UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, February 08, 2016

Three things...

Leon Davidson, referred to by CDA recently, deciphered the public Socorro symbol as a CIA construct. (The issue is confused as Ray Stanford in his silly-named book, Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry,  related that the popular symbol -- the one Mr. Davidson uses for his speculation -- was a ruse created by the Air Force to throw off scammers who might use the "real symbol" to confuse the public.)

Nonetheless, here's Mr. Davidson's exegesis of the popular Socorro symbol, drawn by Police Officer Lonnie Zamora for officials. Mouse over and click image to see it larger and clearer:
Robert Barrow provided, in 1982 to APRO, his view on what transpired in the December 1980 Cash-Landrum incident (and Mr. Barrow also takes a few swipes at MUFON back then).
Click here to see letter larger and clearer:


Then, in our archives, I found a "mimeographed magazine" edited by Joan Whritenour and published out of St. Petersburg, Florida. The issue, pictured below, has no date, and may have been picked up by me when I lived in Florida. Does anyone have any information on the Whritenours (Joan or Ron) and their publication?

Sunday, February 07, 2016

The truth is out there?

The January 29th 2016 issue of The Week magazine provided a reference to a Los Angeles Times article by Rob Brotherton: “Conspiracy theories can be true.”

Mentioning the JFK assassination and Marilyn Monroe death, along with the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance, the blurb ended with this:

“If you’d claimed that the CIA had given American citizens LSD, mescaline, and other drugs in secret mind-control experiments [something Nick Redfern has chronicled], you’d have been laughed off as a member of the tinfoil-hat crowd. [Such] conspiracies, however, were quite real. ‘Dismissing all conspiracy theories (and theorists) as crazy is just as intellectually lazy as credulously accepting every wild allegation.’” [Page 12]


Saturday, February 06, 2016

You tell me that The Singularity is not here (and that UFOs are not AI controlled)...


Thursday, February 04, 2016

Did comic books influence people about UFOs?

This 1976 DC Comic Book had several fictionalized stories by UFO believer and advocate Otto Binder:

Binder was a proponent of the ancient astronauts theory, and a believer in extraterrestrial life. Binder's theory is that human beings are "homo hybrid" an "interstellar crossbreed" (half human, half extraterrestrial).[25] He first discussed this hypothesis in his book Unsolved Mysteries of the Past (Tower Publications; reissue edition, 1970). He wrote Mankind Child of the Stars with Max Flindt in 1974, discussing the concept of "astroevolution". Erich von Däniken wrote a foreword for the book, which was revised and reprinted in 1999.[26] He wrote extensively about UFOs in magazines, including articles detailing the experiences of claimed UFO contactee Ted Owens. [Wikipedia]

Here's Wikipedia's bio of Binder:

Gardner Fox also contributed to the comic book but wasn't a UFO aficionado apparently:

Did any of the tales, with illustrations, affect persons who think they saw UFOs (and sometimes creatures from within them) after 1976?

(You can see, from the cover, an "abduction" scene and a small being.)

Or did UFOs stimulate the imagination of Binder and Fox?

It's a matter of causation, perhaps, and one that might even have perplexed philosopher David Hume.


The Devolution of UFOs and Ufology

Yes, UFOs as a viable topic for broad discussion or concern is virtually dead, even among the most die-hard of UFO buffs.

UFOs became, in the late 40s and 50s, a hot matter for media, various militaries around the world, and a rabid coterie of people who were attracted to the evanescent phenomenon.

Interest peaked in the 50s, 60s, but started to wane in the 1970s, and now in 2016, UFOs are an insignificant matter for society, even though there remains a very small remnant of persons still interested in or attracted to the moribund phenomenon.

Alleged UFO/alien abductions no longer appear as ufological fodder.

Bizarre encounters with UFOs and creatures apparently connected to them have only become topics within the phenomenon’s lore.

Sightings and photographs of UFOs have diminished to the point of invisibility, even as fanatic UFO enthusiasts insist that UFOs still ply the skies and contrived photographs of the phenomenon continue to show up in internet venues as instigators of yawns by the public (and UFO aficionados also).

As the UFO fad has devolved (read diminished) to a less than trivial matter for society, some of us, who think we’re rational, have to move on – to consequential matters that impact us (humans).

UFOs, no matter what they were, are now, essentially, folklore.

One can ruminate about them accordingly, but to expend more than an academic interest in UFOs is tantamount to quartering time for séances, ghost-hunting, ESP, or ouija boards.

What lies at the heart of the UFO fad is grist for study perhaps but UFOs and ufology are as defunct as dinosaurs, and should be studied, if necessary, in the same way as those dead creatures are.


Sunday, January 31, 2016

Perception and UFOs

The current discussion at Kevin Randle’s blog and the discussion here, earlier, of the Chiles/Whitted 1948 cigar-shaped UFO sighting raises the issue(s) of perception.

Do people see what they say they saw or do they misperceive?

There are a plethora of reasons for misperception: eye diseases, hallucinatory inclinations, neurological and psychological delusions, and encumbrances to sight because of location, weather conditions, and times of day.

But, over all and generally, normal people, with good eyesight, see what they think they see, even taking into account those rare or occasional instances of pareidolia (where something is visualized within a confluence of random stimuli).

See Wikipedia’s take on pareidolia here:

For instance, in the Chiles/Whitted account of their UFO-rocket, the pilots saw what they say they saw – a craft in flight, not a meteor or bolide as some proclaim.

The experienced pilots with good eyesight determined they saw a rocket-like ship.

Then that’s what they saw.

The book Illusions by Edi Lanners [Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1973] (covered here in earlier postings) presents a raft of illusion and explains how they come about.

But those illusions are often created by egregious set-ups by man and nature.

NASA scientist Larry presented a litany of reasons at Kevin’s blog, if I read him correctly, why the Chiles/Whitted sighting could not be interpreted as a meteor, comet, or bolide.

The credulity of observation cannot be undercut by an interpretation that struggles with an onslaught of Ockham’s Razor – that the simplest explanation explains a phenomenon.

Ockham’s Razor per Wikipedia:

While Chiles and Whitted drew slightly different versions of what they thought they saw…[images from Project 1947]:

The object remains intact as a craft of some sort, not a disintegrating bolide:
But what about those alleged 1896 Airship sightings adduced to be hoaxes or misperceived sightings of the planet Venus (a vibrant view of French skeptic Gilles Fernandez) or manmade ships (also from Gilles)?

One has to, after sifting through accounts of the sightings as those of Jerome Clark and Lucius Farish and others, accept, out of common sense, that some who say they saw airships as described by the press, at the time, actually saw what they think they saw, not Venus, but ships, either made by Earthlings or from places elsewhere than Earth.

Not everyone is crazy or needs eyeglasses….ask David Rudiak.

And when Hickson and Parker report they saw beings who ended up abducting them, sort of, one can surmise that they saw what they saw, or were hallucinating or delusional by drinking alcohol or subject to a military experiment (as Nick Redfern suggests).

But they did see what they think they saw; their perception wasn’t marred by neurological malfeasance even though a folie à deux is possible. However that doesn’t relinquish what they think they saw. Their perception was intact and wholesome.

People see things, and convey what they see to others, with variations of detail from mental intrusions surely, but the essentiality of what they see and tell others they saw is, intrinsically, what was presented to their eyes (and brains).

Mankind isn’t blind, and man’s eyesight isn’t flawed in ways that allows everything reported to have been seen as flawed either.

Odd things are seen in the skies and one has to accept that the reports by those who see these odd things are actually what they saw.

People are, generally not dishonest or privy to hoaxing, nor are they flawed with bad eyesight.

Chiles and Whitted and all the other reports one can muster from UFO lore and achives are replete with actual accounts of strange things seen.

What those things are is another matter.


Saturday, January 30, 2016

The aliens may be dead but their AI creations live on....


UFOs and their alien cargo were largely the products of an imagination spurred by the Cold War between the USSR and the US. [Really?]


Friday, January 29, 2016

Links that supplement my speculations

That AI (artificial intelligence) is coming to replace humans (and UFOs are AI constructs from advanced civilizations elsewhere in the Universe):


Consciousness is complex and maybe unreal:


An advanced ant species (from afar) could pilot UFOs, if AI isn't your cup o' tea:


Thursday, January 28, 2016

Alien Abductions or Mind Manipulation? from Nick Redfern. (Should we care?)


JFK was killed to stop UFO disclosure? Nick Redfern thinks maybe that is so. [I do not]


Tuesday, January 26, 2016

NIck Redfern on The X-Files


Monday, January 25, 2016

More on Facebook.....the bane of ufology.


Aimé Michel’s Orthoteny and the 1966 “swamp gas” sightings

Looking back over the March 20, 1966: Dexter, Michigan and “concomitant” March 21 (Hillsdale College) sightings of Allen Hynek’s “swamp gas” sightings, I noticed that another sighting, just north of the Dexter (cited as Ann Arbor) sighting of Frank Mannor took place in Milford, Michigan, March 23rd.

But then I looked up other sightings, along a straight line, from Dexter, through Hillsdale and found a sighting in Decatur, Illinois at 10 p.m. on the evening of March 22nd  and another in Temple, Oklahoma on March 23rd at 5:00 a.m.

Aimé Michel’s theory of flying saucers traveling along a straight line has been dismissed pretty much by UFO buffs.

But I think there remains some merit to the matter, as did Ann Druffel who posted this at

“To be specific, the terms "straight lines" or "orthotenic lines," as used in ufology, do not refer to physical markings in or on the earth, such as are found, for example, on the Plain of Nasca in Peru.A "straight (orthotenic) line" as used in this paper, is an imaginary line running through four or more specific sites on the earth's surface.”

The Milford, Michigan sighting is in the time-frame of the “Ann Arbor hubbub” of sightings, and the sightings along orthotenic lines followed the Dexter/Hillsdale sightings (which I give much credence to, as some of you know from my past postings and history with them) a day after and one day after that.
Is this co-incidence or a confirmation of Michel’s theory?




Sunday, January 24, 2016

Is the 1957 Antonio Villas Boas "abduction" still grist for discussion?

(Graphic from: http://arquivoufo.com.br/2012/02/23/caso-villas-boas-o-brasileiro-abduzido-por-extraterrestres/)

Bosco Nedelcovic was a Yugoslav émigré who worked at The U.S. Department of Defense [DoD] as an AID worker in South America.

He actually was a C.I.A. agent, as I found out from a few postings at UFO UpDates in 2005.

Bosco is the fellow who told me in phone interviews during the 1970s that the 1957 Antonio Villas Boas “event” near São Francisco de Sales [Brazil] was actually a DoD/CIA created experiment. [He didn’t refer to it as a military “psyop” however.)

Nick Redfern has the full tale in his book Contactees.

Here is the Villas Boas case as Wikipedia has it:

It seems that Bosco got into some kind of trouble involving children as part of his CIA endeavors.

(I was contacted by a former FBI agent/lawyer in 2005 about something to do with Bosco but I was in hospital at the time and didn’t get the calls or any further information about what the FBI/lawyer needed or wanted.)

Bosco came into my sphere, I believe, from newspaper articles telling readers of my funding of various enterprises, UFO research among them.

Bosco was looking for money to start a compound for “societal outsiders” I think; his construct was called “Basic Livelihood.”

(This may have been the “business” that got him into trouble with authorities.)

I have lots of communications from him, but here is a postal card telling me he was in California, showing me a possible place to start his “Livelihood” operation. (Why was he in California?)
The most important thing about my contacts with Bosco was his “disclosure” that the Villas Boas “abduction” was a military experiment. He also provided information about other CIA experiments in England, the Scoriton tale and others. [See Redfern’s book.]

Our attempt to find out if his Villas Boas story had merit is here:

And my “friend” Philip Coppens [deceased] dealt with the issue here:

The Villas Boas “abduction” remains questionable for many, as one can see from the colloquies at Mac Tonnies one-time blog (which you can find via a Google search).

UFOs may be a mystery, one clouded by interference, perhaps, of government agencies.


Thursday, January 21, 2016

The 1948 Chiles-Whitted sighting per Kevin Randle

Our friend Kevin Randle has a posting at his blog [KevinRandle.blogspot.com] which is a follow-up to his attempt to clarify skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.

The current posting is about the July 1948 Chiles-Whitted encounter/sighting of a rocket-like object or cigar shaped UFO.

Mr. Randle has come to the conclusion that the pilots, Chiles and Whitted, mistook a meteor for a craft, Mr. Randle relying on the misperception of the March 3,1968 re-entry of the Russian spacecraft Zond IV.

It seems some witnesses of that re-entry saw the glowing shower of pieces as a cigar-shaped craft with windows, much as Chile and Whitted described the “thing” they saw.

Mr. Randle further finds the afterward statements of buffeting that Chiles and Whitted reported as an addendum that has no validity.

(However that may be, psychologists and cops know that witnesses often provide additional material after an event, subsumed by the major event, and forgetting or dismissing other details they think are unimportant in the first rendition of what they observed or experienced, but coming to realize perhaps, that their remembered detail might be important after all.)

Mr. Randle’s acceptance of the bolide explanation is not irrational; actually it makes sense.

But I’m of the persuasion, again, that people report, rather accurately, what they see or experience, even as they often mess up minor details; the major observation or experience is pretty much accurate, unless we’re dealing with neurological or psychological malfeasance.

Chiles and Whitted were experienced pilots, often seeing meteors and perhaps some bolides.

And seeing something while flying an airplane offers a clearer view than what one sees from the ground, as was the case with the Zond IV sightings.

I’m leaning, and always have, that pilots Chiles and Whitted reported what they saw accurately and rather precisely.

To dismiss it as a misperceived observation of a meteor seems to me to be intellectually wanting.


Ufology and the Facebook debacle

As some of you know, Facebook has become the place for UFO reports and commentary.

Once lively bloggers and web-siters filled pages with astute material about UFOs, offering their observations and opinions on the topic.

But now, many resort to posting a line or two at their Facebook accounts, satisfied by the inane likes and comments from Facebook “friends.”

A few have eschewed the Facebook route: Kevin Randle, Eric Ouellett, Eric Wargo, and several others, but many former UFO biggies have taken to the instant and banal gratifications offered by Facebookers.

This is killing debate that once raged at places like UFO UpDates and other UFO venues.

(Facebook has killed meaningful and/or serious discussion of the phenomenon among UFO buffs and in other areas of societal interests, UFOs a sliver of what we Earthlings should be dealing with, intellectually.)

I have a MediaWatch area on Facebook. It is rife with astounding stupidities, even from media professionals: baby pictures, selfies, and pictures of food that “friends” eat.

I get a few inserts there from UFO aficionados, but those are curt and superficial usually, links to crazy postings on the internet or cutesy stuff that has nothing to do with UFOs per se.

Facebook is a bane for the intellectual evolution of society, which opens the door to my persistence that AI will take over the world and destroy humanity eventually (as others like Kurzweil and Bostrom have it).

And since I see UFOs as AI instruments from other galaxies, time, or dimensions, apparently Facebook-like obtrusions may have already ruined the future or long-time civilizations far, far away.


Wednesday, January 20, 2016

A Neptune-size 9th planet outside Pluto's orbit?


Nick Redfern and The Mothman tangle again


And here are some older postings from Nick (when he used to provide them to us directly):