UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

The Extraterrestrial Robot Invasions?

You know my view about alien UFO intrusions: the Earth is so remote and insignificant in context of our galaxy and the Universe even more so that no extraterrestrial culture or society would bypass all the wonders in the Universe or our galaxy to make a wayside adventure to this lonely speck in the all.

However, for the sake of argument, let me offer that an advanced extraterrestrial civilization with unlimited resources and curiosity might send forth a slew of robotic entities (in UFOs) to explore all worlds that evince a spate of existence (life) and/or intelligence.

If that were the case, this might explain some odd UFO events (if we exclude some prosaic or conjectured explanations), such as:

The experience of Ezekiel in The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) whose vehicle, as described by the prophet, is more like a mechanical device than a metaphorical attempt at symbolism to make a religious point.
The 1951 Fred Reagan “abduction” where he was drawn 9from within his aircraft) into a UFO that contained small, glistening beings that looked like stalks of “metallic asparagus.”
The 1954 Quaroble Nord, France where Marias Dewilde saw 2 four feet tall “beings” lookingv as if they had on diving suits.
The 1957 Old Saybrook, Connecticut sighting by Mary Starr who spotted 2 figures (about 4 feet tall) with raised, right arms (no hands), squarish red-orange heads with a red-bulb in the center (which she thought might be helmets).
The 1965 Jerry Townsend sighting of three beer-can-like robots that exited from a rocket-shaped object.
The 1977 Lee Parrish observation (from a hypnotic regression session) of a “three  machine-like beings (one 20 feet tall and the others about 6 feet tall),  tombstone-shaped, (one white, the others black) that were featureless and eventually merging like those Russian nesting dolls.
The 1977 La Rubia event
 The 1979 Robert Taylor encounter, seen, sensibly, as an epileptic seizure, but could have been a robotic probe.
The 1989  Voronezh episode seen by several children and a police officer, with a description of a "three-eyed alien" and a robot exiting the craft.
N.B. Some illustrations and content used come from Apro, bogleech.com, ufocasebook, ufoevidence, deviantart.com, and the Patrick Huyghe/Harry Trumbore book The Field Guide to Extraterrestrials [Avon paperback NY, 1996]


Tuesday, October 06, 2015

Nick Redfern’s new Men in Black book: A Consideration

Nick Redfern’s follow up to his 2011 hot seller The Real Men in Black is Men in Black: Personal Stories & Eerie Adventures [Lisa Hagen Books, 2015, paperback] and sells for $13.49 at Amazon and other book sellers.

The new MIB book contains experiences and observations from 31 UFO personalities, paranormalists, and regular folks. Among the names known to you are Brad Steiger, Micah Hanks, and Chris Knowles, but don’t let the lesser known names slip by. Their stories are fascinating and weird and told without guile.

(I’ll be presenting here, upcoming, some of the MIB stories from the book.)

This book is an addendum to Nick’s previous effort and fleshes out the MIB phenomenon even further, as Nick’s journalistic work does with all the subjects he tackles.

If you are entranced by the MIB appearances in UFO lore, you have to have or read this book.

Moreover, all of us who are addicted to the UFO phenomenon in all its facets should buy, to support, those, like Nick, who work diligently to clarify the fringe items that impact our reality.

Nick and a few others do real investigation and journalism which should supplant the frass that passes for UFO research.

Buying/supporting the work of the real investigators will surely cleanse the ufological palate.

So buy the book. You will be enlightened and edified in ways that will enhance your paranormal life and you’ll encourage work that really means something.


Monday, October 05, 2015

The August 21st, 1955 Hopkinsville UFO event (and then some)

My Facebook pal Greg Newkirk is obsessed with the Sutton family's 1955 alleged encounter in Hopkinsville, Kentucky with creatures ostensibly from a UFO landing or crash .

The fascinating and "authentic" event, according to many UFO buffs, is given a Wikipedia entry that opens thusly:

"The Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter, also known as the Hopkinsville Goblins Case, and to a lesser extent the Kelly Green Men Case, was a series of incidents of alleged close encounters with supposed extraterrestrial beings. These were reported in 1955, the most famous and well-publicized of which centered on a rural farmhouse, at the time belonging to the Sutton family, which was located between the hamlet of Kelly and the small city of Hopkinsville, both in Christian County, Kentucky, United States.

Members of two families at the farmhouse reported seeing unidentifiable creatures. Other witnesses attested to lights in the sky and odd sounds.

The events are regarded by UFOlogists as one of the most significant and well-documented cases in the history of UFO incidents, and are a favorite for study in ufology. UFOlogists have claimed it was investigated by the United States Air Force, although no evidence of an investigation has been found."

The full Wikipedia account can be found here:


And a YouTube rendition here:


But Greg's pursuit of the matter has opened the ongoing mystery to Men in Black and the creatures reconstituted to "goblins" hiding still in a mountain nearby that Greg and his weekinweird.com comrades are going to investigate once more. The story recounted here from Greg's web-site and reportage:


I've always found the story told by the Suttons and friends who were there to be beyond a psychological explanation or hoax scenario.

The elaboration of the tale up to today strikes me as "gilding the lily" but if Greg thinks it has paranormal value and requires ongoing investigation, I'll defer to his usually stable research methodology.

And I'll update the continuing pursuit of the story, as recounted by Greg via his Facebook postings, for those who don't have access.


Why am I so snarky/belligerent about UFOs/Roswell?

I’m a UFO buff, and have been since my youth. The topic and alleged phenomenon fascinates me to this day.

But I’m amidst media people and psychologists because of my MediaWatch activity and training.

(You will see some of those associations at my various Facebook pages,)

While I attack “ufology” and Roswell discussions elsewhere, that stems from the intellectual environment in which I’m immersed, and many of my views come from the ambiance I adopt from our UFO web-site(s).

Media people think UFOs goofy and people who are absorbed in them a bit off-kilter, me among them.

My psychology friends (and neurology associates of my son Josh, who often inhabit our lake places) weigh in with views that indicate they think UFO aficionados have mental problems of many kinds; they don’t think highly of UFO oriented persons.)

This causes me to reflect as I do on the state of ufology and UFOs as I do.

Anyone who steps back and looks at UFO discussions at blogs and web-sites has to see a perverse use of intelligence and logic, as the late Richard Hall had it while active in the UFO community.

So, while this blog attracts a silent majority (evidence by the “hits” it gets daily), the people who skirt commentary here and load it upon such places at Kevin Randle’s blog, as a form of catharsis, are happy in their ignorance and I should ignore them, but can’t.

Such stupidity is grist for my observations about the mentality of the great unwashed, the body politic, and UFO buffs in particular.

My nature is critical, and I apologize to those who hate my egotistical, elitist stance here.

But there it is….


Sunday, October 04, 2015

Looking for a [UFO] reality

When Plato suggested a real reality, outside the one humans perceive, with his cave allegory, it opened the door to philosophical musings, about what constitutes reality, to this day.

But there are other realities that humans have tried to determine or clarify.

Theologians seek a reality after this one. Historians try to determine the socio-political realities of the past and present day.

Anthropologists look for the cultural realities of former societies. Archeologists look for the social environments and venues of past existences, human and otherwise.

Artists, of the painter-kind, have tried to capture the realities of their places and times until the modern era when Dada, Surrealism, abstract expressionists, et al. strove to capture the reality that Plato hinted at.

Scientists, especially physicists, look for the cosmological and infinitesimal realities that surround mankind.

Then there are the psychedelic buffs, of which I have a few as Facebook friends, who think that LSD and hallucinogenic drugs take us to the Platonic reality when, in fact, all that psychedelics do is distort the “sensory reality” of the person ingesting such drugs, as Oliver Sacks discovered.

For the purpose of this blog, I’m looking for the reality that ufologists (UFO buffs) are looking for by their interest in the UFO phenomenon (or phenomena, if you want).

What do UFO buffs hope to obtain by discovering what UFOs (or their antecedents, flying saucers) are?

I assume that most UFO aficionados hope that UFOs are extraterrestrial flying craft; some looking at UFOs as a strange phenomenon rather than vehicles for alien visitors to the Earth, and a few feeling that UFOs are a mental or mythical aberration.

But what explanatory reality satisfies?

My typing these things in this blog may be only true to me; that is, my “consciousness” may be a chimera altogether, a concoction that I alone experience, or seem to.

But, for the sake of my contrived argument, let’s assume that you reading this are real and perceiving the same reality that I am.

If UFOs are ET vehicles, maintained by alien intruders, what reality do we have?

We have “proof” that humans are not alone in the Universe, but where do we take that?

From time immemorial and currently, we have nothing more than an imaginative intuition that UFOs contain living entities from elsewhere.

We have nothing more: no evidence for an ET existence, no real proof that UFOs are anything more than a figment of human desire and very likely an hallucinogenic imagery despite a sometimes (apparent) physical presence.

That UFO buffs have exerted inordinate energy, time, and resources to confirm their desired reality, whether the extraterrestrial reality or the strange phenomenal reality or the mythical reality, that’s still a ‘philosophical-like” pursuit that has ended up nowhere thus far.

(I’m taking a shot at the ongoing Roswell regurgitation at Kevin Randles’ blog where a useless and psychopathological foray into the detritus of the Roswell incident has come to consume a few UFO buffs who have descended into a reality not unlike that which the psychedelic crowd indulges in. It’s nonsensical and foolish in the extreme, but can’t be assuaged by the suggestion that the debate is as near to insanity than anything in the psychiatric literature. That is that search for reality is so bizarre and outside the normalcy of intelligent conversation that it can be dismissed by we who presume to be mentally whole.)

Mankind, we humans, has/have always been consumed by a desire or need to know what reality really is.

And we’ve pursued that desire or need in various ways, some of those ways satiating an emotional need on our part, and often producing some of mankind’s finest efforts that transcend the brutishness intrinsic to our existence and being.

But the search for a UFO reality has become (and always been?) a pursuit marred by an idiocy that is incomprehensible to other persons outside the UFO fold who are barely compos mentis themselves.

Should the search fro a UFO reality continue? Yes, as a pastime for a few intellectual individuals, operating outside the pathological milieu that now suffuses the UFO topic.

But those sane, commonsense pursuers have got to make sure that the mentally deficient members of the present UFO community don’t sneak into their effort, much as Homeland Security attempts to keep terrorists from disrupting the body politic.

It shall be daunting but if one is serious about explaining UFOs or discerning the UFO reality, it has to be done….now.


Friday, October 02, 2015

Shakespeare and Roswell

Now what would Shakespeare have to do with the Roswell incident?

Shakespeare provides in his works, especially the tragedies, the little things that bring about disaster or mayhem.

For instance, in Romeo and Juliet, the sleeping potion Juliet takes to feign death is mistaken by Romeo, when he finds her on a funeral bier, as her death, and thus kills himself in grief.

In Othello, a handkerchief, which was a gift from Othello to his wife, Desdemona, dropped inadvertently by Othello, is picked up by Iago and used to instill jealousy in Othello by indicating that Desdemona gave the handkerchief to Cassio, Othello’s chief lieutenant, because Cassio was Desdmona’s secret lover. Othello strangles Desdemona in a jealous rage.

In Hamlet, found letters push the plot to this end:

“Hamlet explains to Horatio that he had discovered Claudius's letter [about killing Hamlet] with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's belongings and replaced it with a forged copy indicating that his former friends should be killed instead. A foppish courtier, Osric, interrupts the conversation to deliver [a] fencing challenge to Hamlet. Hamlet, despite Horatio's advice, accepts it. Hamlet does well to start, leading the match by two hits to zero, and Gertrude raises a toast to him using the poisoned glass of wine Claudius had set aside for Hamlet. Claudius tries to stop her, but is too late: she drinks, and Laertes realizes the plot will be revealed. Laertes slashes Hamlet with his poisoned blade. In the ensuing scuffle, they switch weapons and Hamlet wounds Laertes with his own poisoned sword. Gertrude collapses and, claiming she has been poisoned, dies. In his dying moments, Laertes reconciles with Hamlet and reveals Claudius's plan. Hamlet rushes Claudius and kills him. As the poison takes effect, Hamlet, hearing that Fortinbras is marching through the area, names the Norwegian prince as his successor. Horatio, distraught at the thought of being the last survivor, says he will commit suicide by drinking the dregs of Gertrude's poisoned wine, but Hamlet begs him to live on and tell his story. Hamlet dies, proclaiming ‘the rest is silence.’”

Now here’s the Roswell connection:

The Haut press release about the Army recovering a flying disc is the progenitor of the Roswell myth: a little thing – it was a corruption of “flying disc” for the era,which meant only a odd array of stuff connected to press accounts of items tied to flying saucer reports and had nothing to do with extraterrestrial craft flying around and crashing to Earth.

“Flying disc” inside an Army instigated document created and fostered a mythos that had gotten out of hand in the late 1970s by a foolish interpretation  of “flying disc” and the resultant desire of many mentally quirked Roswellians and UFO buffs to create an extraterrestrial patina to a prosaic event involving balloon debris or junk from a somewhat secret military operation.

It’s simple.

A relatively tiny misuse of a common term for the 1947 spate of so-called flying saucer accounts created an environment ripe for the preference of ufologists to tie a phenomenon to alien craft and alien intrusion of Earth, a sci-fi predilection that has grown beyond what makes for reality, and has become so embedded in the psyche of some that to shake it loose has become impossible.


Thursday, October 01, 2015

Nick Redfern on "Rosemary's Baby" -- No, it's not his...



Wednesday, September 30, 2015

The Strange Case of Ermine de Reims

For those who are enthralled by the UFO abductee (experiencer) phenomenon:

(Consider this book as a significant supplemental to my Betrayal posting of the other day.)


A Roswell response that is a gem!

Brian Bell is an occasional visitor/commentator here and a stalwart at Kevin Randle's blog.

He provided a comment at Mr. Randle's blog that I've grabbed and post here as it is right on the button about Roswell. our friend, Kevin, and Roswellians all.

He was replying to Kevin's plea for sources from Mr. Bell, who asked for such from another at the blog.

(I hope he and Kevin forgive me for the plunder.)

Brian Bell said...

Not really Kevin. And for the record here's why.

Most of what people are asking for is already either obtainable with a little bit of effort, or they're just trying to be crass and annoying by asking someone to go chase down a rabbit hole for information so they can in return then dismiss their comments or discourage them from any further posts.

It's a nice tactic if you want to get somebody off your back. You just say, "oh go away until you find me a bunch of sources because I don't believe you anyway." It's a dismissal tactic for people interested in ignoring what they don't want to consider.

Given that on your blog even you have conjectured without any documented sources, I don't think conjecture in the conversation regarding Roswell requires absolute definitive and detailed verification of absolutely every single CONJECTURED point when it comes to ALTERNATIVE THEORY based on some factual information.

Bear in mind it's you and all of your followers who believe Roswell was the cosmic event of all time, but who also have the burden of proof on your backs. Not mine.

I think we may have pointed that out a dozen times already. If you want to convince the world, or me, that what you claim actually happened you can't tell people (or me) who don't believe your claim that we or I have to prove it never did happen. Of course that's what believers like to do: "I claim ET has arrived, I have no definitive proof only conjecture, but if you don't believe it's true because I say it is, then you have to prove my conjectured truth claim wrong." That strategy is just gaming your hypothesis to suit your needs.

If you really want a "different perspective" stand back and let people have a go at legitimate and logical counter discussion and alternative theories which are very much linked to factual data instead of trying to get them to shut up by telling them to chase down rabbit holes to prove what you believe happened or didn't happen because it doesn't match your truth claim that has not even been proven.

If anything your knowledge of Roswell should be used in a consultative, unbiased, and open dialogue fashion, rather than as a baseball bat used to intimidate others into believing what you insist must be true despite no physical evidence.

Other researchers like yourself pondered the same conundrum with the greatest of frustration. But, they ended up concluding the very same thing you call skeptics are claiming can't be so.

What happened at Roswell most definitely leans toward prosaic when all credible information is examined. If ET exists the evidence so far indicates didn't nose dive his spaceship into the sand on the Foster Ranch.

You're a smart guy Kevin, you should be able to understand that. But I think you're way too close to the subject to have any true unbiased objectivity.

This blog may be about you stepping back and thinking about all of the decades you've put into Roswell, but on a scale of reflective thought I think you only moved about 2 mm away from where you were in the 1990s.

Much of your anchor points fell apart when witnesses identified they had lied about the cornerstone of the very story you claim is real. Of course you and others base much of your remaining claims on 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes 4th hand memory deficient recollections or witnesses and researchers who still manipulate their comments to suit their agenda.

Of course not finding what you want is disappointing for anybody who spent decades of research on something they think is real.

But regardless, you and others deflect, ignore, defer, minimize or sanction certain legitimate topics or conversation points as not being eligible for commentary. Why? I can only conclude because you're trying to control the data.

In other words your bias is your Achilles heel.
8:15 AM

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The betrayal(s) of the gods: the UFO connection

That God, or The Almighty Intelligence, if it exists, has betrayed mankind, in whole, and humans individually, is obvious, despite the disregard by religious ignoramuses.

God (which I’ll use as the epithet for convenience) is the fount of Evil, as Aristotle outlined in his “Captain of the ship” analogy, which even Thomas Aquinas couldn’t debunk.

Question 49, Article 2 ff. in Summa Theologica:

Object 3. Further, as is said by the Philosopher [Aristotle], the cause of both the safety and danger of he ship is the same. But God is the cause of the safety of all things. Therefore  He is the cause of all perdition and of all evil.

Aquinas answers … “But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause.”

The defense of God then follows a convoluted discourse that doesn’t let God off the hook, regardless of Aquinas’ brilliance, with support from Augustine.

Carl Jung’s God didn’t consist of a Trinity but, as defined by Jung’s predilection for Gnostic belief, God is a Quaternity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Satan (or Evil).

For definitive explanations about the concept of Satan, see The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels [Vintage Books/Random House, Inc. NY, 1995] and The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity by Jeffrey Burton Russell [Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1977] plus Giving the Devil His Due [Newsweek, August 30, 1982].

The Gnostic view of Satan (or Evil) can be found in many Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi texts found in 1945, Egypt.

The early Church euphemized the concept of Evil delineated by the Gnostics by separating out, or anthropomorphizing, God’s evil nature and calling it Satan.

(Ufologists and paranormalists do the same thing by attributing the Evil nature of God to a separate being: The Trickster.)

What is disturbing, for me (and others of a theological bent) is how blatant God’s indifference or actual acts of Evil reported in The Hebrew Bible and Old Testament are.

But a survey of history, aside from religious texts, recounts a massive amount of Evil deeds abided by God: the death and servitude of the Jews (the Hebrew peoples, God’s so-called “chosen people”), the martyrdom of early Christians, and the man-incurred deaths of Saints: Jeanne d’Arc, Anthony plus the most horrendous act of deliberate indifference by God: The Holocaust.

God has betrayed His people time and again, and no amount of academic/theological rumination can eliminate the obvious: God has betrayed everyone, even Himself, in the form of Jesus/Christ as clarified by Jung is his Answer to Job.

But now to UFOs and what witnesses of that phenomenon have experienced…

UFO writers, Steiger and Vallee among them, have often, without the insipid Trickster label, allowed that maybe there is an Intelligence that has engaged in hoodwinking witnesses with ploys of bizarre kinds, like giving pancakes to an observer (The
Joe Simonton /Eagle River Case of April 1961) or offering guidance about the origin (homebase) of UFOs/flying saucers (the alleged Star Map of Betty Hill) or the Contactee sites from which flying saucers derive (Swedenborg/Saturn, William Magoon/Mars, Dana Howard/Venus, Frank Stranges/Venus, and so on).

Of course, the Contactees, as Nick Redfern covered in his book by that title, were fraudulent, as Vallee insists, but that was also the conclusion about Joan of Arc by the Church.

Spanish UFO researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca has provided a panoply of odd UFO encounters he says were instigated by an “external agent” – the idea similar to what the early Bible writers ascribed to God.

UFOs, all by themselves, without the patina of a God or obtuse aliens can be seen as a betrayal by the phenomenon unto itself; that is, the mystery remains clouded by erratic or queer behavior, as if directed by a force or forces out to fool human witnesses.

But to what end?

That’s what theologians have been dealing with when it comes to the supposed deity and sci-fi writers cope with when they incur a super intelligence.

The betrayal(s) by the gods, imagined or otherwise, are legion. And UFOs fall into that category by the sheer aspect of their evanescence and ongoing enigma.

We are being fooled, not by that hokum concoction, The Trickster, but by God, Himself, or the Supreme Intelligence, if there is one, that created the Universe.

But why?


Saturday, September 26, 2015

UFOs: Out of Context

While ruminating about the Robert Taylor 1979 event in Scotland, noted here the other day, it seemed to me that the episode, while receiving an acceptable (to me and others) etiology, was only partially viewed in its total context.

That is the time of day, location, weather, and Mr. Taylor’s medical examination were looked at thoroughly, but what about the societal context, of November 9th, 1979, the day of the “vision”?

And also what about the medical conclusion by physician Patricia Hannaford, that he had
an isolated attack of temporal lobe epilepsy?

What is the context for such a diagnosis; that is, how many temporal lobe epilepsies take place in the population – the occurrences, and where or how?

That the “explanation” is fine with me, doesn’t mean that the event is conclusively proven.

This also applies to other UFO events, Roswell among them, the Zamora/Socorro sighting, and such unique sightings as the 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter/Hillsdale “swamp gas”

Every sighting has a context that transcends what witnesses and UFO “researchers” get into.

The Betty/Barney Hill “abduction” had an ongoing context that was superceded by the ET hypothesis, as has Roswell.

Roswell, in June/July 1947, had a vast context that has been buried by the bias that a flying saucer or saucers crashed there.

Roswell, amidst the New Mexico atomic bomb development (Los Alamos Laboratory, nearby), and such places as the nascent Air Force Materiel Command's Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirkland Air Force base, and Alamogordo, among other iconic atomic facilities, has never be studied sociologically; that is, no one had or has determined the mind-sets of the Roswell population: military personnel or, especially the public at large,

The context of the United States has been given a cursory glance by ufologists but nothing pertinent to the flying saucer awareness by Roswellians, particularly those who claimed to have witnessed the alleged crashed disks and/or bodies that were allegedly in them.

The weather conditions for June/July 1947 have been given a glance but not a distinct evaluation by bona fide meteorologists who might be able to clarify the extent of the said storms that occurred in the Roswell incident time-frame.

Other flying saucer sightings in the time period have been recounted and that helps clarify what was being lauded as odd flying craft in other areas, outside Roswell.

And that data would also apply to the 1964 Socorro event or the Robert Taylor episode.

Context means a totality of data and information that is absolutely necessary to determine what the reality of a reported or experienced event is.

History is more often than not remiss in getting the details correct of a significant event.

(This is made clear in a new book, Wellington: Waterloo and the fortunes of peace by Rory Muir [Yale University Press, 713 pp. $40], a recounting of the life of the Duke of Wellington that clarifies and corrects much that has been miscast by other biographers and historians of Napoleon’s famous defeat.)

For Socorro, the other similar sightings recounted in the time-frame, and the military testings of various new space technologies, need to be taken into account if one wants to get a handle on what police officer Lonnie Zamora saw.

To ascribe the Zamora sighting as an ET craft is a wished-for explanation without benefit of what was happening elsewhere and even in the vicinity of Socorro, also nearby the same facilities that influence the Roswell happening(s).

In the 1966 Ann Arbor (Dexter,) actually “swamp gas” sighting, an identical sighting at Hillsdale, fifty miles to the southwest, took place but was not particularly tied to the Ann Arbor/Dexter sighting by farmer Frank Mannor.

However, the Hillsdale sighting by college co-eds indicate that either Frank Mannor and the co-eds saw similar swamp gas emissions, highly unlikely it seems to me, or had similar hallucinations, also unlikely, or both (and all) saw something identical in nature, at the same time.

Did they see a military test craft from the Selfridge Air National Guard base located in Mount Clemens. Michigan, about fifty-five miles from Dexter and thus about one hundred miles from Hillsdale? Unlikely.

Were there other sightings no far away, in the time-frame, March 1966? Yes, but not explored by the press at the time or ufologists since, generally.

The other element of the Context was the hysteria generated by the press accounts more than anything else. People were seeing flying things all over the place.

But the Mannor account and the accounts of the Hillsdale College co-eds indicate that something peculiar was seen, by sane persons, free of neurological misadventures, as far as can be determined at this late date.

Context is everything, in history, news reportage, in medical or psychiatric evaluations, and UFO events.

That context is eschewed by UFO investigators, except superficially, goes to the heart of why UFOs remain an enigma.

It’s too late to do much about the classic cases, but I do think Roswell might be distilled if only reasoning UFO aficionados take hold of the encrusted mythos.


Thursday, September 24, 2015

Drowning Ufologists

It’s inescapable, UFOs have become a true fringe topic, an outer fringe topic.

And those who’ve invested in the topic are striving to keep their (now) bête noire from disappearing altogether, even for UFO enthusiasts.

(The public has, pretty much, disavowed any interest in UFOs, seeking enthusiasms, instead, from celebrity and political figures.)

A friend of our, Bryan Sentes, tells me that UFOs and poetry come and go in waves. He’s right, of course.

Poetry has been making a comeback among the literati, for what reasons I’m not sure.

But UFOs’ last wave, among UFO buffs, came and went quickly with the farcical May 5th 2015 Roswell slides imbroglio.

Yet, desperate ufologists, like our friend Kevin Randle, and his quirky minions (blog followers), are clinging to that fiasco as a kind of ufological life preserver.

The problem is that no intelligent or sane person would cling to such a shoddy piece of the UFO mystique.

Thus, even the die-hards have got to see the handwriting on the wall: UFOs and especially the so-called Roswell incident, are deader than door-nails.

A recent commenter at Mr. Randle’s blog used the ridiculous term, skeptibunker, an epithet coined by the irrational crowd at the one-time, but now-dead UFO Updates.

It’s things like that which have further soiled UFO commentary, already a batch of irrational and psychopathic drivel.

While UFO oldies (geezers) are dropping like flies (dying off) – with many more to come before the end of 2015, all that is left are the UFO newbies and mid-scum buffs.

This doesn’t bode well for the phenomenon. It’s a death knell, as I keep trying to convince the rational among you.

UFOs are so remote from the public/media consciousness that the phenomenon can’t be driven to topicality, no matter how hard some try to make it so.

Those of us who see a remnant of purposeful study in the classic cases and sightings have got to go underground and pursue those case/sightings archaeologically and privately, hoping not to get caught in the swill and riptide of those who are fervently hanging on to Roswell as the savior of ufology….sorry Mr. Randle et al.


Wednesday, September 23, 2015

From our pal Bryan Sentes: Gynecological Gymnastics from Outer Space (1895)

Our academic friend, Bryan Sentes, who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, sent us this interesting medical item from 1895:
Gynecological Gymnastics from Outer Space (1895). A set of uncanny images from a 19th-century gynecological text-book, eye-catching today less for the gynecologal technique they depict but more the bizarre similarity between the rakishly thin figures employed in demonstrating the exercises and the figure of the so-called “Grey Alien” – thin body, huge head, large eyes – which wouldn’t hit popular consciousness for another 65 years. More images here: http://bit.ly/1OuCXYY

N.B. Make sure to check out the link (above).


Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception by John R Searle

This is from Amazon's cursory introduction to John Searle's book (entitled above):

"Searle begins by criticizing the classical theories of perception and identifies a single fallacy, what he calls the Bad Argument, as the source of nearly all of the confusions in the history of the philosophy of perception. He next justifies the claim that perceptual experiences have presentational intentionality and shows how this justifies the direct realism of his account. In the central theoretical chapters, he shows how it is possible that the raw phenomenology must necessarily determine certain form of intentionality. Searle introduces, in detail, the distinction between different levels of perception from the basic level to the higher levels and shows the internal relation between the features of the experience and the states of affairs presented by the experience. The account applies not just to language possessing human beings but to infants and conscious animals. He also discusses how the account relates to certain traditional puzzles about spectrum inversion, color and size constancy and the brain-in-the-vat thought experiments. In the final chapters he explains and refutes Disjunctivist theories of perception, explains the role of unconscious perception, and concludes by discussing traditional problems of perception such as skepticism."

This is from Wikipedia about John Searle:

John Rogers Searle (/sɜrl/; born July 31, 1932) is an American philosopher and currently the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. Widely noted for his contributions to thephilosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy, he began teaching at Berkeley in 1959. He received the Jean Nicod Prize in 2000; the National Humanities Medal in 2004 and the Mind and Brain Prize in 2006. Among his notable concepts is the "Chinese room" argument against "strong" artificial intelligence.

You can read the whole Searle bio here:


Some comments from the Wikipedia article:

Searle argues that philosophy has been trapped by a false dichotomy: that, on the one hand, the world consists of nothing but objective particles in fields of force, but that yet, on the other hand, consciousness is clearly a subjective first-person experience.

Searle says simply that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain. (A view which he suggests might be called biological naturalism.)

Searle goes on to affirm that "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality".[40] His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism.

A consequence of biological naturalism is that if we want to create a conscious being, we will have to duplicate whatever physical processes the brain goes through to cause consciousness. Searle thereby means to contradict what he calls "Strong AI", defined by the assumption that as soon as a certain kind of software is running on a computer, a conscious being is thereby created.

Searle argues that this is impossible, since consciousness is a physical property, like digestion or fire. No matter how good a simulation of digestion you build on the computer, it will not digest anything; no matter how well you simulate fire, nothing will get burnt. By contrast, informational processes are observer-relative: observers pick out certain patterns in the world and consider them information processes, but information processes are not things-in-the-world themselves. Since they do not exist at a physical level, Searle argues, they cannot have causal efficacy and thus cannot cause consciousness. There is no physical law, Searle insists, that can see the equivalence between a personal computer, a series of ping-pong balls and beer cans, and a pipe-and-water system all implementing the same program.

Why am I presenting this here?

It represents a collegial/academic approach to the study of UFOs, a new kind of ufology as it were.

That is, the discussion of UFOs has got to enter a new phase, a reboot, as Psychologist Tim Brigham recommended in a comment to my posting about the demise of "ufology."

Ufology, as it is, is worthless, dead in every sense of the term...except to those who think "the Walking Dead" are viable creatures.

Ufology, and Roswell, with it, despite my friend Kevin Randle's insistent resurrection of Roswell (to what end, baffles), need to be addressed (or refreshed) in new ways, using a new sobriquet and methodology that takes into account the rational aspects of philosophy, psychology, neurology, and the physical sciences such as cosmology and quantum mechanics.

Understanding Searle and other thinkers, skeptics among, them is a first step in intellectualizing UFOs and a new "ufology."

Any suggestions for a new agnomen is welcome for discussion.


Monday, September 21, 2015

A 1940 Rocket experiment at Roswell (photo-news item)

Spanish UFO researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca has sent us a 1940 news story (with photo) of rocket scientists carrying their rocket, used in a launch experiment:


Nothing to do with so-called Roswell incident but interesting, yes?


Sunday, September 20, 2015

A UFO Event: Not an atypical UFO account

The  bizarre 1979 Robert Taylor “UFO encounter” has shown up again in internet UFO discussions.

It’s been a favorite of mine, because it is bizarre, and seemingly unique, yet it isn’t unique but a template for explaining other UFO accounts.

Here’s the Wikipedia rendition of the tale:

And here is an explanation in that Wikipedia summary:

“Patricia Hannaford, founder of the Edinburgh University UFO Research Society and a qualified physician advised Campbell on medical aspects of the case. She suggested that Taylor's collapse was an isolated attack of temporal lobe epilepsy, and the fit explained the objects as hallucinations. Symptoms such as Taylor's previous meningitis, his report of a strong smell which nobody else could detect, his headache, dry throat, paralysis of his legs and period of unconsciousness suggested this cause.”

This explanation could apply to many of the ground level UFO reports, and some abduction accounts: the Pascagoula and Travis Walton encounters to name a few.

The problem is, and has always been, the lack of intensive investigation by UFO “researchers” who often just study and recount UFO events superficially, juxtaposed with a bias that is based in the ET hypothesis; that is, flying saucers and UFOs derive from extraterrestrial visitation.

Now there are many UFO accounts that cannot and should not be addressed by a neurological or psychological etiology.

But separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were, could eliminate many UFO reports from the mysterious category, allowing a scrutiny of the truly strange phenomenological sightings, something Blue Book or the Condon study didn’t do and UFO investigators are not doing and never have.

If ufology is dead, and it is, a new approach and sobriquet should surely take into account the ramifications of biology, psychology, neurology, and other disciplines that have been ignored by the amateurs who’ve mucked up most, if not all, UFO accounts in the literature, including that UFO albatross, Roswell.


Saturday, September 19, 2015

Dreamtime and UFOs

In the Dreamtime of the Saucer People: Sense-making and Interpretive Boundaries in a Contactee Group [Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2002; 31; 675] by DIANA G. TUMMINIA [who] teaches social psychology, theory, gender, and race relations at California State University, Sacramento. She studied ethnographic research at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her publications range from essays on teaching to the social histories of various millenarian movements.

Click here to read her paper: Dreamtime


Friday, September 18, 2015

NIck Redfern on Dangerous books [Does he mean those large dictionaries that can break a toe if you drop one on your foot?]



Nick Redfern's Tribute to Walt Andrus


Nick Redfern informs us that a UFO pioneer, Walt Andrus, has passed