UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

For some of you...

Because of a new journalistic enterprise I've underwritten, this page (and our other UFO blogs) will likely go dormant in the next few days.

The nascent effort has nothing to do with UFOs -- it's a national news operation -- which some of you who frequent my/our other blogs have seen. Because of the turgid, lethargic, insipid responses here, it seems futile to elaborate further.

RR

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The UFO skeptics’ belief system(s)

“A doubt that doubted everything would not be a doubt”; “A doubt without an end is not even a doubt.” [Wittgenstein, On Certainty, 1969, from The Classical Tradition, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and London, 2010, Page 892]

I’ve been at this long enough to have some thoughts on the inner workings of the skeptical mind that intrudes on my pages and also a few other pages [Kevin Randle’s, Above Top Secret, et al.].

CDA [U.K. resident Christopher Allan, who has been at this as long as I have and maybe more].

CDA, down deep, believes something odd happened at Roswell and proceeds to press the matter with skeptical asides, hoping that someone, sometime will provide proof of an extraterrestrial connection to the Roswell incident.

CDA is open to an ET explanation, even while seeming to eschew the idea of an ET explanation.

There are sympathetic musings all over his commentary, but he hasn’t seen anything that confirms for him what he believed in his youth and still believes, hesitatingly, today: a flying disk crashed near Roswell, but the fact of it has been submerged for a myriad of reasons, none of those reasons clear to CDA or anyone else.

This is where his skepticism resides: in the idea that no one could cover up such a monumental event, for such a long period s sixty years plus.

Yet, he thinks that something uncanny and flying saucer related happened near Roswell in 1947, yet he will protest this thought process I’m thrusting upon him.

But read his energetic comments about Roswell and many other early flying saucer accounts and you can only conclude that he, at one time, believed the phenomenon to be ET-related, only to be flummoxed by the seemingly fraudulent activities and accoutrements to the topic by George Adamski and especially Cedric Allingham, CDA’s fellow countryman whom he unmasked as astronomer Patrick Moore creating a hoax:

“[The] unravelling the mystery came in 1986 as a result of research by Christopher Allan and Steuart Campbell which they revealed in the skeptical Fortean journal Magonia.

In Flying Saucer from Moore's?, they argued that the prose of Allingham's book showed significant similarities to the writing of the famous astronomer Patrick Moore.” [Wikipedia]

Today CDA presses the issue that Stanton Friedman unconsciously (or purposefully) coached Roswell citizens in the late 1970s in the ET proposition for the Roswell incident (with which I am in agreement).

So, CDA’s skepticism is rooted in the prevarications about flying saucers, not that they don’t exist or that nothing odd happened at Roswell.

He thinks something happened at Roswell, and I get the impression that the happening he thinks occurred was more ET oriented than anything else but no one can prove it, not even the prolific ET-biased David Rudiak.

And thus CDA is skeptical in facile terms.

The other skeptic that sometimes visits here is Lance Moody.

Lance is not a UFO doubter by a long shot, he just thinks that the hooey presented for an ET presence to explain such episodes as Roswell, the Trent/McMinnville saucer photo, et cetera are too skimpy to provide proof of anything.

Lance dislikes chicanery and is noted for exposing Philip Imbrogno’s education credentials plus the embarrassing Kodachrome slides mummy placard exposé.

Lance isn’t a radical skeptic, but he is a forceful opponent of nonsense and attempted trickery when UFO event explanations are fulsome, often taking to task David Rudiak’s excessive circumlocutions to explain Roswell and other noted UFO cases.

(Then there are Robert Sheaffer and Tim Printy, about whom I will not say much, except to note that they both take on classic UFO reports or sightings in an exact way, Sheaffer the more thorough of the two.)

Zoam Chomsky [The Iron Skeptic] is from the atheist school of skepticism, proselytizing against UFOs as if they do not exist at all, but, seeming, to me, to believe, in his heart of hearts, they do.

(Only the fool says, in his heart “there is no God.” Psalms)

Zoam is too energetic in his UFO denial. He wants to crush out a deep-rooted belief that caused him grief in his younger days, it seems to me.

(The psychoanalytic pursuit of his qualms must be for another time.)

The only real, objective skeptic I’m familiar with is French psychologist Gilles Fernandez.

Gilles is fervent in his skepticism, resorting to massive “evidence” that refutes classic UFO sightings of the past and today, such as the 1896 Airship sightings or those damnable mummy slides that caused havoc and strife for many of us.

My only problem with Gilles’ skeptical approach, if I have any problem at all, is how he musters all counter arguments against a UFO event, everything, including a kitchen sink.

He sometimes piles upon legitimate refutations accreted nonsense, like his Venus explanation for some of those late 1800 airship reports, overlooking the obvious journalistic tomfoolery that generated many of the reported sightings.

In his zeal to condemn anti-scientific thinking, he gathers debunking material that is extraneous to his arguments, and unnecessary.

But that said, he doesn’t seem to have a deep-rooted, hidden, unconscious belief that UFOs or airships or flying saucers might be extraterrestrial, as CDA does or maybe Lance (or even me).

Gilles is a bona fide skeptic.

Well, that's how I see it. Now let the denials spring forth.

RR

Monday, May 25, 2015

The Transmogrification of Mystical Episodes (into UFO events)?

The June 4th New York Review of Books piece on the great sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini [Bernini: He Had the Touch by Ingrid d. Rowland, Page 16 ff.] allowed me a remembrance of Saint Teresa of Avila, one of the favorite saints of my Jesuit teachers at seminary in my youth.

Bernini’s terra cotta of Saint Teresa [circa 1647] is one of the glories of sculpting and art:
Saint Teresa became sainted when she was canonized by Pope Gregory XV in 1622. And on September 27th  1970 she was named a Doctor of the Church by Pope Paul VI.


This is one mystical “experience” she claimed to have had in 1559:

“Teresa became firmly convinced that Jesus Christ presented himself to her in bodily form, though invisible. These visions lasted almost uninterrupted for more than two years. In another vision, a seraph drove the fiery point of a golden lance repeatedly through her heart, causing an ineffable spiritual-bodily pain.” [Wikipedia]
Saint Teresa isn’t the only saint or person to have [holy] mystical experiences:

Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) had a life-changing vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Jeanne d’Arc (Joan of Arc) spoke with God and conquered armies.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism interacted with an angel of God (Moroni).

Bernadette of Lourdes had apparitions appear to her at the cave-grotto of Massabielle.

Three Portuguese children created the Fatima story.

The question to ask is (usually), Were these events from within or without?

Psychiatry would call such “experiences” hallucinogenic, even when wounds appear on the person having the experience: Padre Pio became famous for bearing the stigmata for most of his life.
But what about ‘unholy” persons who’ve had a UFO experience with evidence of afflictions from the thing they encountered?

Stefan Michalak (The Falcon Hill case)
Robert Taylor (the Scotland UFO incident)
 And others you are familiar with...

What makes one an alleged holy interaction and one a UFO event (or hoax)?

The experiences are similar in kind, only nuanced by the interpretations of those experiencing: some infused with holy or religious elements and some subject to a non-holy, weird experience, both exampled by the now clichéd Ezekiel experience recounted in the Bible [The Book of Ezekiel]:
Even assuming that the experiences are self-induced, from where and what do they derive, neurologically, psychologically, mentally?

The saints didn’t likely see Mary the mother of Jesus and Joseph Smith didn’t meet an angel. Or did they?

But did Stefan Michalak touch a hot UFO? Was Robert Taylor dragged about by an odd machine from elsewhere than Earth?

Did Joan of Arc go to the stake because she actually was communicated to from God?

Were Saint Teresa’s visions really from the perceptive doorway to God’s realm? Or was she fooled by her brain?

We can’t know, can we?

But we can speculate, and that’s all we can do.

RR

Friday, May 22, 2015

The rage has subsided?

The loss of a Roswell “explanation” (those slides, of course) caused some in the UFO community to vent their spleen, in ways that haven’t been seen since the Alien Autopsy brouhaha.

Vituperation emerged from the id, much as that depicted in Forbidden Planet (from the Krell):
There is a residue of semi-psychotic rage, repressed usually, among members of the UFO community, but where does that repressed rage come from?

Only a psychoanalytic session can really tell us.

Yet, we often have to deal with it, in comments here and elsewhere in UFOland.

David Rudiak called for UFO-blog commenters to use their real names, to quit hiding behind nom de plumes, aliases, or alter egos.

I agree.

One can discern much from an avatar used by commenters online. But why should we have to?

Many show up at Kevin Randle’s blog and Isaac Koi’s AboveTopSecret site, and a few here, but this blog tries to stick with those who use their real names to make public pronouncements: CDA (whom we all know as long-time UFO enthusiast, Brit, Christopher Allen), Lance Moody, Bruce Duensing, Paul Kimball, Nick Redfern, David Rudiak (himself), Kevin (of course), Gilles Fernandez, Jose Caravaca, Zoam Chomsky (yes, we know who that really is – The Iron Skeptic!), and many others).

It’s the hidden-identity group that causes trouble – not so much those who use “handles” at AboveTopSecret, a usually benign group – but, rather, a slew of others who come forth upon UFO “conversations” to rattle cages and/or spew venom because of their suppressed (or repressed) rage.

I have a recent e-mail, from a guy who used to post here – it’s a prime example of psychotic rage (which I’ve shared with Lance Moody and Nick Redfern).

The fellow needs counseling, surely, but will not get it, as he thinks he’s normal and psychologically healthy. 

My position is to delete or ignore comments from the sick element, generally, or to call them out when they go too far with their expletives that indicate derangement.

But Mr. Rudiak’s suggestion – use your real name online – would go a long way to assuaging vitriol and id impulse commentary in UFO circles.

It’s not a cure-all but would help.

Now that the ire (about the May 5th thing) has diminished pretty much, maybe we can go forward with dialogue that makes “ufology” the fun, stupid thing is was always meant to be.

I hope so, anyway.

RR

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Another Roswell hoax from a few years ago....

Excerpts from ALIEN INTERVIEW [2008] Edited by Lawrence R. Spencer [Author of The Oz Factors]

What Mr. Spencer tells us about this (from the book which is available from Amazon.com):

The content of this book is primarily excerpted from the letter, interview transcripts and personal notes I received from the late Matilda O'Donnell MacElroy. Her letter to me asserts that this material is based on her recollection of communication with an alien being, who "spoke" with her telepathically. During July and August of 1947 she interviewed an extraterrestrial being who she identifies as "Airl", and whom she claims was and continues to be an officer, pilot and engineer who was recovered from flying saucer that crashed near Roswell, New Mexico on July 8th, 1947.

What "Army nurse" MacElroy imparts (excerpted):

"When the news that there had been a crash was received at the base, I was asked to accompany Mr. Cavitt, the Counter Intelligence Officer, 18 (Footnote) to the crash site as the driver of his vehicle, and to render any needed emergency medical assistance to any survivors, if necessary. Therefore, I briefly witnessed the wreckage of an alien space craft, as well as the remains of the several alien personnel aboard the craft who were already dead.

"None of the other personnel present could communicate with the survivor, as the being did not communicate verbally or by any recognizable signs. However, while I examined the "patient" for injuries I immediately detected and understood that the alien being was attempting to communicate with me by "mental images", or "telepathic thought", which projected directly from the mind of the being.

"I immediately reported this phenomenon to Mr. Cavitt. As no other person present could perceive these thoughts, and the alien seemed able and willing to communicate with me, it was decided, after a brief consultation with a senior officer, that I would accompany the surviving alien back to the base.

"Although I was never left entirely alone with the alien, as there were always military personnel, intelligence agency people and a variety of other officials present from time to time, I did have uninterrupted access to and communication with the alien being for nearly six weeks."

MacElroy's female alien (Airl):

"Airl is currently stationed at a base in the asteroid belt which she refers to as a "space station" in the solar system of Earth. First and foremost, Airl is herself. Secondarily, she voluntarily serves as an Officer, Pilot and Engineer in The Domain Expeditionary Force. In that capacity she has duties and responsibilities, but she is at leave to come and go as she pleases also."

Mrs. Matilda O'Donnell MacElroy
Senior Master Sergeant
Women's Army Air Force Medical Corp, Retired
100 Troytown Heights
Navan, Meath
Co. Meath, Ireland

A site explaining the hoax:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?6865-HOAX-Lawrence-Spencer-s-ALIEN-INTERVIEW

So, you see, Roswell is grist for many hoaxes, not just the recent one.

And that's a shame, as the Roswell incident, whether a real ET crash or just a mythos, derived from an odd event near Roswell in 1947, could provide much for sociologists. psychiatrists, folklorists, and other disciplines involved with or in the machinations of the human species.

RR

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

A private e-mail (to me) that makes interesting/insightful points

I hope you can implement the policy for ufocon.blogspot mentioned in your post today.

I am one of those hundreds of thinking entities who check your blog daily, but never comment, as you have noted recently in other posts. The reason for this behaviour is simply demonstrated: a while ago you had a post on death of Ruppelt. Ah, I thought, I have the tools do do some quick research, and the personal background, to contribute something to this. After an hour or so of research, very quick and satisfying, I posted the information. The immediate response was a rant from Mr Rudiak, with no informational content, challenging every point not based on a factual or reasoned basis, but merely on Mr Rudiak's judgement that x is a common mistake or y cannot be.

Well, there are not enough hours in the day, or any point, in dealing with such nonsense. So better not to post at all.

I am not saying that others like me would post as often as those who seem to have no other life than trolling and bashing out reams of top-of-the-head text every hour in the comments section. But censoring any comments that do not have substantive content might bring some of us out of the woodwork.

PS I have a BA in physical anthropology. During the years of training I examined and evaluated hundreds of Native American burials. The 'nonhuman' or 'pathological' attributes of the mummy in the Roswell slides all simply correlate with the age of the individual. But no point on commenting on that; Rudiak et al would simply demand proof of experience to make such a statement...

Monday, May 18, 2015

Excellence and Ufology

Yes, a seeming oxymoron.

UFO blogs , web-sites, and books are, generally, god-awful when it comes to standards of excellence.

Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, gave a commencement speech 5/17 that suggested graduates get into the arena (of life and business), be impatient with progress, and apply energy to whatever they do.

Also, employ excellence in what they do.

I don’t do excellent UFO posting, being a bit cavalier with topics and speculation, but I try, half-heartedly.

Kevin Randle’s blog postings are usually quite excellent, but undercut by comments from his flaky readers.

Eric Wargo’s site – thenightshirt.com – is inordinately excellent dealing with thought and ideas that encompass the UFO phenomenon and attendant peripherals that impact the UFO topic, sometimes in ways that are not obvious to most of us.

Jacques Vallee, despite what some see as a contrary view of the UFO ET explanation, has always offered cogent and thoughtful hypotheses and ideas also.

But the UFO community, over all, is a hodge-podge of sloppy thinkers and instigators of bile and vitriol rather than thoughtful comments about UFOs.

Recent events show that ufology is nowhere near a science or art-form. Ufology is a hotbed of incendiary poseurs and celebrity wannabes, research relegated to half-ass effort and duplicity.

Mr. Randle touches on this in his current posting about Trivia flooding the UFO topic.

And we all know that vulgarity and meanness overlie many comments and writings about UFOs and those who say they’ve witnessed them or who draw attention to the phenomenon via the internet or books.

Ufology is not a classy or dignified sub-class of paranormal investigation.

It’s an intellectual slum where not just a few engage in subterfuge of various kinds to gain a modicum of fame, for their sordid, useless lives.

I, and a few others, have allowed persons with ulterior, devious motives to saturate our blogs and musings about UFOs.

But that has got to stop, as Mr. Randle sort of suggests.

I’ll take down those who’ve used this blog to further their duplicitous purposes and I hope others, in the UFO community, will do the same.

Stay tuned…

RR

Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Insane May 5th Dialectic Continues

At Kevin Randle’s blog one can see examples of ufological “insanity.”

The Kodachrome slides have been stilled, or so some of us thought, by the acceptance on all sides that the body seen in the slides is (or was) a mummified body.

Yet, the matter continues apace at Kevin’s blog, ramping up with a thought by David Rudiak and our friend Tim Hebert that the images should be re-examined by a qualified anthropological forensic look-see.

Why are the slides still being discussed?

Some of us have moved on. (No, this harangue by me isn’t about the slides but about the aftermath insanity that continues to resonate at Kevin’s blog.)

The May 5th gig is still tuned into by those who spent a chintzy $15 or $20 to have the show streamed to their computers.

(Those, in Mexico, who went to the affair and may want their entrance fee returned are outside the purview of the “enthusiasts” for justice preening at Kevin’s blog.)

A retinue of UFO skeptics and ET die-hards are using the May 5th debacle as grist to argue (or debate) the issues that have ensconced them in dialectic delirium for a long time now. (Need I name them?)

The energy, time, and effort wasted on the May 5th farce baffles.

(And my time on the matter, with this post, amounts to a meager ten minutes as I await dinner.)

Fellow UFO enthusiasts, gather your senses and move on or forward.

There are other UFO issues to discuss, such as where is Anthony Bragalia?

RR

Friday, May 15, 2015

First Men in the Moon: A UFO/Roswell Slides Meme?

The Turner [Movie] Channel aired, May 14th, the 1964 Sci-Fi movie The First Men in the Moon which seems to have provided images that (some) UFO abductees and one (or more) Kodachrome slides proponents of the ET explanation culled from their neurological memory banks for their alleged abduction experience or for their inclination to see an insect demeanor in the mummy image shown at the May 5th Mexico fiasco:
RR

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

For my "friend" Kevin Randle


"I will be brief: your [readers/commenters are quite] mad:
Mad I call it, for to define true madness,
What is‟t but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go –"

Hamlet II.ii.95-102



My dear Randle, you've asked your blog visitors to cease and desist with their putrid, illiterate legal observations re: the (should be forgotten) slides imbroglio. But they persist.

I have given up on the slides and those who continue to propel the incident into insane recriminations, and yet I still get visitors at this blog, where nothing new or interesting has been posted in days.
What can we make of that?

RR

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The McMinnville/Trent UFO saga (from Google Alerts)

http://www.oregonlive.com/history/2015/05/past_tense_oregon_ufo_photos_t.html

Sunday, May 10, 2015

The Vicissitudes of Blogging


Moving on....really this time!

Kevin Randle sent me this comment (about my posting saying he should move on from the slides topic with the rest of us):

"Really Rich?

Five stories about the slides after you beg me to stop...

What can I say."

He was right to send the comment.

I had posted five things (now deleted as Lance  Moody knows I am wont to do with irrelevant material) about the slides after saying it was time to move on.

My excuse is I was accommodating Anthony Bragalia and my friends Nick Redfern and Jose Caravaca,

They wanted input about the slides to appear here.

But now that the slides imbroglio has reached a denouement by the excellent work of Lance Moody, Paul Kimball, Curt Collins, Gilles Fernandez, Isaac Koi, and others of the "anti-sliders" group (as I call them), we (or I) can truly move on.

The May 5th farce is over and undercut to the point of total decimation.

The slides show a mummy, as Mr. Bragalia concedes.

Roswell has nothing to do with anything about them.

The Roswell Team has wasted two-plus years of their so-called new Roswell research, and the rest of us have wasted reams of our time and lives by going along for the ride.

It's over....done, kaput.

RR

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

This book, by the eminent Charles Mackay, LL.D. [L. C. Page & Company, 1932], provides ample examples of how crowd-madness occurs and takes hold (for a while only), should be perused by those of you reading this.

The May 5th Kodachrome slides outing would have been grist for Dr. Mackay if he were writing today rather than in the mid-1880s.

Bernard Baruch, writing in the forward, says (recalling Schiller’s dictum): "Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and reasonable – as a member of a crowd, he at once becomes a blockhead.”

Mackay, citing various mad fads, such as that about “magnetizers” (the 18th and 19th Century belief that magnetism could cure ills and bring about sensational abilities) writes that one was encumbered to “be very credulous; be very persevering; reject all past experience, and do not listen to reason …” [Page 341]

And, “ … if there be some truth in magnetism, there has been much error, misconception , and exaggeration,” [Page 344]

This is what is being experienced (all of the above) by some of us, reading both sides of the slides equation.

It hasn’t become an academic (or scientific) bout to resolve the truth but, rather, a “we got you” -- one-upmanship -- of a ufological kind. Sad, loony, and non-productive.

RR

Thursday, May 07, 2015

It really is time to move on…

A few comments here wonder where Anthony Bragalia is?

He’s fine and happy with the May 5th event.

He’s also had some input at Kevin Randle’s blog.

But most in the UFO community who’ve followed this slides story for about two years have had enough; the May 5th debacle clinching the matter for them, maybe once and for all time.

Nothing new was offered at the Mexican showing, obviously, and the show itself was laggardly and self-referencing for Tom Carey and Don Schmitt, who seemed to use the venue for an announcement of a new Roswell book they’re planning.

The coda of the presentation – those Kodachrome slides of an odd body-figure -- still resonates with some of the UFO/Roswell contingent, but sensible people have moved away and on, knowing that the body doesn’t prove alien visitation of the Earth or that the Roswell incident was an ET craft accident.

Suffused, myself, with the Bernerd and Hilda Ray aspect of the story, I’m not only disappointed but chagrinned: the Ray scenario was a trough of fluff.

There will remain chards of comments and postings about the Cinco de Mayo affair for a while yet, but we (my readers here) should truly drop the matter.

It took us nowhere and provides nothing to make Roswell relevant or offers any explanation of UFOs.

RR

Wednesday, May 06, 2015

Why the slides are NOT of a Roswell alien by Nick Redfern

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-that-arent/

Jose Antonio Caravaca's interesting take on the May 5th slides presentation

In Spanish but your browser may allow translation:

http://caravaca.blogspot.com.es/2015_05_01_archive.html

Nick Redfern on a slide anomaly that is being ignored

http://nickredfernfortean.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-other-thing-in-roswell-slides.html

Those crazy slides bring blog visitors, that's for sure!


Questionable testimony?

This woman, Carlene Green, daughter of Roswell serviceman Homer Rowlette, impeached her testimony by saying her father called the Roswell bodies he saw as "the greys" because that was their color.

The grey sobriquet wasn't in vogue or part of the parlance in 1947 and her father using it on his deathbed to describe what he saw during the Roswell incident indicates he was influenced by the post-1978 Roswell dialogue of Stan Friedman and other Roswellian investigators.

Authentic memory reconstruction of significant events remain saddled, if not bolluxed by ex eventu input, by the language and milieu of the initial memory recall.

Current terminology used in a past memory recall is a sign of a neurological flaw or a deliberate fabrication. [See "automatic memory" in Psychiatric Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Hinsie/Campbell, Page 461]

Ms. Green either used "the greys" epithet on her own or her father used it after being "indocrinated" by the Roswell tales in situ after 1978.

Either way, the deathbed reconstruction is iffy at best or bogus in fact.

RR