UFO Conjectures

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Kevin Randle on MUFON's "Inner Circle"

For an elaborate and incisive account of MUFON's "elite" Inner Circle, I suggest you take a look at Kevin Randle's current account at his blog, kevinrandle.blogspot.com

Image above from https://happyufo.wordpress.com/tag/racism/

RR

Ufology: The Denial of its Death

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
In many quarters of the UFO community reside persons who know that ufology and the UFO topic are dying or, actually, dead.

Some UFO buffs refuse to accept the finality of their “hobby.”

They fall into the category of “deniers” who, in the Psychiatric Dictionary (often cited here) refuse “to admit the reality of” ufology’s death.

They refuse “to acknowledge the presence or existence of” the truth which is “Known … as negation, denial being “a primitive defense, consisting of an attempt to disavow the existence of an unpleasant reality.”

“ … denial must ignore data [presented] to the perceptory system and garnered by the memory apparatus.”

Such denial appears “in persons whose ego is weak or disturbed (as in psychoses)."

[Page 199, italics in text]

Some UFO addicts, acting like vultures (me?), scrounge on the bones of ufology which are, in 2017, devoid of meat.

The recent revival of MJ-12 like material smacked of a ufological zombie, attracting even the most cynical of UFO buffery, and the pending gathering in Roswell for the annual anniversary of the 1947 “incident” may be likened to a wake.

John Keel, and many after him, have remarked on ufology’s demise but the deniers persist in their delusion that ufology isn’t dead, much as society refuses to accept the prospect of human death:

“An important contributor to the denial of death thesis was British anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer, who first popularized the notion that conversation about death constitutes a taboo. His article ‘The Pornography of Death’, originally published in 1955 and reprinted in Death, grief and mourning quickly became a classic in the death and dying literature.”  [The denial of death thesis: sociological critique and implications … by Camilla Zimmermann and Gary Rodin, Palliative Medicine 2004]

We UFO addicts have got to come to full realization that ufology is moribund, at least, and we should be looking at the topic of UFOs archaeologically or paleontologically, not as a vibrant, vital, alive enterprise.

UFOs and ufology are not coming back to vivid existence, even if some keep intoning the pathetic prayer of “disclosure.”

The topic is kaput. Let’s perform the autopsy and move on.

[Image above from wordofdday]

RR

Friday, June 23, 2017

Jose Antonio Caravaca's New Book

UFOS: the 50 Best Evidences is the latest book by the researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca, a work dedicated to collecting the best evidence that has offered the UFO phenomenon in the last 70 years. 

Cases of humanoids, pilot UFO encounters, laboratory tests, declassified official documents, scientific study committees, etc ...

The murderous lights of Brazil, the humanoids of Voronez, the incredible Belgian wave, the Foo Fighters, the disappearance of Sergeant Valdes, the confidential reports of the US government, the mysterious creature of Evora, the UFO landing in Socorro, Giants of Galdar and many more X UFO files...

A comprehensive review of 7 decades of UFO research ... with the opinion of some of the best ufology experts in the world who offer their point of view on this universal puzzle ...

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Anthony Bragalia returns to the UFO scene

UFO researcher Tony Bragalia has created a new web-site:


The well-organized site contains virtually all of Mr. Bragalia’s UFO writings from the recent past and new thrusts about UFOs.

(As some of you know, Tony and I had a falling out during the Roswell slides fiasco, but that doesn’t affect many of you who were and remain followers of his.)

RR

Ufology: A Metaphor

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

JEAN LOUIS THÉODORE GÉRICAULT - La Balsa de la Medusa (Museo del Louvre, 1818-19)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9odore_G%C3%A9ricault

It is an over-life-size painting that depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on 2 July 1816. On 5 July 1816, at least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation and dehydration and practised cannibalism. The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain.

RR

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

John Spencer’s interesting, useful 1991 UFO book

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
John Spencer’s World Atlas of UFOs, pictured here (above) was published in 1991 by Hamlyn Publishing Group (London).

Mr. Spencer is (or was) Vice-Chairman of the British UFO Research Association (now defunct I think) and Research Specialist for MUFON.

I was looking for a UFO account in which some fellows, on a hunting trip, saw a moose – if I recall correctly – taken aboard a UFO, A gun was fired but the bullet, allegedly, came out of the gun in slow motion and fell to the ground without hitting the sighted UFO.

(If anyone can cite an internet link where this story is recounted, please leave the link in a comment below. Thank you.)

Mr. Spencer’s book is divided into continental/geographical segments (i.e., North America, Europe, Africa, the East, et cetera) and significant sightings are detailed.

The book has some superb paintings (renditions) of notable, known sightings, such at these. (I’ve grabbed photos from the book so as not to ruin the book):

The 1970 Imjarvi (Finland) sighting in which two skiers saw an odd, luminous entity, wearing a conical, metallic-like helmet, descend from a UFO via a beam, holding a black box from which a light appeared, that paralyzed the observers, as a red-grey mist came from the UFO, hiding the entity and surrounding the paralyzed skiers. Then the UFO beam disappeared, sucked back into the UFO, taking the entity with it; the UFO “itself was gone” too. [Page 98]
The 1979 Robert Taylor encounter (with an AI machines?):
The 1989 Voronezh (Russia) where two giant entities emerged from a UFO:
Another sighting, from the book, (Page 152-153), intrigued me: the January 3, 1979 Mindalore encounter (and alleged abduction) in which a mother, Meagan Quezet, and son André came upon an egg-shaped craft while out for a walk in Mindalore, Johannesburg, South Africa.
(The craft and its entities had some similarities with Lonnie Zamora’s 1964 “craft” in Socorro, New Mexico.)

Ms. Quezet and her son witnessed five or six people emerge from the egg-shaped UFO. “They were dressed in coveralls” and two of them approached Ms. Quezet and her son André, one of the entities “had thick hair and a beard: they were of normal height.”

The entities “began speaking … in something like a high pitched Chinese language.”

“ … Meagan got the feeling that something was not quite normal” and told her son “Go and get Daddy.”

She remembered that the entities jumped back into the craft “with no apparent difficulty even though [the craft] had no steps.There was a buzzing sound and the craft rose up” and disappeared into the sky” the legs still extended as it departed.

André returned to see the craft depart and both returned to their home.

Under regressive hypnosis, Ms. Quezet recalled the “aliens” luring her and her son into the craft where she saw “funny lights” and chairs during which the entities “imparted a message … that shocked and surprised her but … which she was never able to remember.”

The doctor attending her considered the affair “a hysterical fantasy.”

Mr. Spencer provides a plethora of UFO sightings/encounters, many of which are well-known to UFO buffs and many that are not.

A good book to find in remainder bins.

RR

Monday, June 19, 2017

How and when did ETs replace the gods?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

In the July/August 2017 Biblical Archaeology Review noted here (below) is an article about the treasures found in ancient Canaan city of Sidon [Page 20 ff.] by Claude Doumet-Serhal.

I included a representational image of a Sidonese deity in my previous post:
On page 29 was this:

[In a temple found on site was] “an altar of unhewn stones. This pile of crude stones evokes Exodus 20:25: ‘But if you make for me an altar of stone, do not build it of hewn stones; for if you use a chisel upon it, you profane it.’”

Now most of you know that AA theorists insist that extraterrestrials (Ancient Aliens or Astronauts) helped humankind to build many of the structures we find to be stupendous or beyond primitive human ability: the Egyptian pyramids, the temples of early Middle American cultures (Mayan, Incan, Olmec, et cetera), Puma Punku in Bolivia, and others.

And since most of the structures are touted as AA conceived or created structures, they can’t have come from God or the gods; they are hewn, a key point of the idea that ancient extraterrestrial beings offered advanced “technology” to help humans construct such refined edifices.
The mention of the dictum from God in Exodus (above) conflicts with the AA theory of ancient alien intervention, and made me wonder when or why primitive humans came to believe in and revere God or gods, and when did ETs take the place of God or the gods in human thinking or religion.

I grabbed a few books from my personal library to refresh my thinking about when God or the gods appeared, not in mythology but in history:

Primitive Religion by Paul Radin [Dover Publications, NY, 1937/1957], Man and His Gods by Homer W. Smith (foreward by Albert Einstein) [Grosett’s Universal Library, Grosset & Dunlap, NW, 1952], God: A Brief History: The Human Search for Eternal Truth by John Bowker [DK Publishing, London, 2002], A History of Religious Ideas (Volume 1) by Mircea Eliade [University of Chicago Press, 1978], and Our Oriental Heritage from The Story of Civilization by Will Duranr [Simon and Schuster, NY, 1954]

Radin  provides this from Rudolf Otto in Das Heilige [Gotha, 1926]:

“From Fear, according to Otto, came awe, the terrible, the feeling of being overpowered and overwhelmed, crystallizing into what he calls the tremendum and the majestas; out of a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, of insignificance, came that creature-feeling so well described in the Old Testament, and out of the compensation fantasies arose, finally, the concept of that completely other …” [Page 9]
Smith offers views of the early Greeks [circa 640-500 B.C.]:

“With Thales there began a school of thinkers who were known as the physiologoi … Thales young companion, Anaximander (611-547 B.C.), also an astronomer and geometrician, conceived the One, the universal substance, to be an endless and unlimited mass subject neither to old age nor decay …” [Page 143]

Bowker writes that [it is] “impossible to know what the earliest beliefs about God and Goddess were.” [Page 30] but then provides an encyclopedic survey of God beliefs writing that “The story of God begins with the story of Goddess…” accenting the Goddess of Willendorf, a small figure of which was found in Austria and thought to derive from about 19,000 B.C. [Page 32]
Mircea Eliade, the most comprehensive of thinkers on early man, allows that “Paleanthropians” [Paleolithic mankind], by “their works … demonstrate the activity of an intelligence that cannot be defined otherwise than as ‘human’” [page 5] and shamanisn influenced Paleolithic culture and society, driving from waking dreams, oneiric states. Phantasms and other aspects of the {Freudian] unconscious, much of that induced by hallucinogenic ingestion.
Will Durant shows that many early peoples had “no religion at all.” [Page 56] And “Fear, as Lucretius said, was the first mother of the gods.” [Page 57]

Some of you have Frazer’s Golden Bough and other books dealing with the onset of god belief or religion and mythology.

But none tells us, or can, where or when the idea of a supernatural entity (God) or entities (gods) began.

And now many of us believe that God has “died” or hidden his Face as I’ve outlined many times using the thought(s) of Richard Elliott Friedman or Gerald L. Schroeder here.

And this “absence” of God created a lacuna for those who want or need something beyond them. This is the “metaphysical” essence of the Alien Astronaut (Ancient Alien) crowd.

Without a God, rather than become atheistic, this group of fringe UFO addicts, like primitive mankind, created new gods: extraterrestrials.

So, we can conclude that the AA thrust is as primitive and irresolute as that of early man’s concepts of God and not to be proclaimed as verifiable or true, just as the belief in God or gods is tentative for thoughtful people.

See also:



RR

Sunday, June 18, 2017

A supplication for a friend of ours

My beloved pal Bryan Sentes, whom you’ve seen commenting here, teaches at Dawson College in Montreal.

Bryan has been dealing with some health issues lately, so I’m asking those of you who believe prayers and/or good thoughts can move the gods to correct human ills make an effort to connect with them on behalf of Bryan.

If you have a Facebook page, send him good wishes there too.

RR

ETs in context

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

This cover of the current Biblical Archaeology Review [July/August 2017] shows a recovered (from Sidon in Lebanon) limestone figurine of a deity.
I imagine AA theorists will see the figure as a representation of an ancient alien [ET] visitor.

But there are no ancient or present ET visitors to Earth and you know why, if you’re logical and sensible.

Noted physicists Brian Greene, appearing on a recent science cable network, along with other eminent physicists, offered that if extraterrestrials had stumbled upon Earth they’d see us much in the way that we’d observe an anthill: nothing special here.
I disagree, as do many of you I suppose, and that view besmirches the ET visitation concept promoted by AA theorists and many, almost all, in the UFO community.

Earth is special, at least as I see it, but alone in the context of our galaxy (the Milky Way) and even more so in context of the universe, both seen and unseen (hidden).
If there is intelligent life in the galaxy/universe, and it seems probable to me, it comes in various configurations:

There may be civilizations, advanced beyond ours, who, for whatever reason, traverse areas of space, just to satiate curiosity or for scientific inquiry, or to sate boredom.

There may be civilizations like that of the Eloi in Wells’ Time Machine novel who are satisfied with their Eden-like existence and have no desire to seek existential pleasure elsewhere, outside their planet.

There may be Spartan-like civilizations ready to conquer other civilizations or living species for a multiple of reasons, exampled by why Earthlings have done and seek to do with their explorations.

For me, here’s the problem, as you know: Earth, in the context of what we see and know about our galaxy and the whole universe itself, is so perfunctory and obscure and insignificant that one can’t imagine, intelligently, that Earth would attract advanced species (ETs) from afar.

There are too many planets and interesting places in our galaxy and beyond to keep inquisitive or adventuring ETs occupied.

Earth is not a special place, outside our own evaluation. It just isn’t.

That many of you UFO buffs and those who see ET visitation as a real possibility who are not rational about the reality that has befallen you with NASA’s gatherings of how vast the galaxy and universe are.

Persistence in the ET delusion is not only detrimental to the idea of scientific verisimilitude but one’s mental health.

RR

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Why am I such a bear about intelligence [IQ] and cultural acumen (for uofology)?

 Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Anomalist notator Bill Murphy, who has been kind enough to list some of my postings for the past several months, was a bit chagrined, rightfully, by my resorting to comments referencing IQ among the Reframing UFO book essayists.

Let me write that I think all of the persons whom Robbie Graham picked for his book are smart people, many with high IQs I imagine.

For seven years plus, right out of college, I was selected to test potential employees for businesses in Detroit, banks mostly: Commonwealth, National, Security Bank & Trust, et cetera. The test were psychological in nature: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, The Allport –Vernon- Lindzey Study of Values, The Industrial Psychology C.P.F., N.P.F. and 16 P.F. Series, The Bernreuter Personality Inventory, The Lüscher Color Test, and various IQ tests. [My IQ is 149, or was, before I got hooked on UFOs.]

Psychometric Methods being my discipline in college, I (and others) in my corporation, InterAmerica, Inc. continue to provide evaluations of personalities for news media in Indiana and Detroit.

For me, intelligence is paramount in the pursuit of anything, with a preference for intellectual achievement and academic study held very high. A cultural substratum is a must also.

So railing about the nature of ufology and its practitioners is a feature of my blog(s) that offends many but something that is endemic to my personality.

Nonetheless, I apologize to WM and others for being rude about intelligence and intellectualism with the UFO community, but there it is….

In the case of Robbie Graham’s choices for his Reframing book, which I have not read and will probably not read, I am familiar with most of the persons contributing and note that while some are mighty smart in some sense, maybe with high IQs even, they are not the crème de la crème of the intelligentsia one would want to reframe the UFO topic, nor am I surely.

But there are a few people I could name who would fit the bill – persons I regard with admiration for their writings and thinking about UFOs and other more relevant things,

I could put Bill Murphy in that list I think, if I’m reading his Anomalist listings correctly.

And bloggers: paranormalist Eric Wargo and parapsychologist Eric Ouellet. Film maker and politician Paul Kimball. Peranormal journalist Nick Redfern. Plus esteemed philosophical/ poetry teacher Bryan Sentes.

This select group of mine all have academic credentials and intellectual acumen and are objective to the point of infallibility.

They are not connected by cronyism, the selected choice for Robbie Graham’s list of reframers.

My criticsm of Robbie’s book is mainly that he picked people he knew, not for their expertise but because he likes them and they are his pals. They say nice things about him on Facebook.

Yet, among that group, I see some standouts too: Micah Hanks, Chris Rutkowski, Curt Collins (maybe), and MJ Banias.

But there are more brilliant persons extant, many I don’t know at any real level but surely persons who should have been approached or considered if one really wants to reframe the UFO topic.

That’s the point of my “offensive” screed.

RR

Friday, June 16, 2017

Nick Redfern on those "new" MJ-12 papers

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/the-majestic-12-documents-are-back/

The Roswell mindset(s) – mentalités – for 1947 and 1978 to today

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Tom Livesey, over at Kevin Randle’s blog, left this comment, not about Roswell but about the new MJ-12 “papers” (that have emerged for ufological debate):

“On my understanding fiction or literature is a medium in which truth is revealed through the writing of what is *not* true (i.e. the events in a Jane Austen novel are strictly speaking untrue events that nonetheless disclose truth about what they relate, human relationships etc). Perhaps if we apply literary interpretation to these documents, we will find "disclosure" after all, but in a literary sense rather than a literal reveal.”

That is a shallow but intelligent synopsis of the views by French polymath, Jacques Derrida, mentioned here a few days ago. Derrida insists that fiction is the harbinger of truth.

A new review by Colin Jones in The New York Review of Books [June 22, 2017, Page 38 ff.] about the French “Terror” [1793-1794 and 1789], Did Emotions Cause the Terror?, in the Timothy Tackett book, The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution [Belknap Press/Harvard] alludes to how certain fictional works and art contributed to the revolutionary moments by establishing an emotional mindset in the people, particularly the bourgeois, and the culture as a whole.

Now, after that protracted sentence I won’t bore you further except to say that the idea is that popular fictional works and the cultural milieu of an era can cause things to happen and history is saturated with examples, in the review’s instance, the literature of Richardson and Rousseau and the art of Louis David enabling the mentalité of the population.

Mentalité has a specific meaning that is relevant to my point but irrelevant to readers of this blog because the word “mindset” will suffice for meaning, and is adduced in the NYRB review as a usable substitute for mentalité.

(While there was no Roswell Robespierre, some could make the case for Stanton Friedman as a like-personality in the 1978 Roswell aftermath.)

The gist of Tackett’s book is that the emotional aspects of a population bring about the happenings that history records, and the emotional aspects come from what is currently in vogue literarily.

(There is an argument that emotions from one period will remain the same for a later period with a counter that emotions, like literature, change over time. I won’t go into the esoteric underpinnings of that debate, here, but I lean to the latter, as you’ll see.)

In 1947, UFO researchers would do well to see what books, what literature (fiction and non-fiction alike – I think non-fiction is as valid for the argument) and movies were prevalent, popular for the New Mexico population around Roswell; that is, what affected the mindset of the people in the time-frame?

Then researchers should look at what literature, movies, (maybe art), and TV broadcasts were prominent in 1978 and subsequent years.

We know that books about Roswell affected the later mindset of Roswellians, just as it has UFO buffs, but it would be interesting to determine what cultural artifacts, and especially fictional literature, were heavily laden upon the emotional make-up of Roswell’s citizenry.

The 1947 period intrigues me more than the 1978 period and years afterward because it is devoid  of the influence of the Roswell UFO book abundance, TV shows and movies.

1947 is more fecund for determining how the people of Roswell (and environs) felt emotionally without the biases of the UFO influx.

(UFO investigators and paranormalist quacks destroyed the Roswell crime-scene, as it were, after 1978. They were not around in 1947, so the purity of the “forensics” remains intact if anyone has the intellectual fortitude to look at and for the uncorrupted mindset: the mentalité of the people.)

An academic, professional assault on the emotional patina of Roswell in 1947 would do much to determine what caused the flying disc hubbub – aside from the Haut press release – and its almost immediate dissolution, its repression until 1978.

For the Derridain approach to literature (fiction) as truth see my earlier post here or Google Jacques Derrida.

For an erudite example of what brought about my thoughts here, go to the NYRB web-site and find/read the Jones review.

RR

Thursday, June 15, 2017

MJ-12 again?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

My pal Kevin Randle has posted, at his blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com] that new MJ-12 documents have surfaced and he is going to examine the “documents” and provide an exegesis of them.

Meanwhile, the dogs of ufology are frothing  at the mouth as they try to bite into the discussion of the MJ-12 things.

See the comments at Kevin’s blog where only two sane responses show up: one from my buddy CDA and a succinct few words from my friend Nick Redfern.

That an apparent sociopath has proffered a phony sludge of papers with an MJ-12 sobriquet opens the door to UFO crazies who are trying to capitalize on the hoaxed papers and shows, again, that ufology is replete with insanity.

RR

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Harvard physicist says it's not the matrix [but it really is]

http://www.sciencealert.com/things-are-super-weird-right-now-but-it-s-not-a-glitch-in-the-matrix-says-harvard-physicist

RR

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Pardon me?

In my recent harangues about Robbie Graham’s new book, UFOs: Reframing the Debate, I hit a nerve with some of the people who are contributors therein.

I changed the blog title that caused them some angst and hurt.

But my pique about the so-called Graham “reframing” remains intact.

Robbie was, in my obtuse opinion, cavalier about whom he chose to offer suggestions for recasting the UFO debate.

That’s it.

You can follow my thinking, if it is thinking – one of my critical “friends” feels I have gone off the reservation – in subsequent posts here about the Graham book and the state of ufology, supplemented by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos’ erudite presentation, linked here (below in its own post), about how ufology has failed to produce anything substantial about the enigmatic phenomenon.

RR

From Nick Redfern: The Mother of all UFOs

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/the-mother-of-all-ufos-part-1/

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/the-mother-of-all-ufos-part-2/

Monday, June 12, 2017

A mystery [UFOs] is afoot in the land ….

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

… and ufologists and UFO buffs are fricking around with nonsense.

The UFO community is rife with cronyism – a desire to gather passels of pals – rather than induce investigation and serious research in the UFO phenomenon.

I see UFO nuts patting each other on the back and high-fiving inane activities that have little or nothing to do with UFOs per se.

Every UFO enthusiast is looking for fame or popularity amongst the dullards that make up the UFO constituency.

It’s not just the “Reframing UFOs” crowd – one of the obvious gangs of ne’er do wells.

It’s everyone with a UFO bent, at Facebook or somewhere on the web (the internet).

The phenomenon has taken a back seat to social interactions and the need of ufologists to be liked or noted by their peers.

No one, and I mean no one, is actively working to get a leg up on the enduring but dying (in interest) phenomenon.

Agencies that can bring attention to the concept that “the emperor has no clothes” are derelict in pointing out the foolishness that engulfs ufology and UFOs, foolishness that is different than that of the past when the foolishness was related to flying saucers or UFOs.

Today’s foolishness is gritted with a longing to capitalize on the phenomenon with book sales or sea cruises to far away places that have nothing to do with the phenomenon but everything to do with a cushy life-style or greed.

Where are those who can call out this flippant, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing behavior?

There is no self-reflection among UFO aficionados. It takes sensible people to point to the crassness of ufology, as a few did in the old days.

It’s hopeless.

I see the UFO crud everyday, mostly on Facebook, UFO people straining to buddy-up with their goofy peers, letting the phenomenon sit in the background as they pat each other on the backside, saying “great work, you’ve made a mark or a few bucks (at the expense of an ongoing mystery that you’ve used for your own petty egos”). [Italics show what needs to be said but never is.]

Please read this, if you haven't done so already (and share it):

RR

Every Reported UFO Sighting in the U.S. Since 1925

From my Feedspot account:


RR

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Reframing Ufology, with persons lacking expertise in anything?

 Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

I think I lost Robbie Graham as a Facebook “friend” because I knocked his new book, UFOs: Reframing the Debate.

My take was that Robbie picked his pals and buddies rather than truly brilliant persons to load up his book with suggestions for a new look at UFOs. Here’s his contingent of UFO gurus:
Instead of taking the trouble of rounding up a cache of smart UFO people – yes, there are a few, and I am not among them surely – Robbie piled into his book a group of people who are not well-known or well-regarded among ufology’s cognoscenti.

If one wants to reframe the UFO saga, one would select a raft of people who really have unique and substantive ideas. His gaggle is not that group.

I would have contacted the Anomalist’s Patrick Huyghe for suggestions or see the persons, on some UFO Facebook pages, who are offering interesting insights that are remarkably fascinating.

One can find them on the FB pages of Isaac Koi, Gilles Fernandez, Jose Caravaca, and Mrherr Zaar, and a few others.

I refer to people, here at this blog, who have intellectual intelligence about UFOs and cachet in the UFO community, and a few show up in Robbie’s book: Micah Hanks and Chris Rutkowski among them.

But, overall, Robbie’s cronies don’t cut the UFO mustard. Sorry, but it’s true.

So, I’ll skip buying Robbie’s book and take the lumps that may come my way for expressing the view presented here.

But if Ufology and UFOs are going to have a resurrection in interest and real insights, it will have to “reframe” with a few persons who have higher IQs than those in Robbie’s mix.

RR

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Reality doesn't exist?

http://spacebeyondcosmos.blogspot.com/2017/06/dont-panic-but-physicists-in-australia.html

[Image from http://www.100thseed.org/event/what-is-reality/]

RR

Friday, June 09, 2017

The state of Ufology today by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos

http://fotocat.blogspot.co.uk/2017_06_09_archive.html

RR

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Nick Redfern: Roswell's Memory Metal

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/roswells-legendary-memory-metal/

Mankind's even earlier ancestors

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html?emc=edit_ta_20170607&nl=top-stories&nlid=58998013&ref=cta&_r=0

RR

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

Martian hole (to where?)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giant-hole-mars-leaves-nasa-163725288.html

RR

Big Bang's nemeses: Alternate theories for the origin of the Universe

http://spacebeyondcosmos.blogspot.com/2017/06/10-most-popular-alternative-theories-to.html

RR

Monday, June 05, 2017

Lots of interesting planets....

But that doesn't mean they are exporting ETs, at least not to Earth.
http://spacebeyondcosmos.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/nasa-has-confirmed-discovery-of-1284.html

RR

Sunday, June 04, 2017

Ufology’s “elites”

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
The UFO community has lost a lot of UFO biggies to death or departure.

And in the clutch of UFO-addicted persons left to keep ufology and UFOs alive, resides a few personages who count.

(I’m certainly not in that clutch, being a disruptor and quirky, often foolish UFO addict, so this posting is not about me.)

Jacques Vallee is the ultimate king of the UFO elites; no one disputes that, no sane person anyway.

Kevin Randle, by his longevity and erudite stance(s) and views, is an elite, as is Nick Redfern, whose proclivity makes him a stand-out in the UFO cluster.

Paul Kimball was a key UFO member of the ufological elite but has withdrawn for politics and cultural pursuits and a Facebook addiction that has taken hold of him.

(Mac Tonnies, friend of Paul and Nick, was an elite thinker about UFOs and lots of other related things, now deceased, too young as it happened, leaving an opening in the arena of thinkers and elites among the UFO crowd.)

Stanton Friedman’s status as a wannabe elite has waned with age and his non-relevance to UFOs or ufology today.

Greg Bishop, Red Pill Junkie, Jeff Ritzmann, and the people in their circles, are not elites, not by a long shot; they are just a notch up from the UFO rabble that haunts ufology.

Michael Swords, once a quiet member of the elite club, has retired pretty much, as UFO geezers are wont to do as they get near to that final door of life.

Leslie Kean is a UFO elite because of her professional writings and demeanor, a real high spot for ufology.

The side-bar residents of Frank Warren’s UFO Chronicles all fall far below an elite classification or status, as I see it, and you might agree as the names there are little known or accomplished.

The one-time pantheon of ufological top-notchers has thinned for various reasons, which explains why UFOs and ufology have also thinned as a pertinent topic for society.

I could name a few other persons, at the edge of the elite spotlight (Micah Hanks, for instance) and a few who are too scummy to even acknowledge.

But you get my ornery drift: ufology and UFOs are adrift without captains who are elite in any sense, except for those noted atop here.

May the few I see as exemplary in their ufological efforts live long and prosper, even after the UFO phenomenon sinks into a oblivion created by the UFO rabble who wont leave the topic alone, pushing it further into submission and perdition by their stupid, hubristic ramblings and output, me among them.

RR

Roswell: Ufology’s idée fixe

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
No matter what UFO case or topic arises in the UFO stratosphere, some way or another, Roswell enters into the mix.

The Roswell incident is an obsession with UFO buffs (ufologists): an idée fixe.

Most commentary acknowledges that and calls Roswell “the Holy Grail” of UFOdom.

For some reason, Roswell is a psychological blight that has infected the psyches of UFO attuned people, but why?

The so-called incident has been trampled by opinion and speculation among ufologists for about 40 years now (since 1978).

Yes, it’s a curious tale but there are other UFO cases/reports with more enigmatic cachet.

Roswell is a myth (a mythos) aside from any reality that the episode contains within it.

But you have, all, noticed that a UFO subject brought up in UFO venues almost, invariably, gets set aside by Roswell commentary that takes control of colloquies.

Thus, ufology and the UFO genre have become stagnated by the usurpation of the quagmired Roswell patina.

Recent books by pals Jose Caravaca, Gilles Fernandez, Nick Redfern, and Kevin Randle, alongside books by UFO people I could care less about, all dig into the Roswell saga, and UFO buffs eat them up, eschewing other UFO tomes dealing with the phenomenon more relevantly.

Since the Roswell oeuvre is mostly (entirely?) fictive, I’ll be presenting, soon, why the “reality” that is Roswell is a “fictional truth” as delineated by French philosopher and polymath Jacques Derrida….


(if I understand Derrida correctly, which I may not, as my Facebook buddy Bryan Sentes, who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, and has much Derridaian expertise, may see it.)

The formative matter is complex, admittedly, but the accretions to that Roswell original “event” are complex too, in their various incarnations.

My meager attempt(s) to defuse Roswell won’t do much, if anything at all, but if I can sway a few habitués here to abandon their wasteful preoccupation with the rotting corpse of Roswell, I shall have done my duty to the battered hobby of ufology.

RR

Friday, June 02, 2017

Consciousness and memory for ufologists

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The book pictured here (the paperback version; I have the hardcopy) is essential for a discussion of consciousness and memory, as referenced by Michael, Terry, and Tim in comments earlier here.

The author is noted (at Amazon) thusly:

Stanislas Dehaene was trained as a mathematician and psychologist before becoming one of the world’s most active researchers on the cognitive neuroscience of language and number processing in the human brain. He is the director of the Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit in Saclay, France, the professor of experimental cognitive psychology at the Collège de France, a member of the French Academy of Sciences and of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed scientific journals and is the author of The Number Sense and Reading in the Brain. He lives in France.
The idea that memory is beclouded by time and/or aging isn’t exactly true as Professor Dehaene provides in his book (and others, such as Oliver Sacks have noted).

Memory of past events are added to, and corrupted by passages of time or age but such vicissitudes of memory depend upon the individual; some people remember accurately and some do not.

Professor Dehaene writes in his book “ … cortical regions are strongly connected to additional players, such as the central lateral and intralaminar nuclei of the thalamus …, the basal ganglia …, and the hippocampus (essential for memorizing the episodes of our lives and for recalling them). [Page 171]

Many factors affect memory, and while it may be easy (0r acceptable) to suggest that memory is awash in false accretions, that isn’t exactly so. It may be but not as a generality.

Therefore, we can’t throw out “recall” as necessarily flawed.

Ufologists need to curate a UFO report to determine if provided details are intact and actual. This is daunting, assuredly but that’s why I continue to write that ufologists and UFO researchers are inept; they do not have expertise or wherewithal to subject witness accounts to proper scrutiny.

And in the case of Roswell, the “witnesses” are either dead or proven to be liars by the persistence of such UFO investigators as Kevin Randle, who has gone over the details extant to see what fits, what is true and what is not.

Kevin is almost alone in doing that. Roswell investigators go at the incident with an ingrained bias, of the ET hypothesis or some other forlorn theory or speculation. He doesn't (now).

They corrupt the memory of witnesses. It’s wasn’t the memory, per se, of witnesses that was faulty. It was the suggestive techniques of interviewers that corrupted witness memory.

This is what happened to Jesse Marcel Sr. I think.

Memory may be afflicted by additional input that intrudes over time. That’s why psychoanalysts eschewed hypnotism, in part, as a way to get at past events (memory).

But more importantly hypnotism was eschewed because the hypnotist’s demeanor (latent and subliminal suggestions) often entered into the psyche of those hypnotized, corrupting the material and thoughts (the unconsciousness) being vocalized.

(This may be why the Betty/Barney Hill psychiatric transmissions have been dismissed by science.)

At any rate, memory (and consciousness) are complex and taking a cavalier stance about memory is an avenue to error.

Some accounts of UFO witnesses should not be discredited out of hand, while some can be, as Kevin Randle has shown by a scrutiny of detail that surrounds some UFO witness stories, details that are not a part of memory but gathered to provide certitude to a tale made up.

RR

Facebook and cavalier [superficial] Ufology

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
I have two Facebook pages (maybe three): one for my MediaWatch effort(s) and one with a UFO emphasis.

I rarely input anything at the UFO page, and the MW page is flush with commentary about local news media in my area.

There a few UFO “friends” inside the MW venue, ufologists who take UFOs seriously but who get responses of the Facebook kind from their “friends” and that’s where UFOs and ufology goes off track.

Facebook is geared to the instant retort, the glib comment.

People just want to be noticed.

UFOs and ufology get a smattering of serious insight or incisive scrutiny on or in Facebook.

Gilles Fernandez, Jose Caravaca, and Martin Kottmeyer (using a nom de plume) often get lots of comments or responses (emojis among them), but Facebook is not suited to astute or fecund thought, little better than Twitter, where commentary is limited to 140 characters.

More important, Facebook input (posts) eventually get lost in the swelter of debris that accumulates during a FB member’s membership over the years (or months, even); that is, postings are suffocated by all the egregious additions that Facebook and members add to their pages each day.

Worthwhile postings (often rare) are lost in the swamp of sh*t that piles up on or in each FB page.

Thus, UFO information and news, ufological musings, are victims of the garbage dump approach that is the essence of Facebook entries.

My UFO Facebook page is replete with materials by and from UFO “friends” lost by time and the glib insertions they add to their FB page, personal information and “news” that has nothing to do with UFOs or ufology.

Facebook is a hodgepodge of crap with occasional insertions of an edifying nature, which is often eschewed for the attempt(s) at attention and popularity by people hoping to get a viral response or “like” from those they have accumulated as “friends.”

I have about 350 UFO “friends” at my UFO page and 1083 “friends” at my MediaWatch page, of which a handful are really friends.

And even my offerings of academic or cultural input is often ignored for the smart ass post or snide response.

My point here is to alert my UFO comrades to the transitory nature of their postings and material, much of it that will be lost to time and efficacy by the frivolous nature of Facebook and its conglomeration of ignorant rabble who haunt the venue with pastiches of dreck.

If one wants a ufological legacy, Facebook is not the place to get it.

RR

Thursday, June 01, 2017

In For The Record of TIME magazine [6/5/17]

AI (that may be what comes back as UFOs from our future):
RR

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Google Alerts offers Roswell "Breakthrough" -- but is it?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/811158/Roswell-UFO-crash-new-witness-flying-saucer-aliens-UFOs-Today-Dr-Irena-Scott

RR

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

A noted, "rational" person is convinced ETs (and UFOs) exist and are here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robert-bigelow-ufos-aliens-on-earth_us_592ca03ce4b0065b20b7bfb7

RR

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Someone thinks there are ETs afoot in the Universe

http://www.univverse.org/universal/nasas-kepler-telescope-discovered-artificial-alien-megastructure/

RR

Even my own limited ET hypotheses are troublesome, unless

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The book pictured here, one of several gotten from Amazon this week, was bought to underpin and/or support my view that one or two (a few) UFOs may have been (or are) encounters with von Neumann-like probes from an advanced extraterrestrial race.

(The UFO encounters that I have used to example my thinking include, among others, the 1948 Gorman “dogfight,” the 1967 Stephan Michalak incident (at Falcon Lake), and the 1979 Robert Taylor brush with a “contraption,” all cited here many times.)

But this doesn’t work does it, if my other thoughts about the uniqueness of technological advances, in the context of Earth’s “evolutionary” processes are probable?

That is, the thinking, development, and eventual construction of AI machines come within the intellectual, cultural milieu that is Earth’s and Earth’s alone.

An alien civilization would not develop, in any way – biologically, intelligently, or technologically – as Earth has.

Darwin’s evolution, in all its manifestations, is restricted to the elements, often cited here, that are unique to this planet, this rock in space.

And alien culture or race would come about under far different circumstances than that which humans have been subjected to or supported by.

(I won’t belabor, again, my often stated views on this, but you can find them by using the search tab at the above left on this blog.)

My point, here, is that AI machinery, in the configuration of a UFO or “piloting” a UFO is from the realm of science fiction or the devious thinking of those, like me, extrapolating what is an Earth-centric technology to encompass a non-Earth technology.

But there is a caveat, one that ufologists and science certainly eschews – although science is coming around – and that is the idea that the cosmos, the universe (seen and unseen) is the creation of a supreme mind or intelligence, God, as it were.
This means that the patterns of existence (reality) conform to the “wishes” of a deity or omnipresent mind, some even postulating, as you know, that we (our existence and reality) is a computer simulation, a matrix. (I find that intriguing as do some of you.)

That the whole of everything, as religions have told us, is a creation of a supreme being.

This would allow for, account for, the similarity of UFO craft to our own advanced aircraft and “beings” encountered in some bizarre UFO incidents, that are like us because the supreme thinker or creator [God] has willed it or made it so, and the universe (reality) is subsumed by this “creator” or omnipotent thing, that has fashioned a creation within the parameters of Its desires, Its likes and dislikes.

So, yes, there can be alien (extraterrestrial) beings. not very different from humans, visiting the Earth, then and now, but surely not in the amounts that UFO reportage indicates.

That would be insane and an omnipotent being can’t be insane, can It?

(That for another time.)

 RR

Saturday, May 27, 2017

An Inquiry from one of my readers: Michael Loengard

Michael Loengard has left a query: 

Hello!

I have a Question, who can help me to find, in Google Earth, the San Agustin UFO Crash where Art Campbell did his Excavations. I tried to find it...but don't know where it is.

Thanks for help! 

Friday, May 26, 2017

Roswell: An [ongoing] autochthonous delusion

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
This “definition” in Psychiatric Dictionary [Fourth Edition, Leland Hinsie/Robert J. Campbell, Oxford University Press, 1970, Page 191] strikes me as a psychiatric explanation for the Roswell incident and its ongoing aftermath:

“Autochthonous delusion. Primary delusion, i.e. one that arises as an immediate experience, out of the blue, with no external or objective cause or explanation, but nonetheless with a strong feeling of conviction … autochthonous delusions are disturbances of symbolic meaning: because the legs of a chair are twisted, the world is twisted.”

The term delusion is derived from “delude”, a Latin word that implies mocking, defrauding or cheating. Delusion has been long considered to be a basic characteristic of madness and to be mad was considered to be deluded. [The Odisha Journal of Psychiatry-2016, Delusion: Critical Evaluation, Issue and Updates by Sai Krishna Tikka; Tathagata Mahintamani; Daya Ram; Bikramaditya Jaiswal]

When we consider various dimensions of delusions, culture has the highest influence on the content of delusions. Content of delusions are considered to be selected in accordance with the preferred channels of relatedness in a particular culture. [Ibid, 74]

[Yet] suffice it to say that certain beliefs are often recognized as delusions without our needing to ascertain their cultural prevalence. [Delusions, Certainty, and the Background, John Rhodes and Richard G. T. Gipps, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009]

Kleist (1928) considered revelationary psychoses under the heading of a marginal psychosis, in which autochthonous delusional ideas intrude into consciousness and are attributed by the patient directly to God, angels, or what Kleist termed the ‘¿ Weltge(iswt'orld spirit). [John Johnson, FRCPsych, University Hospital of South Manchester, October 1993]

These cited sources (above) tell us that the ambient environment of 1947 – flying saucers being seen and reported by news media – supported by the (in)famous Haut Press Release stating that the military had “captured” a flying disc – created a world view (Weltanschauung) that persons in Roswell took to be real but suppressed (or better, repressed) early on, only to resurface in a cathexis around 1978, when the Roswell “event” came to be grist for ufologists, and those having suppressed their psychic attachment to the “flying disc” idea of 1947 allowing a delusion to develop that has exploded in the UFO community.

Skeptical UFO buffs say that the Roswell tale and its ongoing canon is a myth and they are somewhat correct, somewhat.

Autochthonous delusions create myths, and have from time immemorial, when humans came to expand on an event, making it, by extrapolation and accretions, something more than it was originally.

So, the Roswell incident can be called a myth (or mythos) but that’s scaling the fish to clean away the underlying psychiatric core that created and continues to maintain the Roswell story.

Ufologists, aside from French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, do not like to contend with psychological explanations for many reasons: obscurity of psychiatric terminologies, the old consensus that psychology, and especially psychiatry, are not bona fide science, and the inherent laziness of ufologists to seek answers outside the easy to imagine ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis).

But, no matter what happened in Roswell during June/July 1947 – and something odd did happen – ufologists will have to consider the idea that the crux of the ongoing interest and initial thrusts (in 1947 and 1978) are rooted in delusion, autochthonous delusion.

No other “explanation” fits the bill like the psychiatric one, none.

RR

You think only UFOs suddenly disappear?

Some stars do also:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-disappearing-star-n6946-bh1-100245258.html

RR

The Ramey memo is back (in the news)?

Two stories today, 5/26/17, from Google Alerts, about the Ramey memo.....

One about David Rudiak's efforts:

https://tenplay.com.au/news/national/may-2017/has-roswell-truth-been-hiding-in-plain-sight

And one about the memo, generally (Rudiak mentioned):

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3651031/roswell-ufo-conspiracy-theory-solved-memo/

RR

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Quantum as a means to a UFO explanation?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

I just got the book pictured here.

It is a 287 page "exegesis" of quantum mechanics' oddities and truths.

I'm not reviewing the book but will use it for some conjectures here.

Quantum theory is replete with opportunities to explain various troubling items that you and I (and other UFO buffs) contend with: the nature of reality, consciousness, and things that are weird in essence and "real" in our terms of reality.

That is, UFOs are real but a true mystery, not a transcendental mystery but a niggling "itch" we all keep scratching to no avail.

I think that a number of approaches (psychology, neurology, cosmology even) can be directed at the UFO enigma, especially the vicissitudes of quantum theory.

This book has a number of suggestions that may be applied. We'll see.

RR

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Old-fashioned UFOs: A follow-up to previous Non-ET UFO piece

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

While reading the current [2017] issue of WIRED magazine, I notice that items and artifacts of our present human existence are more futuristic than the alleged artifacts and elements said to be seen by witnesses in their UFO sightings.

I know this has been broached before -- the archaic, old-fashioned Airship constructs, for instance -- but it become obvious that UFOs, as "sighted" or experienced, are short of what one would expect from and advanced space traveling race.

In the WIRED magazine, at hand, is a story about Apple's new headquarters in Cupertino City, California; the article sub-titled, interestingly, on the magazine's cover: "Inside Apple's Insanely Great [or just insane] New Mothership," the designation coming from the HQ's architectural design as you can see in the cover picture here.

But it's not that alone that puts the UFO "reality" in perspective. When you gather together all the factoids and detritus from UFO witness testimony, whether from Ezekiel or Betty Hill or Stephan Michalak, you should note how primitive the crafts are.

And the witness testimony is supported by what few flying saucer or UFO photos we have that might be authentic.

The 1896 Airship craze in America, mostly California, is fraught with ships barely flying they are so beleaguered by their heft and construction.

And flying saucers depicted right up to today, some supposedly seen up close, as in the Travis Walton episode or the Robert Taylor scuffle -- an AI thing as I see it -- are not anywhere as near advanced as one might expect from a space-faring species.

Adamski's chicken-brooder contraption typified the flying saucers (UFOs) purportedly spotted by "real" witnesses long after Adamski foundered and disappeared.

We see advanced objects all around us -- iPhones, laptop computers, driverless cars, even aircraft -- that put UFOs to shame, constructively and futuristic in nature.

If UFOs were actually spacecraft from an advanced species, they wouldn't crash, as the Roswell incident has it, nor would they look so ramshackle and rudimentary as described by those who think they've seen one or interacted with one.

So, ET believers, give up your "fantasy" -- your delusion: UFOs may be something but they certainly are not extraterrestrial spacecraft from Planet 9.

RR

UFOs may be real, but not crafted by ETs, not at all!

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

If you scour the UFO canon, the UFO lore or literature, carefully and seriously, you can only conclude that UFOs may be real but there is nothing in that batch of folderol that would indicate UFOs are spacecraft from extraterrestrial worlds; nothing, not even anything circumstantial.

An encounter with “humanoids” – a favorite “UFO genre” of mine – presents either a glob of hallucinatory accounts or something bizarre in a way that has nothing to do with beings from outer space or alien civilizations from the cosmos.

There is nothing tangible or even tangentially close to showing something that might be construed as or indicative of an extraterrestrial civilization that has dropped by this Earth.

Each UFO encounter and every UFO sighting is mundane in every way even when the sightings or encounter is flush with extraordinary elements.

Not one UFO event – from Kenneth Arnold’s iconic sighting to the Betty/Barney Hill alleged kidnapping, Socorro, the 1976 Tehran supposed interaction, or the Phoenix lights, even the O’Hare airport observations, et cetera, et cetera – has anything that would hint at an ET intrusion.

Yes, I believe UFOs are a real phenomenon. What the essence of that phenomenon is eludes minds better than mine.

But if you have one UFO sighting where the details of it include something that only can be thought to be extraterrestrial, let me know.

We humans have no idea what an extraterrestrial civilization or ET visitors might consist of or how they would appear or act if encountered, but none would, if one uses common sense, present themselves as described by witness reports.

Flying fast and making 180 degree turns isn’t proof of extraterrestrial acumen.

Being oddly clothed (and they rarely are in witness accounts) says nothing about an alien dress code.

Speaking (or telepathing thoughts) isn’t a sign of an advanced alien culture. (It’s more like evidence of a schizophrenic bout by the witness.)

Disappearing in a whiff of smoke or just going invisible says nothing about an ET explanation. It’s strange, yes, but otherworldly? Nope.

The ET explanation is a group delusion of most ufologists and UFO buffs.

It’s not logical or based upon any forensic evidence that could only be considered extraterrestrial, if we had any idea what “extraterrestrial evidence” might be.

That every UFO sighting is hinted as being alien (extraterrestrial), even by news media, confounds the simplicity of sightings, which are queer surely, but not containing one iota of anything that could smack of an extraterrestrial presence, nothing!

RR