UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, January 24, 2015

The Blue Book Debacle (and the Condon Committee too)

The current New Yorker magazine [1/26/15] has a piece about the NSA and terrorism, which has nothing to do with UFOs, but is insightful about the Air Force’s Blue Book operation and that of its predecessors, Sign and Grudge.

The piece [The Whole Haystack by Mattathias Schwartz, page 54 ff.] opens with this:

“Almost every major attack on Western soil in the past fifteen years has been committed by people known to law enforcement.”

Then follows a litany of those who’ve committed acts of terrorism, followed by this:

“In each of these cases, the authorities were not wanting for data. What they failed to do was appreciate the significance of the data they already had.”

Isn’t this what occurred with those early flying saucer/UFO projects? And that of the nefarious Condon Committee?

Those in charge of ferreting out data did so, but in a haphazard way, missing the significance of the data they had collected.

In the current brouhaha about who disclosed the Blue Book files first, UFO researchers are arguing about who should get credit or not for when they provided the Blue Book material(s) to the UFO community and the public.

Even now, no one is sifting through the data to see what patterns emerge or what may be significant.

UFO blokes still want to lay blame at the feet of those mentioned by media in the current ramp up of UFO news.

No one wants to tackle the data.

This has always been the case with UFO “researchers” and I use the term very loosely as you know.

UFO researchers like the idea of being first with some UFO material or being the one(s) to present an obscure UFO story or fact.

No one wants to test the data, and no one has done so, in a methodical way, ever, although they would have the rest of us think they’ve done so: Jerry Clark, Kevin Randle, MUFON, Stanton Friedman, et al.

Just as the NSA botched and still botches what the organization has collected, and it’s a mighty amount of data as Edward Snowden let us know, Blue Book personnel and the Condon boys botched their chance(s) to explain what UFOs may be.

They didn’t do so out of a conspiracy to hide facts and data. They did so by being lax and inept, just as the NSA and authorities have been lax and inept about terrorist activity, as outlined by Mr. Schwartz’ article in his magazine reports.

RR

Thomas Cole: Painter of UFOs?

Thomas Cole  [February 1, 1801 – February 11, 1848], the noted founder of the Hudson River School of painters, was obsessed with allegory -- allegory that he turned into paintings of angels and what might be considered phenomena that would likely be called UFOs today.

His angel-paintings are often overlooked or ignored by art aficionados as they bespeak a psychological quirk that art historians and lovers of art would prefer to dismiss.

But the Romantic "visions" that Thomas Cole produced indicate, to me, a mind-set that sees things not real to others but very real to them.

This is a mind-set that has "hallucinated" UFOs in our time but provided less technological hallucinations in earlier times.

Some flying saucer and UFO accounts that have ended up in the lore can be attributed to this mind-set or quirk, and seems to be neurological in nature.

Thomas Cole died relatively young (48 years) and had no outward signs of dementia or mental illness but art historians play down or eschew his angel paintings as they indicate an obsession they'd prefer to submerge.

Joseph Smith [December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844], the founder of Mormonism lived in the same time frame and also said he saw angels (Moroni) who helped him establish the Church of Latter Day Saints.

For some reason, the age that begot these two men was ripe for such visions, hallucinations, or hoax-dreams.

Here are some of the allegorical paintings of Thomas Cole, with angels or bright splotches one might call UFOs:
RR

Friday, January 23, 2015

Extraterrestrials and Flying Saucers [UFOs] have a common denominator?

In George Pal’s 1953 Sci-Fi film, War of the Worlds, Dr. Clayton Forrester [Gene Barry] suggested, via script writer Barre Lyndon, that the Martians created their technology based upon how they looked – their physiognomy.

Here’s clip to remind you how the Martians and their machines appeared in the film: 


This offers the speculation that if UFOs are ET craft, they may represent something from their world that flies, just as Earthlings developed aircraft based, in part, on birds in flight and rocket-ships based upon arrows flying through the air.

The circular objects known as flying saucers, morphed into UFOs, may have, conjecturally, been created by extraterrestrials who have, in their world, something that is circular and flies.

That alien beings debarking from flying disks have human-like characteristics belies, perhaps, the idea that those beings come from a planet elsewhere.

This opens the door to time-travelers or inter-dimensional beings.

Otherwise the beings seen outside a flying disk/saucer would have some round or circular characteristics, if War of the Worlds’ scriptwriter Lyndon was prescient, which I think he was.


RR

Will ETI Be Space Explorers? Some Cultural Considerations by Michael Ashkenazi

This 1995 paper can be accessed by clicking HERE.

Ashkenazi provides arguments for and against SETI and the possibility (or not) of ET space travel.

Referenced is David Brin’s The Great Silence an extrapolation of Fermi’s paradox.

Those who wish to see more about David Brin’s thesis, and read his paper, have these web-sites:




And here are David Brin’s web page musings on his paper and science topics:


RR

Thursday, January 22, 2015

The Martian Explosion

This comes from Weird Science-Fantasy's Flying Saucer Report [An EC comic book, December 1954]:
Couple this with Clyde Tombaugh's account of a perceived explosion on Mars (noted here and at the UFO Evidence site, among others).....

In 1949, Tombaugh had also told the Naval missile director at White Sands Missile Range, Commander Robert McLaughlin, that he had seen a bright flash on Mars in August 1941, which he now attributed to an atomic blast (mentioned May 12, 1949, in a letter from McLaughlin to Dr. James van Allen). [3] Tombaugh also noted that the first atomic bomb tested in New Mexico would have lit up the dark side of the Earth like a neon sign and that Mars was coincidentally quite close at the time, the implication apparently being that the atomic test would have been visible from Mars. 

....and we have observations that feed the possibility that a Martian civilization was intact not that long ago but literally annihilated in toto, eliminating the earlier perceived canals and all remnants of a society or civilization -- the bomb bringing this about being a bomb greater in destructive power that anything created or contemplated here, on Earth.

Is that why NASA is so intrigued with The Red Planet?

RR

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

A 1968 UFO event with symbols and beings (from Jose Antonio Caravaca)

Cootamundra, NSW 1968

C lives at Cootamundra and has done most of his life. Now 63 years old, in his early years, he used to work as a cleaner on night shift at the Cootamundra railway station, cleaning out carriages. In 1968, he was working in one of the carriages, mopping the aisle, when he noticed one side of the night sky as brighter than the rest. So he leaned over so he could see up at a greater angle and saw a strange sight.

At first he thought a plane was coming in to land. C reports that a silent and motionless object he describes as circular, with a symmetrical top and bottom, hung in the air at a close enough height for him to make out a number of obvious shapes.

First, he noticed that the bottom of this ‘saucer-like’ object had a different shape to the top. The bottom had a central object resembling a 44 gallon drum protruding downwards and that this shape moved up and down – in and out of the main body. As it did so, the strange lights that emanated from it changed colours through the spectrum.

The top section had a clear dome of sorts in which there appeared two ‘beach ball’ shaped transparent balls which hovered inside the machine. It was at this point that I interrupted him to ask how he could have seen such things detailed from the ground if they were at the top of the object. His reply was straightforward; “That’s puzzled me for years – it’s as if I was in the carriage, but somewhere closer at the same time”

C went on to describe markings which he drew in a sketch. These markings were on what might otherwise be described as the fuselage.
 C then described 5 beings of different descriptions. Apparently, he was met with two very different types of creature that seemed to be just like humans in most respects. But one was set apart from the others. His appearance differed in that his head seemed elongated from the eyes up – so his cranium was extended.

Again, I asked how this was possible. His response was that he felt there was only one answer – that he had somehow been ‘Taken’. The smaller individuals were using equipment that he could not describe until only a few years ago. The reason was that there were no comparisons to make until current technology made palm readers and postal delivery signatures on an electronic screen an everyday affair.

All of this seemed to take only a few seconds and C instantly ran screaming to the station master to bear witness to this thing. After ‘shirt-fronting’ the station master and practically dragging him out to the carriage where C was working, lo and behold there was nothing to see.

The stationmaster gave a singular shake of the head and it was not mentioned again – until he finally got sick of denial and spoke to us."

SOURCE:

Monday, January 19, 2015

We are living in a Matrix – not The Matrix but A Matrix

At my Facebook media page, I’ve taken to task Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and other internet entities that use we who sign up as fodder for their advertising aims.

We provide personal information for “free” access but have no way to contact those in charge of the sites named, to address issues or correct errors.

It reminds me of Charles Ives short musical piece The Unanswered Question where druids (us) plead with the gods for answers but nothing – not a sound, not a response of any kind – is forthcoming.
The druids (us) get more and more hysterical until the piece ends in dead silence, a recognition that we are alone – there are no gods or they ignore us at their whim and pleasure.

And this is how it is and has been with the UFO phenomenon: we devotees have been asking questions, of each other and those in authority, for about seventy years, and no one has provided a response, except those duplicitous entities who are fearful of UFOs or who have something to hide from those of us (the UFO druids, acolytes of the UFO phenomenon).

We have all gotten more and more hysterical over the years, probing governments and so-called UFO experts, to no avail.

For some reason the minor UFO matrix is abound with circumlocution, from UFO witnesses, UFO “researchers,” and those in government(s) who’ve made everyone afraid to tell what they really know, fearful of vague reprisals or societal whiplash: those who have a UFO experience must be loony.

This minor, man made UFO matrix has been convoluted by charlatans – researchers using hypnosis to dredge up observations (or alleged abductions) and those who try to capitalize on the phenomenon for personal gain or glory.

The real UFO Matrix is more vast and interesting. But a UFO matrix, such as I present here, is palpable and depressing, as it’s man-made and controlled by forces unconscious or malevolent yet seemingly insurmountable by most of us.

We are being defeated, or held at bay, by ignorant people and constructs, much as those swelling social media are being defeated by mercenary forces and greed.

Can we escape the matrix – the man-made matrix – so we might get at the UFO Matrix?

I’m thinking not, as humanity and society are getting dumber by the day, by the hour actually, and UFO mavens are dumber than most.

RR

Saturday, January 17, 2015

UFO Symbols

I've placed these symbols online before (several times), separately, but think the pages from the magazine article by our late friend Lucius Farish and Dale Titler might be useful or interesting to some of you:

RR

Friday, January 16, 2015

Zoam Chomsky!

I'm getting missives, unhappy with Zoam Chomsky's extreme skeptical comments.

I like Zoam Chomsky. He won't be excluded here.

His views are incendiary but not ungentlemanly.

I'm a devotee of atheistic views, those in the theological realm especially, although I'm a "believer."

So, Zoam's views on UFOs are okay with me. They irk some, but not me.

He's here as long as he wishes to be.

RR

Howard Hughes and the Socorro craft (from Jose Antonio Caravaca)

You should know that Spanish UFO researcher (our friend and colleague) Jose Caravaca is more obsessed by Lonnie Zamora's 1964 Socorro sighting that I am (if that's possible).

Jose found this during a Blue Book search (now that Blue Book files are online for free):
I asked him to provide supplemental material, and he has:
This adds credence to my long-held suggestion that it was a Howard Hughes Aircraft/Toolco/Raven CIA experiment gone slightly awry.

RR

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Researching UFO episodes – Old and New

Some comments in my post about Donald Menzel and radar tells me much about how UFO devotees (not researchers, just plain folks) are inept when it comes to scrutinizing UFO incidents.

Real doctors, those who want to cure their patients, look, myopically, at those patients to discern what they can from the little, imperceptible clues that might be missed but would actually tell them (the doctors) what ill or ills may be making the patient sick.

My posting on Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity also insists that psychologists look at those almost hidden attributes that tell us whether a person is psychopathic or not.

(No one reading here has read the book I surmise, although it’s available as a free PDF online.)

Oliver Sacks' neurological-inspired tomes tell us the same thing: it’s the little things that often tell doctors (neurologists) what’s troubling a patient.

Now, here, I get superficial read-outs from my regulars whom I appreciate, truly, even though I think they are less than intellectual or perceptive about the topics I register, some in their field of expertise.

(Only Larry Lemke fulfills the honorarium of “intellectual” when he comments.)

In the matter of radar as problematic (possibly!) when it comes to UFOs I remind Bruce Duensing that Goliath was taken down by a slung rock.

That an extraterrestrial craft, as unknown a thing as we have (unreal or real, both) may be vulnerable to radar’s attributes, although even I think that’s iffy…isn’t impossible.

To conjecture about such a possibility [sic] is grist here – UFO Conjecture(s) – so long as it takes into account what radar is and can do or not do as we know from the data and physics of radar.

I ragged on the fellows at Randle’s blog for their conjectures – because those conjectures were juvenile and loony, the bulk of what Mr. Randle allows to pump up his hit-count.

My point here is that if one wants to disjoint the idea about radar being disruptive, within its physical parameters, they better have, at their disposal, all the info, online and in books, that present the whole radar panoply, and the experiments, over the years, attached to radar.

That Roswell was a radar event can’t be dismissed out of hand, as loopy as they may seem to be.

That’s my point.

RR

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Donald Menzel on Radar (and Astronomy): a UFO connection?

Donald Menzel, Harvard professor, UFO debunker, and CIA operative, provided a paper on radar and astronomy, in which one can find clues to what the U.S. military was doing with radar experimentation in 1947:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1947ASPL....5..135M/0000145.000.html

Radar was "blamed" for the alleged Aztec crash of 1948 and recent loony (?) talk at Kevin Randle's blog suggested that the Roswell incident was the result of an alien (extraterrestrial) craft being downed by radar.

At any rate, Menzel offers a few asides that could (possibly!) allow for radar-caused-flying disk crashes.

RR

Monday, January 12, 2015

How visitors to this blog show up when the Kodak slides are mentioned


Ufology and The Mask of Sanity

Before I was in college -- much before -- I came across a book in my local library: The Caricature of Love by Hervey Cleckley, a tome outlining the deviancy of homosexuality, which is still applicable today.

When I was in college, one of my psychology professors recom- mended Hervey Cleckley's The Mask Of Sanity.
This is Wikepedia's opening on Dr. Cleckley and his book:
Hervey Milton Cleckley (1903 – January 28, 1984) was an American psychiatrist and pioneer in the field of psychopathy. His book, The Mask of Sanity, originally published in 1941 and revised in new editions until the 1980s, provided the most influential clinical description of psychopathy in the twentieth century. The term "mask of sanity" derived from Cleckley's belief that a psychopath can appear normal and even engaging, but that the "mask" conceals a mental disorder.

I got the book and have voraciously used it in my associations with people, especially UFO-oriented people.

UFO researchers, had they read the book before they got involved with UFO witnesses and alleged UFO abductees, and the Roswell gaggle, they'd have been able to eliminate much of the grist and lies foisted upon them by psychopathic personalities, just as I avoid those in the UFO community who are psychopathic.

Dr. Cleckley's insights are essential for cleansing UFO lore and the community itself of deviant or sociopathic people.

From the book, a listing if traits one should look for when evaluating a subject (a UFO witness for example) or a UFO researcher (such as Philip Imbrogno, unmasked by Lance Moody):

1.   Superficial charm and good "intelligence"
2.   Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
3.   Absence of "nervousness" or psychoneurotic manifestations
4.   Unreliability
5.   Untruthfulness and insincerity
6.   Lack of remorse or shame
7.   Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
8.   Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
9.   Pathologic egocentricity ...
10. General poverty in major affective reactions
11. Specific loss of insight
12. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
13. Fantastic and uninviting behavior with or without drink 
14. Suicide rarely carried out
15. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
16. Failure to follow any life plan

More often than not, the typical psychopath will seem particularly agreeable and make a distinctly positive impression when he is first encountered. Alert and friendly in his attitude, he is easy to talk with and seems to have a good many genuine interests.

There is nothing at all odd or queer about him, and in every respect he tends to embody the concept of a well-adjusted, happy person. Nor does he, on the other hand, seem to be artificially exerting himself like one who is covering up or who wants to sell you a bill of goods. He would seldom be confused with the professional backslapper or someone who is trying to ingratiate himself for a concealed purpose. 

Signs of affectation or excessive affability are not characteristic. He looks like the real thing.

Very often indications of good sense and sound reasoning will emerge and one is likely to feel soon after meeting him that this normal and pleasant person is also one with high abilities. Psychometric tests also very frequently show him of superior intelligence. More than the average person, he is likely to seem free from social or emotional impediments, from the minor distortions, peculiarities, and awkwardnesses so common even among the successful. Such superficial characteristics are not universal in this group but they are very common.

After being caught in shameful and gross falsehoods, after repeatedly violating his most earnest pledges, he finds it easy, when another occasion arises, to speak of his word of honor, his honor as a gentleman, and he shows surprise and vexation when commitments on such a basis do not immediately settle the issue.

The conception of living up to his word seems, in fact, to be regarded as little more than a phrase sometimes useful to avoid unpleasantness or to gain other ends.

That UFO researchers do not have the qualifications, usually, to pursue personalities lies at the heart of the UFO dilemma, as it's UFO reports that make up the core of the UFO story, and that core is besotted by liars or psychotic personalities, telling the stories or asking the questions.

Take a look at the comments inside Kevin Randle's blog and other UFO venues and you'll find palpable examples of what Dr. Cleckley was writing about.

Get the book, read it, and see for yourself that the icons of Ufology are as flawed, maybe more so, than those who've gulled us all with their made-up stories and misperceptions.

RR

Saturday, January 10, 2015

THE HUMANOID OF THE ROSWELL SLIDES by Jose Antonio Caravaca

After talking with some researchers who have seen the slides, we can try to reconstruct the possible semblance of humanoid that shown in the pictures ... Although our drawing probably is not exact, the readers can imagine the general details of the humanoid face and, most importantly, they can know the facial features that will not find ...

The Slides show a humanoid about 3 feet long, somewhat elongated head with a large cranium and a small, underdeveloped mandible, with a face that was relatively human-looking.  The nose short, but within the range of "normal" human proportions.  The eyes were round--maybe slightly almond shaped--but also well within the range of "normal" human proportions.  They were not at all "insectoid" looking.  The ears also located about where they would be on a normal human head--about half way from the chin to the crown of the head.  The mouth had thin lips (human-like--finer and flatter). The mouth is open and no teeth are visible The skin as being chestnut brown. The skin of the humanoid is smooth and appears to have shrunk taut against the bones (ribs, legs, arms, cranium). Whether this is due to natural effects of death (saponification, dessication, etc.) or is the result of some post-mortem treatment (embalming, freezing, etc.) is not clear. The head appears to have been severed from the top of the spinal column and then replaced, lying at an unnatural angle relative to the torso.

RR

Who produced this interesting UFO paper?

This paper, created by  British UFO researcher, compares some canonical UFO sightings, including the 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter "swamp gas" episode:

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/ufos-compare.pdf

I'd be interested in knowing who the author was or is. Anyone know?

RR

Friday, January 09, 2015

Why Kevin Randle has lost (some) respect and (lots of) cachet

Kevin Randle is one of those names in UFO-land that carries weight – not as much weight as it once had but still rather formidable in some UFO circles.

Mr. Randle has been trying, mightily, to correct his image as a sloppy UFO researcher by recently regurgitating correctives of the Roswell scenario, which he and Donald Schmitt, among others, botched by accepting witness testimony willy-nilly; that is, he (and his cohorts) took down Roswell stories as if they were gospel when, in fact, they were as dubious as the Christian Gospels, even more so.

Yet, Mr. Randle, via his blog [A Different Perspective], continues to allow comments, such as those I’ve placed in the posting just prior to this one.

The comments come from UFO loonies or UFO trolls/scum as Steve Sawyer without any disciplined editing, just carte blanche posting of crazy comments, whether from those cited or ET obsessed quidnuncs like David Rudiak,

Mr. Randle thinks, I believe, that if someone says something or writes something, those somethings have got be valid or credible.

This is what got him in trouble with the sensible UFO community about Roswell in his books.

Now he continues that mistake but allowing a “democratic” free-for-all at his blog where anyone can post something, anything, and it stands there as a viable example of truth, but is often hardly that, mostly just goofy-ass observations by UFO laggards hoping to become someone noted in Ufology – a sad desire, granted, but still wished for by some at the fringe of UFO lore and history.

Mr. Randle has got to tighten his grasp of UFO-related commentary, keeping fools out of his blog, and not interacting with their crazy ruminations.

If he doesn’t do that, he’ll descend further into the bowels of ufology where most former UFO UpDaters now reside, because they, too, got flippant and UFO insane.

RR

Example(s) of how loony UFO devotees have become -- from Kevin Randle's blog 1/9/15

 Paul Young said...
You know, after spending the last few months reading this blog from the beginning. I'm fascinated by the knowledge of the UFO subject from both the ETH's (of which I tend to side with) and the sceptics who post here. I'm no researcher, simply an avid reader of the subject over the last few decades, but from what I can gather, the best explanation for why the disc/s crashed in the Roswell incident, is pilot error.

As mentioned by Starman, these beings certainly don't seem to be invincible. I mentioned earlier that if they are biological beings,which would seem to be the case, they probably can have an "off" day, same as us. Maybe they get tired, get hayfever...get "dear John" postcards from the missus.

KR jokingly mentioned above that "someone might have pressed the wrong button". That's not an outlandish theory to me. In one of the books in my vast collection...about 20 paperbacks :-( ... I remember reading an interesting point being made by the author (was it you Kevin?...might be Tim Good) that in some reported cases, the ufo's act like they are being piloted by juvenile delinquents secretly taking daddys car out for a drive. In the JAL case mentioned by Larry above, this UFO the size of two Nimitz class carriers was practically showing off!
Some reports suggest that UFO's could be accused of playing "chicken" with our pilots. Playfully buzzing them.

It's quite feasible to me that some,off colour, or cocky alien pilot could have made a "pigs ear" of it.
4:37 PM
Blogger John's Space said...
Based on a lot of reports of UFO aerial behavior it seems clear that a lot of their pilots are "hotdogs" in the cockpit.
5:34 PM

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Turn of the 20th Century Airship [photo]


Tuesday, January 06, 2015

A Sasquatch family on an Arizona highway?

https://gma.yahoo.com/mysterious-beasts-spotted-arizona-highway-cameras-220315455--abc-news-topstories.html