UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The great internet maw: the loss of your UFO material

Pretty much everyone thinks stuff showing up on the web, the internet, is here eternally, and will be accessible well into the future.

It won't be.

When Blogger is eliminated by Google, and it will be, rather soon some media outlets have reported, this blog and everyone else’s will be gone.

Why? Blogger is on Google’s servers and when those servers are put out of service or destroyed in a catastrophe, what is on them (what was on them) will be gone.

In Facebook’s case, material is deleted from FB’s servers when a member deletes their account, as noted in this link HERE.

But beyond an individual’s account, like Google, if Facebook’s servers go down or disappear, and they will one day, all that is on them, all that was on them, will go into an internet black hole.

And the great maw will occur eventually, as the internet, itself, disappears one day, taking its content  with it, as speculated in the black hole information paradox.

Try capturing something once touted on MySpace. It’s no longer available.

For some of us, what we’ve transposed via Blogger will appear somewhere on the internet, during the internet’s life, but what we’ve all added to Facebook or Instagram or Tumblr, Wix, Wordpress et al. will be gone much sooner than that.

UFO books and material on paper will last longer, even after an nuclear attack, as in the Twilight Zone episode Time Enough at Last with Burgess Meredith:
However, that will disappear, too, one day.

For now, inserting one’s memorial UFO writings on Facebook is much iffier that putting them forth via a web-site or a blog, but nothing is forever, is it?

RR

From my Facebook feed


Monday, January 16, 2017

Hokey, but it made me laugh

From my Facebook feed...

RR

Ponce de León, The Second Coming, Wish Fulfillment, and UFOs

As you know:

“According to a popular legend, Ponce de León discovered Florida while searching for the Fountain of Youth. Though stories of vitality-restoring waters were known on both sides of the Atlantic long before Ponce de León, …” [From Wikipedia]
“The Second Coming is when Jesus Christ will return to earth in fulfillment of His promises and to fulfill the prophecies made about Him.” [From http://www.allaboutgod.com/the-second-coming.htm]
“Wish fulfillment is the satisfaction of a desire through an involuntary thought process.

Wish fulfillment can occur in dreams or in daydreams, in the symptoms of neurosis, or in the hallucinations of psychosis.” [From Wikipedia]
What have these to do with UFOs?

The desire for something “magical” to happen to we humans seems endemic, and the hope that UFOs are vanguards from an advanced extraterrestrial species is akin to such wishes.

It seems to me that many, if not most, UFO buffs have a deep-rooted need (wish) for salvation from our Earthly woes, much like those who hate aging and death and those who are suffused by Earthly sufferings, seeing a returning Jesus Christ as a savior, despite the fact [sic] that His second coming is long overdue.

And many UFO buffs think that the world’s governments are privy to information that confirms their wishes.

But the folly of the youth fountain and Jesus’ return are pathological memes, just as the UFO ETH is.

Jesus is not coming back, there is no Fountain of Youth and UFOs do not contain beings who will bring answers to this Earth’s problems.

N.B. Exquisite Fountain of Youth image, above, from http://joeboruchow.blogspot.com/2012/05/fountain-of-youth.html

RR

Saturday, January 14, 2017

UFOs from the Nook and Cranny File(s)

I have a number of UFO books that I scan for posting material here, as you know.

What surprises me, even at this late stage of my UFO interest, is how many different and unique flying saucer and UFO tales have been recorded, from the past and into the modern era, 1945 onward.

How can this be, if UFOs don’t exist, or are hallucinatory, or Earth-made, or are an unnatural phenomenon?

(I rule out the ET explanation, as you know. It’s absurd, even though I accept the possibility that some UFO sightings might be of AI machines probing the Universe and occasionally [sic] showing up here.)

And what about all those alleged and recorded encounters with creatures, beings, or humanoids, that I find fascinating. Can they all be the product of psychopathology, all of them?

Comparing the episodes of little people, fairies, angels, and the like, UFOs with accompanying entities come out ahead, in the literature, by a super abundant number.

How to deal with such a remarkable, unbelievable extension of reality?

Are all witnesses to such phenomena demented, or neurologically deficient?

The odds for that, even in a world smacking of a pathological subset, are too large to accommodate the insane or madness hypothesis.

Likewise, hoaxing can be ruled out, along with errant observation: people see and report things rather accurately.

Here’s a fascinating “story” related by Micah Hanks in UFOs & Aliens: Is There Anybody Out There? A group of essays by ufologists, edited by Michael Pye and Kirsten Dalley [New Page Books/Career Press, Pomptom Plains, NJ, 2011, Page 107 ff.]:

While co-hosting a radio show, Speaking of Strange with Joshua P. Warren, a caller named Steven provided details of an incident that he (Steven) experienced in 1988 while on military duty at Johnston Atoll in the north Pacific.

The island housed a variety of aging, biological chemicals.

Coming back from a 24-hour shift, Steven and his company, “one of the officers noticed what looked like a small, dark, metallic ball hovering the sky above.

“Whatever it was, nobody could identify it.” [Page 110]

The island radar station could not get a “paint” (radar image) of the "metallic ball."

The base commander was hosting a two-star retired general and both “were looking at it also” (as was heard on the base radio).

“ … the mystery object … stopped directly over the middle of the island and seemed to begin a slow descent, the metallic ball [appearing] to grow larger … the thing – whatever it was – kept getting closer and filled more and more of the sky.

“The object got bigger, and bigger, and bigger,” Steven said.

“ …this object dwarfed even the largest known aircraft used by the Air Force at the time …the object’s circumference could easily have been the length of the island, though [Steven] still couldn’t tell for certain whether it was round or flat, because it seemed to be absorbing light.” [Page 111]

“As the [daylight] got brighter, this thing got blacker and bigger.” [Page 112]

Personnel on the island were watching the “silent behemoth” and “As the black void loomed above … the water and the air … became charged with electricity …

“Then … the moment the sun cracked the horizon, this thing vanished. And I [Steven] don’t mean it flew away; I don’t mean it went left or right. This thing just wasn’t there anymore!

“The shadow that had been over the island was no longer there … It just went – it disappeared. [Page 112]

Steven provided his assessment to Hanks and his radio partner”

“… I think all technology – no matter how advanced  -- that is built by any being, entity, or anything with some degree of intelligence, has its limitations and the potential for failure. And I think that whatever this thing was – whatever ‘they’ were --I think we witnessed a malfunction. I think something went wrong with this thing’s technology … I think we actually witnessed a [technological] malfunction …They are out there, and they are huge. Some of these things are enormous.” [ibid, Page 113, italics in book]

How do we explain or understand the above account?

Was Steven lying? I don’t believe Hanks thinks so. The tale doesn’t read as fictive.

But was the “thing” an unusual meteorological or atmospheric phenomenon? Perhaps.

The conclusion of Steven is imposed upon the event, that event not definitive in any way that allows an ET determination.

And yet the incident is strange and odd in ways that incur further examination. Did Micah Hanks or anyone else follow up to see if there were other “witnesses” to the sighting?

Did anyone check meteorological records to see if there were atmospherics that might account for the “thing” and its ephemeral disappearance?

Are there other similar sightings in UFO lore? I’m looking, and will use Aubeck’s and Vallee’s Wonders in the Sky and his Return to Magonia (with Shough), covered here below.

My subsidiary point here is that there are rafts of UFO tales with enough credibility to invite further explanation or exegesis.

The perusal of such tales should offer imaginative grist for those inclined to keep pursuing UFOs.

After all, what else if there for us, who are existentially comfortable, to do?

RR

Friday, January 13, 2017

Return to Magonia (and The Anomalist)

I want to thank my pals at Patrick Huyghe’s Anomalist, especially WM, who regularly provides notices of my ramblings and offers correctives as needed.

This one’s for them….

I haven’t mentioned, in a while, Chris Aubeck’s and Martin Shough’s book Return to Magonia: Investigating UFOs in History. [Anomalist Books, TX, 2015]

While re-reading the book – I’m a Chris Aubeck fan – I was struck by the passages inside the discourse on the Airship phenomenon of the late 1800s. [Chapter 15, Strange Mid-air Ships, Page219 ff.], particularly the passages about the alleged “sightings” and incidents recorded in Medieval church documents [Page 231 ff.].

My “critical review” appeared here a year ago:


Most of you, I presume, recall the often mentioned (in UFO literature) the account of Archbishop Agobard [779-840] in the 9th Century that supposedly related an encounter by parishioners with “people” who descended from a craft floating in the air like a ship at sea:

“ … many people [were] exhibiting four captives, three men and a woman, [who] had fallen from these very ships. [The four] were chained up for some days [and being prepared to be stoned by their captures]” which Archbishop halted.

A Chinese writing from June 1523 by Qiu Fuzuo is interesting:

“Two ships suddenly came out of a cloud and landed in front of Lu Yu’s school. The five or six pilots of two flying boats were just two feet tall and wore red hats and held long poles. The students came out of the school to see the ships. The beings stretched out their hands and the students’ noses and mouths turned black. They found they were unable to speak and fled in fright.

“The ships remained on the ground for a while. Several people came out … Shortly both ships took off … and flew over a mile away. They landed in a cemetery … the students’ [sic] regained the ability to speak … Five days later, Lu Yu died suddenly.” [ibid; Page 234]

Other accounts (from the period] tell of ships from which “beings” descend from floating ships, many grabbed by people only to be released when they (the beings) professed to be “drowning” or unable to breathe, suffocating in the air in which they were sailing.

Many of the church registered episodes tell of “anchors” being caught on spires or other protuberances and cut away by the crew members in the ships (to escape) and then saved by church members to adorn some facet of the church, like a door.

(I haven’t heard or read, anywhere, that some UFO researcher has checked out the churches mentioned to see if an “anchor” is installed as part of the church façade. The book glosses over the matter.)

These accounts by Aubeck and Shough supplement their elaborate renditions of Airship sightings, which provoked a yawn from me, as noted in my 2016 “review.”

Yet, the tales told (and recorded by church fathers) fascinate.

Why? Are they true or apocryphal or, perhaps, “deliberate inventions with a political message” [Page 234], the “water” meant to be read figuratively, the authors write. [Page 233]

 Sociology and Science (at the University of California. San Diego, Andrew Schull, writes in his book Madness in Civilization: A Cultural History of Insanity from the Bible to Freud, from the Madhouse to Modern Medicine [Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2015] this:

“In Europe, medieval societies in the centuries that followed the breakdown of the Rona imperium were riven by the twin scourges of poverty and disease, heir depredations exacerbated by endemic violence and insecurity. This was a world of malnutrition and famine with mass starvation … And to those largely helpless and dependent victims of misfortune, we may add the mad – epileptic, frenzied, melancholic, hallucinating, demented. [Pages 69-70]

Would that account for the “sightings” and incidents as recorded by monks and bishops of the Church?

Even Abogard challenges the mind-set of his parishioners:

“Among those so blinded with profound stupidity … they believe these things … “ [Aubeck /Shough, Page 231]

Michel Foucault in Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason [Vintage Books/Random House, NY, 1965] writes:

“Something new appears in the imaginary landscape of the Renaissance; soon it will occupy a privileged place there: the Ship of Fools, a strange ‘drunken boat’ …Page 7]

“It is possible that these ships of fools … haunted the imagination of the entire early Renaissance …”  [Page 9]

“But if the navigation of madmen is linked in the Western mind with so many immemorial motifs, why, so abruptly, in the [middle ages] is the theme suddenly formulated in literature and iconography?” [Page 13]

Foucault equates “madness” with “folly,” an innocuous mind-set that seems more likely to be the “affliction” of those church members who thought they had seen “ships” and caught some of their crew, “swimming” down toward them.

But why so many tales from different times and different locales, some outside Europe as the China account?

No real research or investigation taken by UFO enthusiasts, as noted in the lack of search for those “anchors” supposedly collected and added to church facilities.

And is there a kind of collective mind-set that pairs these early airships to the 1896 Airships, the reports of which are debunked by UFO skeptics?

Or did some phenomenon show up, created by Vallee’s “control system” or Caravaca’s “external agent”?

Like Grimm’s fairy tales, the stories may have been generated for any number of reasons --  liturgical metaphor, political purpose, or entertainment – and changed by geographic context or existential context.

Or are the stories actual accounts, a journalistic reprise of real events?

Madness prevails either way: in a real context or an hallucinatory context.

RR

Artificial Intelligent "aliens" -- I'm not alone in believing that

Click HERE

RR

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Those UFO Lights

When I get Google UFO Alerts (notices and links) to UFO articles found in media and the internet, the preponderance of “sightings’ are headlined as lights [sic].

And all of you know that lights, often blue or green, have been part of the reports or vocalized sightings in the UFO record (lore).

But as I’ve noted before, here and elsewhere, this seems odd to me.

How is it that an alleged alien (extraterrestrial) species would be using lights, and in color spectrums, like that which we humans use and which were developed by inventors here, starting with Ptolemy and other earlier “scientists/philosophers, and inventors (listed by Wikipedia: Humphry Davy, James Bowman Lindsay, Moses G. Farmer, William E. Sawyer, Joseph Swan and Heinrich Göbel ) ending with the likes of Edison and  his incandescent bulbs, and LEDS today, among newer analogs?

Evolution, not only of our species, but in human invention and discovery, is unique to the many factors that make up the Earth, as I’ve often noted – geologic development and transition, geographic placement, daily existence and its vicissitudes, meteorological elements, and human interactions, among other things.

No sentient species in the Universe would evolve as humans have, nor would their “invented artifacts” (such as lights) mimic ours.

This, alone, puts the so-called Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, not only in doubt, but outside commonsense and intelligent discourse.

No extraterrestrial craft, if there were ever such a thing, would have lights like those that adorn human aircraft or human facilities.

The idea is ludicrous.

RR

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Madness and madness: the state of ufology (an update or clarification)

Two comments received for this blog. This first (received just a few days ago) for a 2011 posting about Howard Hughes and Socorro”

and speaking about area 51 Texas findings on spying on area 51 Texas black box on the moratos labs wok for the arm force most wanted information for the first time area 51 Texas galaxy head quarters arrest on these word for spying on empty alien buildings the person most wanted is chato son i'm sure is on Elvis Presley orphan work for world vision these person is a north tiger recorded to be busted for driving the united states and area 51 texas to ask why they are doing that questions from are 51 tecas to the busted on the federal government for causing the great dipreshien 2 times one end it by 1971 started on the 1960's i'm sure they also call the united states arm force maybe the moratos to visit utah for secret work. some work can be found on the confession on the limp by-skit for attacking means to be on the security pro strode unit on salt also city Utah there is more information on the federal government or utah government or on the arm force maybe they are also security pro morato an for sure they are north tiger morato also these is aliens record to merry binladen to stop all attacks against them and because they have problems maybe try them also because it ws a war then also only that these north tigers are no good and no one know the real look binladen cam it be only by attacks we can tell because is recorded on the moratos also these store unit was also biography or maybe or 99 story.

these aliens are know to have Utah attack each other arm force recordings they do it a lot. like hundred of Utah population attacking each other or attacking the general population each pother just utah.the arm force is different 

we have report they do these and when is reason the only one why they have phone codes and more. Utah population is busted.” 

And this for a 2016  posting by me about the state of ufology; one of my ongoing rants about the condition of the UFO topic:

I am always amused when 21st century American observers offers their viewpoints on 19th century European culture. As always, these observations tend to show the limits of the percipient more than offering a concise view of what 19th century European culture exactly was in all its richness and diversity.

There are so many vectors that need to be included - details the first generations of enthusiastic ufologists missed for a number of reasons. Jung, for instance, was a mere dilettante, one of those countless dreaming souls spawn forth from a dying Vienna, a city I once visited. Through the American counterculture Jung won stature - but we, the Europeans, have not forgotten his dances with fire - his Aryan abyss of yore. As we have not forgotten that Vienna gave birth to Freud, Klimt, but also Hitler.

Connect to that the stupor and laziness of the US hobby-ufologist who hasn't conducted any original research into the old waves since they were first discovered and formulated by the hard work of the 1960's ufologists, and we can see where the whole debate quickly becomes derailed. Old models, old data, old combinations, creating erroneous theories.

Contradictio in terminis: these theories are moulded to suit preferred preconceptions and are not driven by any original investigation to clear the way. 

A simple observation: the still clinging to the dogma of the canonical waves of old, i.e. 1896-1897, 1930's, 1946. These so-called waves - if they were that - were formulated in the 1960's. No update since then has reached the debate - where researchers have done so much to correct these old-fashioned viewpoints.”

Now I ask you, what is the first commentary about? You tell me.

And the second from a brilliant fellow who dislikes my approach, mostly the accent on old cases without any new “research” I presume.

Yes, but has the commentator, himself, done any new “research” into the UFO phenomenon?

I don’t think so. I haven’t seen any. But he points his finger at my admittedly limp speculations while offering nothing of substance himself about UFOs, past or present.

That’s what I’m complaining about: the madness in the first example and the florid apathy of the second, disguising itself as substantive, yet nowhere near so.

This is the state of “ufology” and the overwhelming UFO milieu nowadays, mad (in the insane sense) and mad (in the angry sense).

I have seen no responses, here or anywhere in the UFO universe, that are worthy of erudite rejoinder(s).

Even my pal Kevin Randle’s blog is sidelined by inane commentary that is so vapid as to be profoundly evanescent.

And look at the commentary at other popular UFO blogs or web-sites . They are replete with banality and worthless dialectic.

That’s the state of “ufology” nowadays, befuddled by fools and betrayed by deserters to Facebook, where everyone has a voice but no one has a sensible thought in his or her head.

RR

Facing reality: the UFO dilemma

There comes a time when delusion (and madness) must be set aside.

And the delusional madness of which I write is the UFO madness.

Once it was “cute” to be interested in UFOs and flying saucers, but those days and that “cuteness” are long gone.

The mysterious “phenomenon” – whether a figment of the imagination, a real phenomenon, a contrived hoax, or any other kind of “reality” – has reached the nadir of its value to human society.

UFOs don’t factor in to human existence, and never really did. UFOs and flying disks have always been a fringe topic and a trivial aspect of human history.

One can see the riven condition of ufology, that pseudo-practice that has smothered the enigmatic appearance of odd “somethings” seen in the sky and often on the ground.

UFOs are now only the haven for nostalgic geezers who became attuned to the Sci-Fi patina of the observed “somethings” while in their youth and now do not have the gumption to see that they and their wistful adolescent fixation no longer matters.

Many of my “friends” in the UFO community have actually abandoned their obsession for UFOs, deriving attention and belonging within the confines of Facebook and Twitter.

They rarely contribute within a ufological venue, opting to be adorned by fawning sycophants who slobber over their mundane activities that have nothing to do with UFOs or anything of substance.

Then there are the absolutely “mad” ravings of those who still harbor a hope that UFOs are the vanguard of an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, a fantasy that is so blatantly irrational that it borders on psychopathology.

Yes, there are some niggling elements within UFO lore that intrigue (even to me) but to set aside one’s existent and necessary proclivities to pursue UFOs to the detriment of normal behavioral life is sheer madness. And not to recognize that as madness is a folly that belies common sense; that obtrudes on intelligent wherewithal.

Some of you reading this will depart as visitors here, but that is no great loss, as most of you do not contribute or participate in any meaningful way, here or anywhere else for that matter.

UFOs are as dead as the hula hoop or any other fad that sprouted in the last decades of the Twentieth Century.

N.B. Graphic a top from WebFuel.ca

RR 

Monday, January 09, 2017

Planet 9 (not Plan 9 from Outer Space)

The CBS 60 Minutes hour Sunday, January 8, 2017, noted in my posting below, had a segment on the search for the 9th planet in our Solar System, a huge planet (supposedly) that would replace dwarf planet Pluto in the pantheon of planets astronomers find interesting.

I hope that UFO buffs stay tuned to information coming forth about the "new" planet and its importance, perhaps, to the UFO topic, meaning that Alien Astronaut theorists should be prevented from kidnapping the planet to further their extraterrestrial hypotheses, derailed now that Zecharia Sitchin's 12th Planet tale is pretty much dismissed by sane, sensible ufologists (if there are such people).

RR

60 Minutes and Artificial Intelligent Drones

I hope some of you, here in the States, saw CBS' 60 Minutes segment Sunday night [1/8/17] that provided an in-depth look at MIT's creation of AI drones for the U.S. military.

The clips above show the drones surrounding military aircraft, without human intervention, and a clip of the drones in the air that mock the 1952 Newhouse/Tremonton , Utah "things' filmed by Warrart Officer Newhouse.

Now I'm not implying that Newhouse filmed U.S. drones but I am implying that maybe Newhouse filmed drones from "elsewhere" that intruded upon American airspace, and have for many years, even doing so now.

The other point I'm making is that the U.S. military admits that its drones have the ability to kill humans without human direction: the drones make the decision to kill on their own using AI algorithms. And those algorithms are already in place.

The "warnings" about AI, offered by various tech and scientific gurus [Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil. Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Nick Bostrom, et al.], seem particularly prescient.

RR

Sunday, January 08, 2017

The UFO skeptic’s Bible (or it should be)

The book pictured here, by Paul Devereux and Peter Brookesmith, was published in 1997 by Blandford a Cassell, London:
It is a compendium of all the iconic (significant) stories and reports that have enthralled UFO buffs, and many that still do.

But the authors, along with Montague Keen and familiar UFO critic Nigel Watson, emasculate most (all?) of the UFO tales that UFO aficionados take for granted, including Roswell, which can be discarded by this one newspaper clip about Mac Brazel, who claimed to have found “flying disk debris” on his farm in June [sic] 1947. (I’ve left the piece fully scanned so you can read it. It appears on page 123 of the book.):
[Mouse over image and click to enlarge

The concluding Epilogue by Mr. Devereux provides a succinct appreciation of the psychology that afflicts Ufology and the UFO myth itself. [Page 179 ff.]

If you are a UFO believer and/or an ETH proponent of the mysterious phenomenon, this is a must-have/must read book, one that skeptics can use to bolster their anti-UFO views.

It surely must be available from a variety of sources (Amazon, Powells, et al.) and at a bargain price since it has been around for 20 years now.

RR

UFOs not UAP

I’m a “UFO theorist” (in my mind).

And I’m agnostic about the phenomenon, but you know that.

But, for me, the UFOs I’m interested in are Unidentified Flying Objects not Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

The latter consists of atmospheric anomalies or other amorphous entities of a non-intelligent kind.

Then there are the things that are hallucinogenic in nature; that is, they are products of the mind, real in that sense, and worthy of neurological and/or psychological study, which I also find fascinating.

Yet, it’s those seemingly tangible artifacts that have shown up often and sometimes eject “creatures” or beings who act with apparent intent.

Many of those “sightings” or incidents are psychologically produced also, but there are a few which, from an evidence standpoint, aren’t, such as the 1967 Stephan Michalak/Falcon Lake episode, dismissed by Zoam Chomsky, [http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm] or the 1979 Robert Taylor “assault” in Scotland set aside by the Wikipedia account as “an isolated attack of temporal lobe epilepsy.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_incident]
Of course the 1964 Socorro sighting by Police Officer Lonnie Zamora was not an hallucinatory episode or a UAP product.
There are others, which I see as intrusions of AI machines or insertions from another dimension or time.

These are the sightings, among a few others, that intrigue (me).

They can be “explained away” as UFO buffs used to say but that is disingenuous and a superficial approach to such UFO events.

The sloth and apathy of “ufologists” have marginalized intriguing cases that seem to involve tangible (material), intelligently operated “things” that fly or land on Earth.

One can play around with such sightings but that is not “scientific” or imaginative.

One can debunk or be skeptical about such sightings or events but that would be stupid, until such efforts erase all possibilities of tangibility or apparent intelligence on the part of the “things” experienced.

Spanish UFO researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca’s “Distortion Theory” like Jacques Vallee’s “Control System” theory could answer some of the sightings I’ve noted here, except of the fact that there are remnants of reality (hard evidence) that something solid was involved, something palpable and corporeal.

Yes, some UFOs are “objects.” They are not Unidentified Phenomena.

RR

Friday, January 06, 2017

Our follower/reader Daniel’s view of reality

A Letter to the Editor in the January 19th, 2017 New York Review of Books, which I cited in a recent piece on quantum mechanics, from Clinton James about a review of Anthony Gottlieb’s The Dream of Enlightenment [NYB, 9/29/16] by Thomas Nagel strikes at the ontological status of quantum mechanics.

Mr. James writes, “ … an ontology of the reality of different perspectives or the infinity of different realities, along the lines of Spinoza and Leibniz may continue to survive in the very heart of physical theory.” [Page 66]

Earlier in his letter Mr. James noted “that modern physics, specifically quantum mechanics, can only be interpreted as a theory of a materialistic, Hobbesian naturalism.”

Thomas Nagel replied, ending his missive with this:

“ … there is no more to reality than our observations (a form of idealism) and with the view that, although there is an underlying physical reality that actually explains the observations, a different or extended theory is needed to explain it.” [ibid, Page 66]

Daniel insists that reality consists of what we experience and observe, which is a sensible view but only a patina of reality, as evidenced by the reports and tales of Nick Redfern, The Anomalist, et al.

RR

Thursday, January 05, 2017

More on Quantum Mechanics

Click HERE for article on strangeness of Quantum.

RR

Radio signals from a galaxy far, far away?

From my Facebook feed, a Smithsonian piece on signals being emitted by (from) a small, obscure galaxy.

Click HERE to read.

RR

Quantum Mechanics: No longer the darling “theory” of physicists

The New York Review of Books [January 19th 2017] has a critical essay by physicist Steven Weinberg, who teaches at the University of Texas, Austin and has won a Nobel Prize in Physics and the National Medal of Science: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics. [Page 51 ff.]

In his essay Dr. (or Professor) Weinberg bemoans the state of quantum mechanics, as it exists among physicists today, many eschewing the probability aspects of quantum mechanics and struggling with quantum entanglement.

For my purposes here, the whole idea that quantum mechanics is under assault by the physics community, is pleasing, insofar as I see quantum mechanics/theory much as Einstein did: “Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing.” [In a 1926 letter to Max Born, cited by Weinberg on page 51.]

However, I like the concept of “quantum entanglement” speculating, as you know, that UFOs, as von Neumann-like AI devices, may be using or has used quantum entanglement to communicate, instantaneously between machines or back to their original intergalactic venue.

Weinberg writes this, however:

“There is another requirement, satisfied in ordinary quantum mechanics, that in entangled states the evolution of probabilities during measurements cannot be used to send instantaneous signal, which would violate the theory of relativity. Special relativity requires that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light.” [Page 53]

I’ve proposed that communication, using quantum entanglement, doesn’t involve “signals.” Particles, seduced by an advanced AI species for communication, would be known by that species to have nothing to do with “signals” or what we see as communication. Quantum entanglement is, as I see it, an inherent, paranormal aspect of quantum particles, not unlike that experienced by twins; that is, nothing is communicated between quantum twins; they are “connected” by something intrinsic to their being, that interacts, immediately, without signaling or communication as we understand it.

Quantum particles have a link that transcends connectivity as we understand connectivity.

(Eric Wargo of thenightshirt.com understands I bet.)

But that’s a side issue here.

Weinberg presents the arguments against quantum predictivity while accepting the fact that quantum experiments can be used effectively with the mechanisms of the theory, but writes that Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation about the unpredictability in a measurement of spin in a quantum state “is now widely felt to be unacceptable.” [Page 52]

Professor Weinberg writes about consciousness and reality in the quantum context, which some of you would do well to read.

But let me be clear, Weinberg states that “the problems of understanding measurement in the present form of quantum mechanics may be a warning that the theory needs modification.” [Page 53]

My point may be that while quantum mechanics is the lingua franca of physics today, it, too, will go (or is going) the way of Newtonian physics, meaning that reality is something more complex and profound than quantum mechanics (and physicists) think.

Thus, we have to concede that ufology, a pseudo-something, has to be discarded by we UFO buffs, as it is iffier than quantum mechanics or anything else in the realms with which we use it.

And we have to make proposals about UFO cases and reports that are newer than new, something that most of my readers, here, and those elsewhere in the UFO universe refuse to do, harking back to old, perfunctory UFO “research” and explanations.

If Quantum Mechanics can be stressed by new-thought, how much more so can UFO commentary and ufology be?

RR

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

The Villas Boas Symbol

While scouring the Time-Life book, pictured here, I found a piece on the 1957 Villas Boas “abduction” which I was told, (and have recounted several times here and elsewhere and which Nick Refern has detailed in several of his books and his online offerings) by AID/CIA operative Bosco Nedelcovic, was a military psy-op event.
Nedelcovic was a fellow who contacted me in the 1970s, ostensibly, to underwrite his Basic Livelihood operation , a kind of communal living community.

I don’t know why or how I came to his attention, although there were newspaper accounts of my funding of various inventive ideas, and I do have an extensive FBI file from my John Birch Society affiliation and other activities, which he may have gotten access to.

Bosco send me hundreds of missives, some of which are pictured here (left in a larger scan so you can see that they are actually from him):
I didn’t know about his CIA connection until I read a synopsis on UFO Updates in 2006 or so about his connection to a child abuse allegation and his CIA credentials.

There has been some dispute about his AID credentials. I’ve scanned one of his address returns, behind which is, perhaps, his South American address or AID address, which confirms that he was, indeed, there, but when, exactly, I do not know.
My point here is to show that Villas Boas, no matter what happened to him, provided a symbol (unknown by me up to now) that he allegedly saw in the vehicle (craft) to which he was taken, said by Nedelcovic to be a military helicopter but reported as a flying saucer or space craft by investigators of the purported abduction.

Here is the symbol, my primary interest at the moment.
This supposed symbol, along with the Lonnie Zamora/Socorro symbol, both, if valid, might provide a clue as to who or what were involved in the two incidents.

For more on the Nedelcovic psy-op story, use Google .

My early on presentation of the phone call and our investigation of the material told to me by Nedelcovic was lost when we cancelled our Homestead UFO web-site, but I still have the documentation and can replace it online here for anyone who might be interested in seeing it.

But I suggest Nick’s Contactees book for a detailed rendering.

RR

Sunday, January 01, 2017

The Omnipotent/Omniscient God and impotent ETs

A letter, from a Mark Vernon, to the Editor of the Times Literary Supplement, December 21, 2016 [Page 6] about a previous review essay in the publication about the cogency of Christianity argued that the ancient atomists Democritus and Epicurus “weren’t reductionists in anything like a modern sense.”

The writer [Vernon] ended his missive with this. “As Epicurus put it: ‘The gods exist, for the knowledge of them is clear.’”

This got me to thinking…

If Earth is such a backwater, remote, obscure planet, why does it seem that God is consumed by it?

If my contention that alien species (extraterrestrials) would not folly with Earth in the context of the vastly more interesting cosmos, how is that God (or the gods) would be interested in Earth, considering the immense variety and scope of the seen and unseen Universe?

It’s the uniqueness of the human species – something I’ve noted here, at this blog and others – that might get divine attention.

An omniscient God or being would know this and maybe find it intriguing

But there is something inherently wrong with ufology and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, the ETH.

While I appreciate the uniqueness of the human species and the diversity of life on planet Earth, we (of the Earth) are alone, in context of our galaxy and more so in context of the seemingly infinite Universe; that is, alone from the standpoint of other existent species

An advanced civilization, which is very likely not omniscient, that attribute unique to the Supreme Being, would only know about the uniqueness of Earth if it, the advanced species from elsewhere, stumbled upon Earth in a reconnoiter of the galaxy or Universe.

But the odds for that are staggering, enormous.

And while God (or gods) might interact with Earth, as religious and mythology texts indicate, extraterrestrial species would not, could not, interact with Earth and its inhabitants in the numbers that UFO reports denote.

Such ET incursions are, on the face of them, unreasonable, irrational.

RR