UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Gods, not ETs?

Ancient Aliens on The History Channel had a new show, 7/22/16, ravaging Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, which is okay with me. The show was entitled The Prototypes and recounted the many diverse species of mankind that don’t follow the Darwinian path of evolution.

One of the problems, for me, is the dopey characters – excluding my pal Nick Redfern – who narrate portions of each show: Childress, Wilcocks, Noory, et al. and the certitude that aliens are responsible for life on Earth and all that mankind has attained, somehow.

The primary problem is that AA theorists assume the ridiculous idea that aliens from afar have spent (and are spending) lots of time here [Earth] to abduct humans now and spent much of our historical time readapting human DNA or accelerating technical advances.

You know my views on alien intrusions: the Earth is such a forlorn, backwater in our galaxy and even more so the Universe itself that any advanced alien species allotting such inordinate time reconnoitering this planet and involving itself in its machinations would have to be insane, not advanced.

So, for me, one can rule out alien incursions via UFOs or anything else to explain odd occurrences in man’s evolutionary trek.

But then we are left with few other explanations for the bizarre artifacts and happenings that show up when one scrutinizes events and sightings of weird things in the sky and on the ground, as recounted by records and reports over the years and even today.

So, the AA scenario remains a viable but loony proposition.

Then we have the religious scenarios: God created all hat exists and has impacted human kind with His or Her psychopathic behavior. (God is nuts, as The Gnostics have it.)

But even then why would God, like ancient astronauts, spend so much time on this flawed domain?

Here’s one possibility:

The Church of the Latter Day Saints, Mormons, believe that men evolve as gods (the “exaltation”) and such men have control over portions of the Universe, and the god who supervises our part of the Universe has made it what it is:


“Latter-Day Saints do not believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the only three gods there are. Rather, they believe in (though do not worship) a "plurality" of gods, gods without number, each one ruling his own creation. Thus, the three separate gods who rule our universe are finite in power—they sustain and govern only a tiny portion of all that exists.

“The other gods have either preceded or followed the Heavenly Father who organized our world. In fact, men living today on this planet will one day become gods of their own universes. As such, they will mate with heavenly wives, beget spirit children, populate new worlds, and receive the worship and obedience we are now expected to give to our particular, current God.”

This is just as palpable, maybe more so, that the AA theory or the God explanations of religious cults.

(Or we are in a “matrix” controlled by a madman or insane group of entities that could be assigned the sobriquet God.)

[Image used atop this post from nowscape.com]

RR

Thursday, July 21, 2016

In defense of the 1994 Ariel School (Ruwa, Zimbabwe) UFO event and the children who allegedly witnessed it

Robert Sheaffer provided a posting about Gilles Fernandez’ report on the 1994 Ruwa, Zimbabwe alleged UFO encounter by students at the Ariel school there:


I’ve covered this account several times, myself, and recently linked Gilles’ exemplary evaluation of the way Cynthia Hind, a UFO “researcher” and noted psychiatrist John Mack interviewed the children involved.

Here is an internet link to an article about how clumsy or errant interviewing goes astray. (The piece is about sexual abuse but the same exigencies apply to any kind of interview to get at the truth of a matter):

Interviewing sexually abused children

However, there are caveats with the contamination explanation offered, brilliantly, by Gilles.

A purview of the Two Volume Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, 3rd Edition [John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, 1946, 1954, 1970, Paul H. Mussen, Editor] allows for acceptance of child accounts as linguistically and mentally accurate; that is, free of fabrication or deviousness, unless one is dealing with a child who is predisposed to schizophrenia or other serious behavioral disorder.

An elaborate exegesis of how children see, remember, and recall moments is covered in Volume One, Page 944 ff…

“According to Bruner (1964, 1966a), the child [ages 7 to 11] first masters “enactive” representation … he then becomes capable of “ikonic” representation which summarizes events by selective organization of percepts and of images, by the spatial, temporal and qualitative structures of the perceptual field and their transformed images.” [ibid. Page 948]

However, “A human being can witness a [event] without at the time perceiving it himself…When this deferred imitation (Piaget, 1945) leads to a learned strengthening of the response, observational learning is said to occur.” [ibid. Page 956]

In a portion devoted to creative problem solving, there is this:

“Some of the ‘discovery’ methods confront children with questions and require[s] them to find the answers to them through their own efforts.” [Mackworth (1965) and Guilford (1956, 1967), ibid. Page 972].

One can assume that John Mack is familiar with the studies and literature, and while I watched Dr. Mack in the proffered interview segments, it was obvious to me, from my observations at Eloise Hospital (Wayne County, Michigan) between psychiatrists and patients during my psychological training (Wayne State University) that Dr, Mack was aware of the proper procedures for acquiring accurate information from those children he interviewed.

Yet, Gilles’ – a cognitive psychologist – contamination scenario strikes me as valid to a large extent.

The children weren’t confabulating but surely could have been influenced by their peers’ responses and Ms. Hind’s UFO predilections.

But to continue to present their “stories” – two months after the alleged event when Dr, Mack interviewed them and later in life, when grown up – would vitiate the idea that actual contamination took place, despite the onerous hypothesis Gilles so astutely presents.

That is, the children saw something odd, and did their best to portray that observation as best as they could, under the bizarre circumstances.

Mr. Sheaffer provides, surprisingly, a glib, facile observation in his posting.

Gilles, at least, offers substantive material to augment his skeptical view.

Zoam Chomsky merely excoriates the tale (or actual event) in his usual dynamic but breezy way.

This is a “UFO event” that needs more study, and follow-up, since the witnesses are still with us and at an age and in a mental condition to provide better and/or more information.

Let’s not be so hasty to write the account off because skeptics hate the idea that people see strange things and report them.

In this instance, challenging the view of children is particularly abominable, unless one has distinct evidence that such children are sociopaths or even psychopaths, both rare in children at the ages of those who saw the odd craft and odd being supposedly from it.

RR

Nick Redfern on various TV icons (that may have inspired MIB tales)


RR

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Three items of interest (perhaps)

I can't explain this spike:
This is a 3-D picture of the Universe (as explained). My 3-D glasses produced nothing (Mouse over the image to enlarge):
The new Einstein?

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/12/the-next-einstein-radical-new-theory.html#.V4-_rdQrKt8

N.B. The spike is from my Blogger account stats. The other items are from my MediaWatch Facebook news feed.

RR

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

For my ET-centric readers


Monday, July 18, 2016

The Ariel School, Ruwa, Zimbabwe 1994 "UFO event" [Redux]

A few weeks back I noted the UFO/creature sighting, titled above.

That 1994 episode has been brought up again at Kevin Randle's blog, where he's listed his top 10 UFO sightings and someone slipped the Ariel School episode in, allowing comments from our friend Zoam Chomsky and a note from mon ami Gilles Fernandez who has written a psychological exegesis at his blog, which is a must-read for those who want to understand how UFO investigations go awry:

http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2016/06/rencontre-rapprochee-ariel-school-ruwa.html

(Use the translator to read Gilles' posting in English.)

While Gille's evaluation of "contamination" is important and accurate, there are minute details among the school children's rendition of their "experience" that reside outside the contamination sobriquet.

The stories offered by the children, two months after the alleged UFO encounter, and told to Dr. John Mack, remained intact, and vivid, something that belies contamination, especially with children.

" ... contamination is a pathological response, pathognomonic of schizophrenia ..." [Psychiatric Dictionary, 4th Edition, Hinsie/Campbell]

Although Gilles is not using contamination in the psychiatric sense, but in the common parlance where one assumes that interactions between witnesses to an event affect and stimulate each other, as well may be the case in the Ariel sighting. But that's open to debate in this account of a strange being from a strange craft coming into contact with a bevy of school children.

The episode is not as easily written off as Zoam would make it, nor as easily explained as Gilles eruditely provides.

It's a fascinating case study for psychologists or sociologists, and "ufologists."

RR

Come on......be intelligent

Do you still think that Earth is a place that an advanced species would visit, as often as UFO reports indicate, when there are so many other places open to and inviting visitation?

And don't give me that "next door" argument; i.e., ETs close by, in The Milky Way, are the visitors.

A truly advanced alien species would traverse the Universe cataloging other life forms. and not spend so much time hovering around this hell-hole.

RR

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Before The BIG Bang

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2015/01/what-existed-before-big-bang.html#.V4vykNQrKt8

RR

Saturday, July 16, 2016

NIck Bostrom's views on ETs (which are exactly, or almost so, like mine)!

http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf

RR

Friday, July 15, 2016

Artificial Intelligence: The Retreat

Nick Bostrom (his most recent book on AI pictured here) along with Kurweil, Barrat, et al., alarmed personages such as Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, and Elon Musk, with the idea that the end-of-mankind scenario would be brought about by intelligent machines.

Yet, Dr. Bostrom, in an afterward, written in November 2015, to the paperback version actually backs off his initial forays into the dangers of AI, as the end-of-mankind-singularity.

And why did he do so?

Here's a clue from that afterword:

"It is no part of this book's argument that an intelligent explosion is imminent ..." [Superintelligence, Page 322]

"Those inane Terminator pictures are taking a toll. It can't be much fun to have aspersions cast on one's academic discipline." [ibid., Page 323]

Apparently, pressure from Bostrom's peers (and bosses?) have suppressed his one-time view that an AI Singularity was, indeed, imminent and would take control of mankind, eliminating the human species along the way.

I see his original Singularity, and that of Barrat, Kurzweil, and others as a distinct possibility, and continue to suggest the idea that UFOs may be AI machines or contain AI machines, and that they have been and are reconnoitering Earth, like von Neumann probes.

RR

UFOs: Death by Murder

I’m not a “conspiracist” by nature, but I am well-read enough to know that conspiracies to eliminate persons of power or knowledge have often been committed in human history:

Tutankhamun, Julius Caesar, Jesus of Nazareth, Thomas Beckett, King Ludwig II, Leon Trotsky, et al.
There are countless others.)

I just finished Where’s the Truth edited by Mary Boyd Higgins [Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NY, 2012] which is a compendium of journal writings, diary entries, and letters from Wilhelm Reich (from 1948 to his “death” in November 1957).

I’ve always felt that Dr. Reich was killed by operatives of the government who wanted to stifle his odd work (and experiments) with orgone energy and UFOs, too.

The book provides a plethora of incidents and legal maneuvers of a diabolic kind to put Dr. Reich out of business and out of life.
In the context of the Cold War, where the mind-set of the United States government was likened to the communist behavioral modus – the end justifies the means  -- anything was okay to do, even to killing persons who were inimical to U.S. geo-political aims.

(I have a book coming – Against their Will: The Secret History of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America [Pargrave] – that shows how the government behaved in the time-frame (and also supplements or supports Nick Redfern’s thesis in his book, Body Snatchers in the Desert).

The Cold War provoked illegal and murderous activity instigated by the highest levels of the U.S. government, which has always made me think that James Forrestal was thrown out the hospital window where he was a patient….mostly because this was something that happened to another “enemy” of the U.S. government (cited here, at this blog, earlier).
Forrestal was involved in flying saucer business, as was M.K. Jessup (also dying mysteriously), Ed Ruppelt, head of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book (who had a “heart attack” at an early age, much as Dr, Reich supposedly had), Dr. James McDonald who was a heavy advocate of UFO reality and prominent in the matter; he committed suicide allegedly, and others as listed at this web-site The Awake Zone and also amply reported by our pal, Nick Redfern:


My point is that, while UFO deaths might be natural, there are accounts that raise the issue of possible murder, and that because agents of the U.S. government were inclined to kill people who might disclose secrets – UFO secrets – that were not meant to be opened to public scrutiny.

But the question that needs to be addressed is Why?

RR

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The Macro-Reality of Quantum and UFOs

An internet link from the Science web-site stresses the idea that some experimentation with neutrinos, and the measurement of them, could turn our concept of reality on its head:


And there’s this from that Science piece:

“Garg says he still hopes somebody will push the test he and Leggett devised as originally intended: to test whether realism holds for a truly macroscopic object. If it fails, our sense of reality really would go out the window.” [Bold print, mine]

I bolded the words above to dissuade readers here from going off on an errant tangent about quantum; that it doesn’t represent the macro-world, only the micro-world.

Science has been applying, for some time, quantum mechanics to the world we inhabit, the outer, “real” world of things that are bigger than the quantum world of quarks and particles that are below human perception.

(I’ve discussed this here and at the RRRGroup blog many times.)

The point of the Science article is that measurement affects reality, micro and macro. And experimentation with neutrinos – zero electric charge and (perhaps) zero mass – mimics, as I see it, the measurement of quantum artifacts, as indicated in the notable Schrödinger cat hypothesis.

That is, nothing is real (in the micro world and macro world) until it is measured, or observed, as I’ve insisted in previous postings here and elsewhere.

(I’ve used Marshall McLuhan’s idea’s about how reality is affected by the insertion of a camera or observer in a social setting.)

So, how does this pertain to UFOs?

UFOs, in the sky or on the ground, in all those exotic encounters, in the lore, are not real until they are observed (measured, as it were).

Do UFOs (and all those odd creatures reportedly seen outside a container of ship of some kind) exist before they are seen?

Maybe not.

This would mean that the observer, the measurer, creates the phenomenon, but from what?

Jung predicated, in his popular book, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky, that flying saucers [UFOs] are projections from the psyche of those who see them.

That is somewhat how I see the quantum possibility, but there is more to it…

Persons spotting UFOs have a predilection of some kind – that predilection up for the debate I think – to see UFOs (or ghosts, Big Foot, and other paranormal entities).

The observations are not unlike the “reality” that encompasses what psychiatry calls schizophrenic delusions (which I see as real things, seen by adepts buggered by the idea that they are insane).

UFOs do not exist until someone sees them: pilots, farmers, truckers, Travis Walton, Betty Hill, Parker and Hickson, Lonnie Zamora, the Trents, Frank Mannor, et al.

Once observed (measured), UFOs become, like neutrinos in the article linked above, open to experimentation.

They [UFOs] become “tangible” and subject to radar detection, ground impressions (in the encounter cases), “accidental” harm (burns and probes), and “abductions” for those too adept!

Thus, UFOs are not real, until and unless they are measured (observed or perceived).

[Image used at opening, above, of posting from Octanis.org]

RR

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Remnants of a death on Mars?

Martian skeleton

RR

An illogical “insanity”!

This is from the Educating Humanity web-site:


Sure, it seems likely that life exists in the vast Universe, and some of it may consist of an advanced, thinking species, able to travel to other areas of the cosmos.

But to posit that such a species would be arriving here, on Earth, and settling in, is sheer madness.

Such an idea may be analogous to Stephen Hawking traversing from his Cambridge office on a helter-skelter trip around the world, in his wheel chair, and stumbling upon an indigenous tribe in Madagascar and choosing to bunk down with members of the tribe.

The idea that an advanced alien [ET] species would find us, in the backwater of the galaxy or whole Universe itself, is ludicrous on the face of it.

Then to think that such an advanced species would embed itself in our insane society is, itself, remorsefully insane.

Please….enough with such stupid rumination or faith-based illogical thinking: enough!

RR

Monday, July 11, 2016

My Go-To Ufologists and/or Paranormalists

The first UFO place I visit each morning is Kevin Randle’s blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com] for his elaborate renditions of notable UFO events or his ongoing clarification of Roswell detritus.

(I also like the, often, loopy and sycophantic commentary from visitors to his offerings. They entertain.)

I then check out Patrick Huyghe’s Anomalist.com site where one will find links to many things UFO oriented and fringe stuff that is sometimes esoteric, which will get a humorous (usually) aside from my pal, Christian Savia and his Anomalist cronies..

I sometimes find myself directed, by Huyghe’s “editors” to Mysterious Universe material by Micah Hanks, who regularly provides an interesting take on UFOs and related items.

Of course I’m a Nick Redfern junkie; he’s the only UFO writer I know who applies journalistic technique to his wide-ranging paranormal topics. (I love the guy.)

I am happy to read anything from my European buddies, Jose Antonio Caravaca and Gilles Fernandez. They provide perspectives that aren’t myopic like those from UFO writers state-side.

I’m pleased by writers like Robert Sheaffer and Bruce Maccabee, who invariably give eclectic and thorough evaluations of things UFO oriented.

Isaac Koi is ufology’s librarian, and my Facebook friendship with him often brings UFO delights that one can’t find anywhere else.

For a deep sojourn into paranormal attributes that no one else has a handle on (synchronicity, riddles of time, consciousness, ESP, et cetera, et cetera), I’ll take a peek at Eric Wargo’s thenightshirt.com where one will be humbled by his erudition.

And that’s about it for my daily UFO “vitamins” – not a large regimen perhaps but I try to be selective; there’s a lot of effluvia out there.

RR

Disruptors and UFOs

Most of you know that, in Silicon Valley, California, tech companies, often with new ventures, upset the old guard, older companies, old being only a few years in some instances.

Those companies or their founders are known as “disruptors.”

They often take users of a product away from an established company, bringing them to their new company.

The classic example is Facebook, which usurped and destroyed MySpace (and is about to demolish Twitter and other social media enterprises). Facebook itself will be disrupted at some point too.

The same things has happened in other spheres of life: Luther’s Reformation diminishing the Roman Catholic Church; Christianity side-lining Judaism; Leninism (communism) placating, for a while, capitalism; the automobile removing the horse and buggy from city streets; Cro-magnons wiping out the Neanderthals; et cetera.

And quantum mechanics has skewered classical physics, pushing Newton, Enstein, et al. to the background pretty much.

(You can name dozens of others also I bet.)

In the UFO field, the Army Air Force sunk Roswell (with its weather/Mogul balloon explanation), debunkers suppressed the Socorro/Zamora UFO incident with the suggestion that area college students created a hoax, and J. Allen Hynek crushed a bona fide sighting as swamp gas.

There are hundreds of UFO sightings that have been disrupted by those wishing to supplant intriguing and justifiably odd occurrences, indicating that UFOs are nothing more than a mis-identification of prosaic things, a modern hysteria, or outright hoaxes, plus a few other yammering explanations.

Have UFOs been deserving of such disruption? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

The oddly affecting phenomenon resides at the semi-conscious level of many in society, who won’t admit to an interest because the disruptors have encased the topic in garlands of loonyism.

So, the passionate few (real “ufologists”) have to beggar on per omnia secula seculorum like Liebowitz’s  monkish comrades, hoping that their obsession is brought to light as a real thing, important and profound.

[The image above from Betakit.com]

RR

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Extraterrestrials walk among us?

Jeezo Christo……are UFO buffs and paranormalists crazy? 

Yes….definitely yes!

Mankind and its Earth are not the center of the Universe.

Humans have been promoting that canard for millennia, but it doesn’t fly for those with common sense or an acute awareness of the totality of the cosmos.

Earth is a backwater planet in a backwater Solar System; that’s an observational fact.

If an alien species were to encamp here, on this backwater planet, they’d be as lunatic as the inhabitants already here.

Man may be unique on Earth but is not the summa specia in the whole of creation; the inherent flaws in Earth’s humanity (sometimes referred to as “original sin” by religionists and some philosophers) tells us that.

Yet, readers here, and everywhere else in internet land, think man (us) is something special, one of a kind in the vast possibility of creative life.

And that UFOs, with an advanced species, have come here and continue to come here, some even lingering amidst this fetid society.

That kind of thinking is sheer madness, and in need of psychiatric attention.

RR

Friday, July 08, 2016

Nick Redfern's caveat(s) about obsessive UFO interest

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/07/ufos-dont-let-them-rule-your-life/

RR

Thursday, July 07, 2016

Something like UFO alien abduction

My academic pal, Bryan Sentes, often provides the most interesting links at his Facebook page, and he did it again, the other day.

It was material from Public Domain Review, which I'm sure many of you will find intriguing.

Bryan's link was about French physiologist Charles Richet (1850–1935), a fascinating man, and I'll have more about him, upcoming.
Meanwhile, while scoping out internet items on Richet and Public Domain Review, I came across this:

The Dream God

It's an account of a man under the influence of morphine and it provides elements that mimic those often appearing in UFO abduction reports.

(Scroll down, if you access the link, and you'll find other odd things, many with paranormal asides.)

RR

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Not a woman in black (or white) but with a red and white scarf

A close media friend of mine posted this on Facebook, 7/6/16:

"FREAKY.. Sitting at my gate an older woman walked up to me and sat down. Said I want you to know you have a beautiful soul and a servants heart. Although you are solid in your work and your profession you should know they were destined to be in your world and you have changed their destiny ... She then said you are Fierce and have found safe haven with your wife and company She smiled touched my hand and walked away took two steps turned and said oh and happy birthday.. I'm kinda freaked out right now..."

He has found a safe haven with his wife and company. (He's an executive with a large TV broadcasting company).  And he has changed his company's destiny. Also his birthday is 7/7.

When I asked him what the woman was wearing, he said, "... not (anything) black or white, only ordinary clothes and a red and white scarf."

He also remembered she had flats for shoes, with beads on them.

As the woman walked away, she said he had helped her in the past, but he has no memory of the woman.

He had trepidation about boarding his plane, but went ahead, nervously.

His Facebook "friends" added comments saying it was an angel, some offering scripture to substantiate their suggestion.

However, he felt something ominous, even though she gave him "cheers" as Nick Redfern would see it.

And it wasn't one of Nick's Women in Black, was it?

What do you think?

RR