by Coral and Jim Lorenzen, An Extraterrestrial Encounter, tells the tale of an alleged UFO abduction of Air Force Sergeant Charles Moody.

The Lorenzens were and are respected UFO investigators, even as they endorsed UFO abductions and UFO encounters with "beings."

In the article, on Page 58, Sergeant Moody described the leader of his purported kidnappers whom he was with while in the craft:

"It had a head with a cranium about one third larger than an average human head. There was no hair, no eyelashes, no eyebrows. The ears were smaller than a human’s, as was the nose, and the skin was whitish-gray in color … It was almost like a mask … the mouth was small and there were no lips. There was no mouth movement at any time."

"The brow was a protruding one and the eyes beneath were not ovoid like those of a human’s, but more rounded."

"Moody said the being he was with [had a height] between four feet, eight inches and five feet."

Moody was taken from his car, initially, by two larger beings (about 6 feet tall) who were able to overcome him, as he fought back.

These larger beings wore black outfits whereas the "leader" inside the craft wore a white tight-fitting outfit. All were thin, the "leader"weighing about 135 pounds.

The usual examination table was noted and the lighting without a source also.

Moody was granted a look at the craft’s propulsion system – rods underneath crystal-like glass. And there was a black box, which Moody thought was a weapons system.

I won’t bore you further with the extensive details provided by Moody to Jim Lorenzen, but all the abduction (experiencer) memes or tropes are intact in the account.

Then on Page 28 there is (was) a piece by Bryce Bond who interviewed Gordon Creighton, Creighton pushing the idea that UFOs come from another dimension – that idea often showing up here, at this blog -- and further dismissed Von Daniken’s ancient astronaut theses.

Further, Creighton fleshed out his interview with a suggestion of encounters by inter-dimensional beings that smacks of what Jose Caravaca or Jacques Vallee propose in their theories of UFO being-appearances.

The magazine had its slew of UFO photos, as was the norm in the day:

So, nothing has changed, has it ?

We are still dealing with the same UFO crap in 2017 that UFO buffs were dealing with in 1978, and Ray Stanford persists.

RR

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Consciousness [REDUX]

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The March 27, 2017 issue of The New Yorker has a profile by Joshua Rothman of philosopher Daniel Dennett, who I mentioned here, at this blog, when his newest book, From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds was reviewed in The New York Review of Books March 9, 2017. [Ufocon, February 25, 2017]

Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion. The NYRB review by Thomas Nagel gave a sentient overview of Dennett’s views whereas The New Yorker piece is more of a personal profile, as is the magazine’s wont, than a presentation of the argument(s) in the philosophy departments of academia about consciousness, but you will get a flavor of the ongoing consciousness debates extant.

You can find the extensive New Yorker piece online, and I hope you do as it impacts the UFO topic in an askance way.

UFOs may be “real” but only in the sense that persons perceive them, not that they actually exist in a tangible way.

That consciousness is materialistic, as Dennett proposes, UFOs may be also, but like consciousness, they may be illusionary too.

RR

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Ufology's "Disciplines"

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
While “Ufology” is a bogus enterprise pretty much, it does have, within it, categories of study that mimic those of science.

For example, there are UFO theorists, like me, who speculate about what UFOs are and what they may have been in the past.

There are UFO archaeologists and paleontologists who study older UFO cases and the environments (context) in which they appeared or were witnessed. Jose Caravaca and Kevin Randle would be in this group.

The social and psychological (and neurological) disciplines are sometimes applied by practitioners to the UFO enigma but qualified persons often go off track, trying hard to embed sightings with an astronomical or physical patina, confusing the mental aspects of UFO with accretions that are not sociological or psychological. I put Gilles Fernandez and the French skeptics in this category.

What about UFO physicists or engineers? Stanton Friedman started out to be one, but got sidetracked, and there are few people in Ufology who have the credentials or cachet to pursue the phenomenon within the category of its technology or mechanical manifestations.

There are UFO librarians/cataloguers who collect UFO accounts, past and present and list them for “researchers,” investigators, buffs, and others. Issac Koi and MUFON are providers of UFO incident lists.

Then we have UFO journalists, persons who seek out UFO accounts, some in the past, but mostly those that are occurring now, for presentation to UFO enthusiasts. Nick Redfern and Leslie Kean are such.

There should be forensic experts in Ufology, and I think Bruce Maccabee could be considered one, but there are few real forensic efforts being employed in Ufology.

There are UFO historians, who contemplate or gather past UFO sightings with a kind of passive insight. Jerry Clark is an example.

Then there is the category of rational skepticism, in which I’d put Robert Sheaffer and Tim Printy.

My list goes to the heart of the plaint that past UFO events and sightings are passé and should be eschewed by UFO aficionados.

To understand or get a handle on what UFOs were or are, one has to embrace some of the past, iconic cases while looking for new incidents that may be relevant to the study of UFOs: Ufology.

To throw out the older UFO cases is foolhardy and without scientific acumen. To just study current sightings is exactly the same: stupid.

RR

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Why science ignores UFOs

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Aside from the loopy fringe that dotes on UFOs, and that ufology is anathema to the very idea(s) of science, UFOs get short shrift from scientists for these reasons….

A lettered response from Steven Weinberg to the editors of The New York Review of Books in the April 6, 2017 issue, brought on by comments about his January article, covered here too, “The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics” bemoans the ongoing discussions (and confusions) about quantum among physicists.

Weinberg cited some of the controversy and ended his missive, on Page 42, with this:

“Jeremy Bernstein … thinks … there is no trouble with quantum mechanics as it stands.”

But then Bernstein offers an anecdote that seems to indicate otherwise:

“A visitor to Einstein’s office in Prague noted that the window overlooked the grounds of an insane asylum. Einstein explained that [the asylum housed] the madmen who did not think about quantum mechanics.”

Physicists are actively engaged in the weird vicissitudes of quantum mechanics; they don’t have time (or desire) to pursue the weird vicissitude of the UFO phenomenon.

Some physicists, whose books are reviewed by Jonathan Taylor, in the issue of TLS (referenced in my previous post here), are immersed in the difficulties with the concept of time, one (James Gleick) writing in his book, Time Travel: A History, “ … no physicist [now] ‘believes in’ absolute time …” [Page 5, TLS, March 10, 2017]

The review, by Taylor, supplies an aggregation of the problems science has with time that was once rather clear from Newton’s “definition” (time called duration) of linear time in Philosophiæ  Naturalis Principia Mathematica [1687].

Time is another ongoing conundrum for science.

Then there are cosmologists, who eschew the idea that UFOs contain alien (extraterrestrial) visitors, seeking hints of life on far-flung planets in our galaxy or the universe altogether. No time (or desire) to knock down a UFO to see what’s inside.

Those scientists in the social or biologic disciplines are overwhelmed with the quirks in humanity, disallowing any time (or desire) to see if UFOs have a relationship to the madnesses or distortions of humanity.

Neurologists and psychologists, not to mention philosophers, are consumed with consciousness: what is it? How does it function? Why?

Of course, you know that many physicists, engineers, computer technicians, et al. are wrapped up in AI (artificial intelligence) or quantum computing, both taking hold in human society whereas UFOs have no such hold on human society, despite the delusion by you and me that UFOs are important or relevant to humanity.

Nope. Science doesn’t have an inclination to pursue UFOs. What’s the payback for doing so?

There are just too many other perturbing aspects of life and civilization that supersede UFOs.

Scientists have neither the time or interest or wherewithal to pursue UFOs. Why would they?

RR

Flying Saucers are Real?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The Times Literary Supplement for March 10, 2017 had reviews of these books about Science Fiction:
But the book circled in green – Flying Saucers are Real! The UFO Library of Jack Womack [Anthology Editions, PB, $40] – is about UFOs (flying saucers, obviously.

But it’s not a paean to flying saucers in the way that Donald Keyhoe’s book, with the same title was.

Mr. Womack merely [sic] reproduces book covers, drawings, cartoons, old clippings, interviews, and other ephemera about flying saucers over the years.

The book is a memorandum of flying saucer history pretty much and the reviewer, Jonathan Barnes, writes, “Among the plethora of kooky delusion, something more solemn can be discerned” which is a regurgitation of the old sci-fi themes of “international fretting …  that a brand “of robust interventionism may appear in the skies and set to work” [again].

That is, the flying saucer theme is akin to sci-fi novels, like War of the Worlds, that tell us extraterrestrials may be coming to enslave or kill humanity.

The books are reviewed for two pages, but Womack’s book gets a scant partial column, highlighted in orange:
This, for me, shows that anything to do with UFOs or flying saucers is paltry, even in the context of a genre that should be a bolster of the idea that alien species can or do show up on Earth.

Flying saucers, as a mainstream topic, is relegated in the same way that a book about it is relegated to a few column inches in a review flush with commentary about science fiction.

No one really cares about UFOs (or flying saucers) any more, except for the delusional clique who visit blogs like this or attend seedy conferences about the enigmatic but inconsequential phenomenon.

RR 

Sunday, March 19, 2017

The ET Dilemma

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Most visitors to this blog know that I’m dead set against the ETH, the so-called Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

Even as I postulate the idea that UFOs may be kinds of von Neumann-like probes, using a few UFO accounts to bolster that view; i.e., the Gorman dogfight, the Stephan Michalak and Robert Taylor encounters, I have to concede that AI machines (or robots) from another planet would not have technical appurtenances like those we have on Earth, as the evolution of technology and machinery or robotics are unique to Earth, just as Darwinian evolution is unique to Earth, and Earth alone.

A species, supposedly advanced, coming to Earth from someplace in our Galaxy or from a place in the Universe would in no way be like us, except in one case (which I’ll note in a moment).

I haven’t seen the movie The Arrival yet -- (I don’t go to movie theaters to mingle with the rabble.) – but from what reviews I’ve read and snippets on TV, I think the idea of a communicative species, with “emotion” and opportunistic desires are verboten in the same way that biologic or technological similarities are.

Earthlings have a unique psychological make up. A species from elsewhere couldn’t even come close to replicating the psychological make-up of humanity, unless….

UFOs as a phenomenon may seem to be intelligently controlled craft, which is a projection of witnesses.

Encounters with beings, allegedly alighting from such craft, are explained by Jose Antonio Caravaca’s Distortion Theory (or perhaps Vallee’s psychic manipulators).

I’ve been looking through my collected UFO literature, as some of you know, and I haven’t been able to locate one UFO event, not one, that bespeaks an observation or encounter with an alien species from outer space.

I’m prone to accept the inter-dimensional explanation or time-travel scenario, or this:

If there is an ineffable intelligence, an Almighty Spirit, as Klaatu intoned in The Day the Earth Stood Still, or a Star Wars Force, that permeates the Universe, then one can see how sentient beings might be the ubiquitous template of creation from an omnipotent, omnipresent entity.

And if there is omnipotent presence that is the Universe or thought the Universe into existence – a thing we may call God – then one can imagine beings not unlike us, with vehicles not that far from something we might construct, having existence, and alive (created) because of the methodologies or mechanisms of that “God” or supreme being.

And those beings, from the mind of “God” might show up here, now and then.

But then there is that visitation problem: why would so many sentient, advanced, creative beings be coming to this planet in the droves that UFO data seem to indicate?

That’s one of the flaws in the ETH.

Even time-travelers or inter-dimensional intrusions can be dismissed for the same reason(s).

Yep, the ET explanation for UFOs is not an option for intelligent humans, not at all.

RR

Saturday, March 18, 2017

More Fake [UFO] News?

http://www.pressreleaserocket.net/ufos-exist-recently-discovered-copies-of-roswell-aaf-base-activity-reports-confirm-ufo-crash/

RR

Friday, March 17, 2017

The Shameful “ethics” of officials who have access to UFO secrets

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Where are the Edward Snowdens or Julian Assanges with access to the alleged secret documents proving an alien crash at Roswell and all the other suppressed evidences and proofs of extraterrestrial visitations?

You mean to tell me that for 70 years no one has had the gumption to spill the beans about the activity of space visitors to Earth, some involved in crashes?

Why even Daniel Ellsberg, one of the authors of The Pentagon Papers…

The Pentagon Papers was the name given to a secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967, prepared at the request of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in 1967 … [From the internet]

had the guts to provide the secret documents to The New York Times in 1971 for public consumption and insight.

Yet, to this day, not one person has had the courage to offer up, publicly, the supposed secret evidence, from governments, of a few UFO (flying saucer) incidents that prove visitors from other places in the galaxy or universe (or time, dimensions, whatever) have visited (or crashed) here.

What does this mean? An UFO/alien reality is a greater secret than that which Klaus Fuchs, a British spy who gave the Manhattan Project secret to the Soviets, proffered?

What about the Rosenbergs, who were executed, in 1953, for supposedly disclosing A Bomb secrets to the Soviets?

Our pal CDA insists that, if a flying disc really had crashed near Rowell, someone, some scientist, anybody who knew that to be a truth would have come forward by now with the fantastic news.

And I think he has a point, considering the criminal plight(s) that others disregarded to make secrets unhidden.

The person, who disclosed an alien presence, here on Earth, now or in the past, while seriously chastised (or punished) by the governments and its militaries, would be a hero to all of humanity, yes?

Provided that there are really secret UFO proofs of extraterrestrial visitation, ever.....

RR 

Fake UFO News

You've seen this newspaper scan all over the place recently:
It's from my scan of the item, staple and chink/fold in upper left corner.

UFO people use such things all the time, without attribution, so that's expected, but one newspaper reporter said it was an archived photo:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/features/the-michigan-ufo-craze-of-1966

That would be "fake news" wouldn't it?

RR

Visions of the Peasantry

While perusing The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena by J. Gordon Melton [Visible Ink Press, Canton, MI., 2008] I refreshed my information of the many Marian apparitions (alleged visions of Mary, the mother of Jesus/Christ) reported by members of the peasant class: Lourdes, Fatima, Medjucorje, Our Lady Mediatrix in the Philippines, Our Lady of Kevelaer in Germany, Our Lady of the Roses in Queens, New York, La Salette in France, et al.

That those in the lower economic class, many uneducated, had visions of The Virgin Mary, is the underlying status of such sightings, such experiences.
This has also been the case with visions of UFOs (flying saucers) and especially those UFO reports indicating UFO encounters with beings (or creatures).

While the avid interest of UFOs has been exacerbated by some highly educated men and women (those with a higher than usual education) who’ve acted as researchers, of a kind, the vast contingent of UFO buffs come from the little educated, particularly in the humanities, and surely those in the middle economic or lower economic classes.
Does this tell us something about the workings of the mind, or the access of a force or forces (such as Caravaca’s “external agent” or Vallee’s non-human, psychical manipulator)?

Or do the lower classes, uneducated and intellectually impoverished, have uninhibited consciousnesses, open minds of some sort that others on a higher mental level don’t have?

UFO skeptics close their minds to the obvious, that UFOs exist and are seen by normal people, persons lacking in wealth or high education, but otherwise normal.

My contact with UFO buffs and those who think they’ve seen a UFO, including myself, show them to be, either gullible or highly impressionable, quick to visualize “things” that may be categorized as elements of the paranormal: UFOs, ghosts, fairies, elves, sea monsters, Big Foot, and other queer or unusual apparitions, the Mother of Jesus among them.

Are those who pursue the visualizations of this underclass of individuals just as intellectually or economically impoverished?

That is, do the “creatures from the id” sneak into the minds (the consciousness) of peasants more readily than they do with persons who have more relevant, more “important” things to contend with in their lives?

Is this the source of UFOs? The UFO reality?

RR

The UFO ET scenario takes a hit [Redfern]

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/03/ufo-repairmen-from-the-stars-no/

(Image from 123rf.com)

RR

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Let’s take Jose Caravaca’s “Distortion Theory” one step further….

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
While listening to Bach’s Partita No. 2 on Music Choice today, I realized that my pal, Jose Antonio Caravaca’s idea of an “external agent” that dominates his Distortion Theory could be applied to other events and creative endeavors.

Jose’s DT provides the idea that an outside influence – an external agent he calls it – has taken occasion to intrude upon a UFO encounter, maybe even creating the encounter, causing those immersed in the encounter to experience a bevy of images and feelings that come from within them (their memory bank or unconscious). The “encounter” they have is a staged scenario, created by Jose’s “external agent” to push the idea of UFOs along or maybe just to screw with the witness/participant.

Jose put it this way, in material I got from him for a post I had here on March 6, 2017:

WHAT IS THE DISTORTION THEORY?
"Let us try to explain what are the basic principles of the DISTORTION THEORY (DT). One of the main points to be clarified, before starting, is that DT does not defend that the UFO phenomenon has a purely psychological, sociological or hallucinatory origin, all contrary, it is PRODUCED, in the first instance, by the INTERACTION / COMMUNICATION OF AN EXTERNAL AGENT UNKNOWN (UAE), INTELLIGENT AND INDEPENDENT TO THE HUMAN BEING, with a witness that describing experiences with UFOs. To achieve its objectives, the EAU "CONNECTS" with the psyche of the observers to "extract", from the individual and exclusive unconscious of them, intellectual material (found in hobbies, culture, cinema, literature, etc.). The purpose of MANUFACTURING / PROJECTING an FICTION ALIEN VISITATION (for example, landing of a flying saucer and its occupants).”
I’ve postulated that Jose’s external agent is a neurological or psychological quirk that causes the encounter scenario, but I can concede that Jose’s “external agent” may, indeed, be an actual construct of some kind, from outside the psyche or physical environment of those who’ve had a weird UFO encounter with beings, seemingly, Jose’s “construct” a force to be reckoned with, “real” and formidable.
I’ve tried to make clear here (and elsewhere) that “instinct” is a euphemism used by psychologists (and scientists) generally for a kind of thought process, that vertebrates, invertebrates, and every other kind of living creature, even plant life; that is, living creatures of all kinds, think. They have intelligence (coupled with their consciousness).
Let’s suppose that Jose’s “external agent” (maybe even many “external agents”) operate within the boundaries of life as we know it on Earth.
And the “external agent” (which some may call God, or that deplorable epithet, The Trickster) interacts with living creatures, parasitically, just for fun or purposefully.
Would that explain why someone like Bach or Mozart or Beethoven or Shakespeare or those Biblical writers, or Leonardo, Picasso, or Andy Warhol were able to create their works of art, music, and drama.
That is, did those geniuses have help from an external agent, one that helped them forge their creations from the residue of their psyches and experiences?
You see, if an “external agent” can be seen to develop UFO scenarios, an “external agent” (or “agents”) could be the prod or catalyst for all the creative enterprises of mankind.
An External Agent would not be limited to offering a UFO scenario. That would be a waste of such an ability or abilities, yes?
While I’m a supporter of Jose’s “theory” (or Vallee’s “controller”), I think that creating the experience of only UFO witnesses is a senseless perversion of such a power, an abrogation of an ability to mold humankind to the whim of a seemingly mad (insane) thing, Jose’s “external agent.”
An “external agent” playing with the minds of doltish humans is a bizarre twist on the religious idea that a satanic being causes men and women to do awful things.
Schizophrenics, tortured by an external agent (or agents) is another possibility within Jose’s magnificent theory.
Why limit The Distortion Theory to just UFO encounters?
RR

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Consciousness: The Materialism Quagmire (and Quantum Mechanics)

Click HERE

RR

Two new books today, confirming, for me, Ufology is a pseudo-religion

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
The books, pictured, add sustenance to my view that Ufology is or has become a religion for many UFO buffs and UFO skeptics too.

The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena could be published as The Encyclopedia of Ufological Phenomena and the content would work just as well.

The physics book by Dave Goldberg [Ph.D.], a professor and director of undergraduate studies at Drexel University, acts as an exegetical counter to the belief substrate in the religious encyclopedia and its faux cousin, the ufological phenomena encyclopedia.

The material in the religious encyclopedia offers an overview of all the various religions extant, those that are real religions and those that are merely cults.

The physics-oriented book offers a genuine view of the mysteries of the universe that confront physicists, some of which I will present here upcoming.

UFO buffs, a few who visit here, are doused in a belief system about UFOs (that they are ET craft or that disclosure of an alien visitation is imminent, like the Second Coming of Christ) which has all the earmarks of religious belief, fanatic and otherwise.

Physicists, as loopy as they can sometimes be, hold back, usually, from accepting anything as a final truth, especially when it comes to workings of physical laws, particularly those in quantum mechanics.

There is no firm belief inside real physicists, real scientists.

While in ufology there are those who are hardcore believers and those who are fervent UFO atheists. (Need I name them?)

Each operating within the same kind of parameters that make up theology or religious belief.

I’ll have more about all this, of course, as staunch believers of anything, pro or con, get my goat.

RR

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

An ET shot (and J. Allen Hynek had the details)?

Copyright 2017. InterAmerica, Inc.
The magazine (pictured), Probe the Unknown, for Spring 1974 had a number of interesting articles, including an extensive take on the Hickson/Parker Pascagoula abduction, authored by Hayden Hewes, plus a profile of Stanton Friedman in his younger, more relaxed days, and an account of John Schuessler’s UFO Study Group of Greater St. Louis, and a few photographs, taken on October 3, 1973 (by a Louisville electronics engineer while on tour of a wildlife preserve):
Then there was a longish piece about (and from) J. Allen Hynek (by Dennis Waite), in which I read an interesting bit (on pages 29/30):
The incident related took place “in North Dakota in the fall of 1961” and involved four men (two of whom “held military security clearances”):

“It was late at night, a cold, bitter evening. It had been raining intermittently turning to sleet, when the four men, who were driving at the time, noticed a craft land in an open field.

“Thinking that a plane had made an emergency landing because of he weather, the four men  … stopped [and] rushed to the aircraft, hopping over a fence on their way.

“What they saw was a downed craft, but one resembling no plane or vehicle they had seen before. ‘Humanoids’ were around the object and one menacingly waved the men away.

“At that point … one of the men took a shot at a creature. It fell to the ground, apparently hurt.”  [Page 30, bold print and italics mine]

The author wrote that the incident appears in Hynek’s book The UFO Experience.”

I have Hynek’s UFO Report book but not the one cited.

I’m wondering if someone might look at their copy of the Experience book to see if there was more to the story, like what happened then, or if there was any kind of denouement.

The magazine piece ended the account with “It fell to the ground, apparently hurt.”

RR

Sunday, March 12, 2017

From Facebook


UFOs: À la recherche du temps perdu

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.


À la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time; earlier rendered as Remembrance of Things Past) by Marcel Proust pertains to UFOs and ufology. And here’s how…

My son Josh, the neuroscientist, had a soiree in Ann Arbor Saturday night, for his U of M compatriots, to which I was invited.

I didn’t make an attempt to sneak in a few words about UFOs, during the discussion(s) about mental quirks and some quantum theory, the company composed of psychologists, astrophysicists, neurologists, and a few sports people.

My comments were tied to a remembrance of past notables in music, the arts, the movies, popular culture, and politics.

I made my starting point 1940.

Everyone knew about Adolf Hitler, to some extent anyway. But no one knew much about Franklin Roosevelt, or Eisenhower (except as a WWII general), and very little about Richard Nixon and nothing at all about Nixon’s cronies.

I worked my way into the 1960s, asking first about some early music icons: The Ink Spots, Bill Halley and the Comets, Elvis (that many knew about), and the Beatles (also sort of known).

Now these friends of my son are all millennials, so there’s that.

As for movie stars or radio biggies, very little known, except for a few comments about Swedish director Ingmar Berman and his film The Seventh Seal.

Jack Benny, The Shadow, and Orson Welles not known particularly, although Citizen Kane was acknowledged, but not “Rosebud” or anything substantive about Welles’ War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

I threw out names and significant events from the WWII period that almost everyone knew a snippet or two about, but not to any great extent, and these are Ph.D. people mostly.

A few pitiful comments by me about quantum mechanics were treated politely (as I am Josh’s father, after all) but comments by others went a little too deep for my understanding, mostly dealing with new approaches in quantum theory and applicable methods, for computing and space travel.

Even the noted forerunners of quantum mechanics – Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Schrödinger, et al. – were absent in the discussions, just the new wave(s) in quantum physics.

My point?

We, who are UFO buffs – not the younger set but the geezer set and mid-lifers – know everything about UFO events beginning in 1947, everything.

We know the ins and outs and all the machinations, twists and turns, of every UFO sighting and story extant.

Millennials don’t give a fig about UFOs. It’s a determinate termination in conversational settings and social get-togethers.

I didn’t broach the topic Saturday night as the group was a mix of sophisticated types, with only a few Einstein Fellowship people in attendance, all hoping, I’m sure, that I wouldn’t bring up UFOs. I didn’t.

But UFO enthusiasts have a remembrance of things past, even if that past is as elusive to younger people, who care nothing or little about the topic, or anything else that is “past,”

So, like Proust, we ufological types, dote on the past, and try to make it relevant to the present, as Proust’s monumental work attempted to do (and does, in many ways).

That’s something, yes?

RR

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Huh? (From Yahoo, and incomprehensible, even after my a.m. coffee)

Click HERE

RR

Friday, March 10, 2017

Illusions

An entertaining look at optical illusions (from my Facebook feed):

Click HERE

RR

No Renascence in Ufology

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
Image from Elaina Davidson at a terrific blog http://elainajdavidson.blogspot.com/

I get lots of cooking/menu alerts, and notice that cooks and chefs are trying to revitalize or alter food items by adding odd, esoteric flavors, spices, and new ingredients to bring life to old staples we have become accustom to eating.

Ufology is sort of like that: persons writing about UFOs, me included, keep trying to revitalize the old tales (Roswell, Socorro, Kecksburg, Rendlesham, and all the old hoary UFO chestnuts).

But it’s not working. Ufology is fraught with moth balls and is moribund.

There’s nothing we can write or trot out with “new clothes” that can bring Ufology and UFOs back to life.

And alleged new sightings leave much to be desired when laid side-by-side with the iconic has-been sightings.

Adding a spicy tidbit to an old report doesn’t bring a revelation.

Trying to impose a new explanation for the defunct phenomenon doesn’t work either.

No one really cares, although there is a patina of interest, like those remembrances by friends and family at funerals.

I’m cleaning the cobwebs from my time(s) with UFOs, and I see others doing the same but pretending that UFOs matter, when they clearly do not.

How long can this folly, this madness go on?

RR

Thursday, March 09, 2017

Madness! (From my Facebook feed)


"Aleta Zanders: In all those thousands of yrs. we have had no damage done to things like this, now all over the world this generation does things like this. What kind of people are out there now?" [FB comment]

RR

Is there a paranormal reality (and are UFOs part of it)?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Many of you believe, I think, that there are such things as ghosts and monsters and things that go bump in the night.

Film-maker Paul Kimball believes in ghosts; he goes looking for them.

My pal, Nick Redfern, writes about the paranormal as if it’s real.

And my friend, Eric Wargo defends the idea of the paranormal at his resplendent site, thenightshirt.com.

My Spanish colleague, Jose Antonio Caravaca, who’s gotten some promotion here and elsewhere for his intriguing “Distortion Theory” (for UFO encounter events), thinks there is a psychical reality for his “external agent? (the thing that interacts with humans when they think they are having a brush with beings from flying saucers).

One of my Facebook feeds convinced me that I’ve seen my “guardian angel” and I have seen what could be called ghosts (or, at least, things of an evanescent nature that seem to have had form and substance, for a brief moment).

But UFOs?

I have a fascination with those UFO encounters that also intrigue Jose Caravaca.

But I also think some people have seen nuts and bolts things that they call UFOs (or flying saucers in the old parlance).

And I believe some people have seen odd lights that had the appearance of maneuverability and intelligence.

But are all these “witnessed” things tangible? Or are they figments of our imagination, figments understood by various psychological etiologies?

Jacques Vallee has conjured up a control agent or mechanism to explain UFOs, somewhat similar to Jose Caravaca’s “external agent” both resorting to something outside our normal, humdrum reality, a process in Vallee’s exposition and an actual entity in Caravaca’s.

Others posit the (debilitating, for me) mythical meme, The Trickster.

Freud gave us the “id” to explain the mischief making mechanism that causes us grief but he restricted that mischief to sexual misbehavior.

Jung has proffered archetypes (the Trickster is one) that aggrieve us. And he gave us the evil nature of God (the devil, Satan) in his idea of the Divine Quaternity as the component that assaults humans.

But those psychological concepts, are they real?

When dealing with the so-called paranormal, one has to bring into play the nature of consciousness, but is consciousness real? (My previous post here about philosopher Dennett indicated that there is thought in some academic, scientific circles that consciousness is illusory.)

That is matter for discussion elsewhere, I’m afraid. Most of you can barely handle the rather mundane idiosyncratic aspects of a few UFO tales related here.

For me, the paranormal (ghosts, Big Foot, Nessie, et al.)  are neurologically or psychologically induced, “real” to the percipient but not real in the debatable sense of reality as we know it or think we know it.

And Jose Caravaca’s “external agent” or Jacques Vallee’s “control system” and Paul Kimball’s elusive ghosts or Nick Redfern’s chupacabras along with most UFO stories are merely intrusions of a non-sexual “id” or an archetypal memory accumulated over a life-time of personal neuroses (or pathologies).

The paranormal is a fairy tale lying atop one’s otherwise boring life, waiting to break out when existential things get too quiescent for someone who thinks he or she should be experiencing more than they are.

Under the cover of night, the paranormal comes “alive” but only in the mind, not in the actual reality to which we seem tethered.

Image used (above) comes from http://consciouslifenews.com/

RR

Wednesday, March 08, 2017

UFOs: Phenomenon or Phenomena? The Distortion Theory

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Dominick and others have looked at Jose Caravaca’s "Distortion Theory" and have tried to pigeon-hole the theory, but they miss the point.

Señor Caravaca’s theoretical hypothesis applies to those UFO events that we call “encounters” where beings (humanoids) interact with those allegedly observing them.

Those kinds of UFO events make up for a sparse reportage (nowadays) but were a significant batch in the 1950s forward to more recent times.

Jose’s explanation is unique and applies to that specific range of UFO reports.

But what about all the other kinds of UFO sightings and reports: cigar shaped things flying in the sky, or lights that maneuver or flicker, and apparent metallic-like craft that make up a wider category in the UFO literature?

This goes to the heart of the UFO/UAP dichotomy where Unidentified Aerial Phenomena replaces the UFO sobriquet.

UAP encompasses more correctly the observation of weird things seen in the sky, but the epithet UAP doesn’t ingrain itself within the UFO encounter events, those that Jose’s theory addresses.

Jerome (Jerry) Clark, in the UFO Update era always got livid when someone used the word phenomena for flying saucers or UFOs, Mr. Clark insisting, vehemently, that UFOs were a categorical phenomenon, not a multi-layered phenomena.

(I don’t know what his current view is. He, like encounter cases, has become sparse.)

But for all practical and common sense reasons, UFOs consist of a bundle of phenomena, one of which could be (but is unlikely as I see it) ET spacecraft.

There are lights, there are “objects,” there are round things and cigar-shaped things, egg-shaped craft (that sometimes land), and there are those events where a UFO debarks creatures or beings who interact with some select human beings.

Those encounter events are what Jose Caravaca is dealing with, and I think he opens the door to a discussion or discussions about whether such events are neurological, as I believe them to be, or psychical, as I think he believes.

They might even be a mixture of both: phenomena, not a phenomenon.

RR

The Devil is in the UFO Details

Copyright 2017 InterAmerica, Inc.

A visitor here recently bemoaned my inclusion of magazines like that pictured, writing to the affect that such magazines sensationalized UFO stories, which they did, and thus have no real import when it comes to a serious study of the topic.

I agree to some extent but inside some of the UFO magazines were articles by reputable writers, many with ufological bona fides.

For instance in the issue shown here, UFO Report for Spring 1975, are pieces by Kevin Randle, Timothy Green Beckley, Brinsley Le Poer Trench, Jerome Clark, Lucius Farish, George Fawcett, Charles Bowen, Joseph Goodavage, and (iffy?) Wendelle Stevens, among a few un-notables.

I have hundreds of these kinds of magazines, each containing, at least, a UFO snippet worthy of remembrance and maybe scrutiny.

In the issue pictured, my pal Kevin has two articles: The UFO Kidnapping That Challenged Science [Page 14 ff.] and Mysterious Clues Left Behind by Flying Saucers [Page 36 ff.]

I’m not going to quote extensively from either article. (Lame or non-existent commentary doesn’t invite me to expend the typing energy.)

But I will note that in Kevin’s pieces the witnesses are farmers, a truck driver, and a prospector, providing support for my view that UFOs are usually reported by members of the lower economic class.

And in each article are details that make a reader (me) think that the persons recounting their UFO stories seem to have gathered information from previous, well-publicized UFO reports or sightings, such as the Betty/Barney Hill “abduction” which one of Kevin’s witnesses, a farmer, used to describe his kidnappers: 

"… the occupants [were] about four feet tall” wearing “those one piece suits. And their eyes look funny, they bend around the sides of their heads.” [Mysterious Clues … Page 37]

Another, the truck driver, resorted to the Adamski/Angelucci descriptives of the UFO occupants:

“There were three of them, two were male and one was obviously female. They were humanoid with long blond hair and elongated eyes. They were wearing one-piece, silver flying suits with high boots, gloves that extended up their arms, and no belts, weapons, or helmets.” [The UFO Kidnapping … Page 15]

(Kevin acknowledges the similarities to those previous, well-known UFO tales.)

And there was one bit of UFO minutia that caught my attention, near the end of Kevin’s UFO Kidnapping piece, on Page 54:

One of APRO’s investigators, Liria Jauregui, uncovered a tid-bit that others had overlooked.

The truck driver, Dionisio Lianca, said “The UFO crew had examined everything [he] had with him that night [of his kidnapping] and they returned it, with one exception – they kept his lighter.”

Kevin notes “Villas-Boas [sic], 16 years before said that the creatures in [his] UFO examined all his belongings and returned them all – except his lighter.” [ibid]

Now that kind of detail is intriguing.

I know quite a bit about the Vilas Boas case, and the lighter mention was not a part of what I’ve read (or recall).

For someone, like Kevin’s truck driver, to pick up on such a minute item in the Vilas Boas account is extraordinary. And to use that in the latter stages of a hoax, is even more extraordinary, Ms. Jauregui hearing it for the first time, several weeks after truck driver Lianca first recounted his experience.

And who would input such a mundane, seemingly insignificant detail in a sensational UFO account, Vilas Boas or Dionisio Lianca?

It intrigues.

That’s the kind of thing that one finds in those older articles, and to dismiss them, out of hand, especially when they come from UFO writers and investigators with cachet, is arrogantly stupid.

More to come….

RR

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

Jose Antonio Caravaca’s (brilliant) Distortion Theory

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

I placed my pal Jose Caravaca’s exegesis of his “Distortion Theory” online here the other day. Why?

Because it’s a brilliant hypothesis/theory that explains many UFO sightings, especially those with encounters.

I’ve been promoting Jose’s theory for several years now and find it only wanting in one aspect, and that’s his unidentified “external agent.”

But, for me, there is an answer.

Although Jose’s external agent is likened by some to Jacques Vallee’s “control mechanism” or Jung’s (collective) unconscious, it’s nuanced to the point that it opens the door to a possibility that has great ramifications.

Jose has explained that his “external agent” works uniquely on the percipient, the person who has a UFO event (or sighting).

That is, the external agent provides an experience that is not generalized but applies only to the person having the experience.

Each person has a residue of material in his or her unconscious closet, the mind’s memory bank.

The external agent pulls material from that closet, that memory bank, to create a scenario that becomes the UFO experience.

Jose has provided, often here and at his sites, dozens of UFO events with detailed examples of what is culled from a person’s memory bank that provokes the UFO experience.

I wondered, and have noted that wonderment here (and elsewhere), what or who is the “external agent.”

Is it God? Is it that despicable meme, the Trickster (a concept I loathe)? Is it the input of a omnipotent computer host who injects images into our minds, via his, her, or its matrix simulation? Is it a government/military ruse (akin to what happened with Vilas Boas in Brazil) or Arthur Bryant in England)?

I don’t think it is any of those things. I think Jose Caravaca’s “external agent” is an undiscovered (so far) neurological or psychological glitch that is rampant but unknown to science (neurologists and psychologists).

Jose’s “external agent” is a malfunction of the brain, a biological defect that applies to other known fantasies or hallucinatory experiences.

(I can accept the idea of a psychical glitch or an impairment to consciousness but that takes me to a widely disputed area of thought and discussion that muddies the waters as far as UFOs go.)

In all the examples that UFO researcher Caravaca has offered, there is an undeniable connection to a person’s memory or mental condition prior to his or her experience, and that connection is tangible, insofar as a neurological or psychological event can be said to be tangible.

Freud and Jung and other psychologists along with such neurologists as the great Oliver Sacks have proven [sic] that such events as those described by Jose, and pertinent to the UFO topic, are real, in the sense that their reality is an established fact for the persons aggrieved by the mental glitch, the neurological or psychological malfunction.

Is the “external agent” a genetic defect? Perhaps.

Is it a flawed cluster of brain neurons, like that which afflict persons said to be schizophrenic? Perhaps.

What researcher Caravaca has provided is a body of material that, while applied to UFOs in his concentration, also could b applied to the world of mental illness, generically.

Jose Caravaca has stumbled on an explanation for many UFO tales/reports in the literature, and something more, much more, I think.

RR

AstroPhysics, Quantum, and Astronomy

From my Facebook feeds:
Why I dropped out of Astrophysics in college:
The glory of our galaxy, from which no ETs come to Earth, none:

https://www.facebook.com/realitybeyondmatter/videos/1854387338162718/

RR

A tale told by an idiot? (As Shakespeare might have put it)

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

In the magazine pictured, True Flying Saucer & UFOs Quarterly [Spring 1976], is a featured article (without byline) about an alleged UFO encounter in Wellington, Texas, April 1st (yes), no year given.

It seems a farmer, Carroll Watts, saw a light about 10:30 p.m. while driving home from his father’s house.

He turned on a dirt road to drive “toward the strange glow” when he saw an “object which ‘appeared to be about 100 feet long and eight to ten feet high.” [Page 49]

He walked around it and “about 20 feet down the side [he] found a port, or door” and “knocked on it three or four times and it opened mechanically. Then a voice began speaking to [him] – it was an unemotional voice neither masculine nor feminine. It asked [him] if he would be willing to submit to a rigorous physical examination.” [ibid, italics mine]

He asked them why would he want to take a physical and they told him that he’d be able to make a flight with them.

After a short colloquy with the voice, he still declined to have a physical, and left, getting back into his car.

As he pulled away, the ship “rose slightly and turned to the south. There was a light, about 20 inches across, on the tip of the nose. As the ship was sitting, it gave off a clear fluorescent light. When it began to move, the light took on a reddish cast.” [ibid]

Farmer Watts proclaimed he saw other ships on March 31st and April 11th and took a photo of a cylindrical object floating 18 inches off the ground.
Inside he found machinery and heard a voice asking him to submit to a physical.

He “fled from the craft" ... But “in April [he] came in contact with it again and allowed the creatures inside to probe him with wires. He described the space creatures as about five feet tall, muscular, and clad in white coverall suits… they had wrap-around eyes, superficial ears and noses, and slit-like smiling mouths which did not move when they talked.” [ibid, Page 50]

The Air Force and Associated Press got involved and farmer Watts took a polygraph, at the suggestion of J. Allen Hynek, which he [Watts] flunked.

The whole thing was a hoax, fostered, supposedly, by an unidentified artist who was visiting the town, hooked up with farmer Watts, hypnotizing him, and thus encouraging him to make up the story. (To what end, the piece doesn’t tell us.)

The article ends with this…

“After examining Watt’s photograph [pictured above], Hynek concluded:

‘If this is a hoax, it’s a very, very clever one. In fact, it would be almost as interesting as what this farmer claimed actually happened to him.’” [ibid]

Okay, what do we have here? Another instance of UFO madness, but one steeped in some interesting details.

Watts got the wrap around eyes and probe scenario from the Betty Hill tale and the white coveralls from the Zamora/Socorro incident probably, but what about the five foot tall beings?

They didn’t become a popular item until after the 1978 influx of Roswellian stories that burst forth from the Stanton Friedman/Jesse Martel conversations, and the many books from which the little grays exploded as an ET meme.

At any rate, I hope that some of you can see that there is an inherent madness at the base of the UFO “reality” or mythos, as skeptics have it.

RR

Monday, March 06, 2017

Civilization(s): Unique to Earth

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The National Geographic channel (network) premiered a program about the origins of humankind.
The first episode, 3/6/2017, accented the rise of civilizations, here on Earth. And anyone who saw the program would see a vindication for my views that civilization, as know it, cannot, would not, arise on any other planet in the universe.

The show told about the rise of man, and his progress by discovering and using fire.
With a segment on the origination in China of gunpowder and a capsule account of the great London fire of 1666, one can only conclude that it’s the historical vicissitudes on our planet that created the various unique civilizations that have arisen and fallen here.
That another species on another planet coming to fruition in the same way as we humans, creating civilizations, as we know them, is as farfetched as any idea I can think of.

For scientists to say that they are looking for Earth-like planets with civilizations shows a delusional thought process that mimics anthropomorphic wishful thinking of a pathetic kind.

Yes, species on planets in the cosmos can arise, miraculously, as humans did here, but that they would come to our backwater planet in craft that is not that dissimilar to our own, from civilizations like ours is science fiction of a tepid kind.

UFOs are not interplanetary ships containing human-like beings, inquisitive about the flora and fauna found here.

It’s ludicrous.

N.B. Painting of London fire (above) by unknown artist comes from Wikipedia

RR