UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, July 29, 2016

I was worried about Kevin Randle (but not any longer)

Everyone knows I love Kevin Randle.....

But lately he's rehashing old UFO cases as if they were relevant. And now he's placed, at his blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com] a photo that allegedly shows an "alien" residing next to a "portal" (whatever that means):
The original photo as that of a sheep mutilation that housed, subliminally, a captured image (above) of a supposed extraterrestrial.

The whole photograph is copyrighted, so I can't show it, but you can see it at Kevin's blog where Kevin relates the story of how he came to see and now show the photograph. It's a cockeyed story.

As a few comments, by his followers indicate, presenting such nonsense is infuriating.

It's no wonder that sane, rational people (scientists among them) eschew the UFO topic.

Kevin, come back to us, buddy. Such things as this doesn't show you going off the deep-end, does it?

N.B. Kevin has updated his blog post, because some of us were baffled by it, missing his nuanced dismissal of the photo as an alien photograph.

RR

Thursday, July 28, 2016

There it is.....

From my Facebook feed:
RR

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

The gods punish or kill those who penetrate truth. (Ufologists needn’t worry.)

If one looks at the history of oblique mayhem that occurs to creative human beings, one has to be struck at the cruel happenstances that are more than coincidental or fate: it’s purposeful.

A few prime examples for me are Beethoven’s deafness and Stephen Hawking’s ALS,

But there is plenty more: James Joyce’s blindness, Chopin’s TB, Julius Caesar’s epilepsy,
Jesus Christ’s schizophrenia, and on and on…

What I’m seeing is that those who excel and approach an awareness of reality as it truly is are punished by the gods or God, who are either jealous of mankind’s grasp of truths, after eating of the fruit of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, or who don’t want humans to discover the reality in which they find themselves.

In the UFO world, on can discount those who promote explanations for UFOs but remain unpunished: David Rudiak, Michah Hanks, Brad Steiger, Stanton Friedman, Jerome Clark, and dozens of others who are unscathed by the gods even though these ufologists think they’ve uncovered the truth about UFOs.

They haven’t, or else they would suffer punishments of some kind, or even early death.

(Maybe some of those UFO theorists – M.K. Jessup, Ruppelt, Jim McDonald, John Mack, Mac Tonnies, et al. – who were taken from us sooner than one would expect from actuarial tables data, were abreast of the truth, but halted from getting it out to society, by the gods.)

Either way, approaching the truth, in art, philosophy, science, and even ufology, one should be wary of the gods.

The gods are malicious, and always have been.

If you think it’s just fate, then fate is malicious too.

You have been warned.

RR

A mis-step for Hawking?

This was in my Facebook feed:
Hasn't Hawking ever considered the UFO phenomenon?

RR

Monday, July 25, 2016

Ufologists and the Thread of Madness

It’s obvious that there has always been a streak of madness in society and among humans, even from the very beginning of humankind.

Michel Foucault in Madness: The Invention of an Idea [HarperPerennial/ModernThought, NY, 1954/1962/1976], Part II, Madness and Culture deals with shamanistic choices and activity among native American Indian tribes.
Writing about the Zunis, Pueblos, Kwakiutl, Crows, et al., he zeroes in on the Berdaches of the Dakota Indian tribes who gave a religious status to homosexuals as priests and magicians, making them shamans accordingly. [Page 101 ff.]

Now is that madness? Yes, it’s a kind of societal madness, but such “madness” goes back much further than the studies by Durkheim who saw such odd deviance as a “morbid phenomenon.” [ibid]

It’s blatant, for those who pay attention to news media, that today’s society is as primitive, maybe more so, than that of early man, and the madness, while slightly more subtle than what we know from history, is ripe and ongoing: parents careless with their children, racism, indiscriminate murders, entertainments replacing altruistic or meaningful activities, and dozens of other behavioral malfeasances that seem like ignorance but are, indeed, threads of madness.

Both Freud and Jung, and many contemporary psychologists have addressed the issue of today’s psychopathology, but that for another time.

My point is that madness is almost an instinct in mankind. And it permeates the UFO subculture as rampantly as overt society but shows up in subliminal ways.

In ufology, one need only look at the commentary left at UFO blogs, web-sites, or the discussions at conferences and other UFO get-togethers.

The use of non de plumes or avatars by UFO buffs tells us a lot about readers and commentators in the UFO community.

Take a look at one of my favorite blogs – Kevin Randle’s; you’ll see intelligent postings by Mr. Randle, subsumed by inane, seeming ignorant ramblings by his followers, most using avatarial adjuncts. But underneath the ramblings lie indications of psychopathologies: paranoia, wishful thinking, outright deviations from facts and truth, et cetera.

Such carefree madness isn’t confined to Kevin’s blog. It is rampant across the UFO spectrum and not just limited to men, young or old, but also ingrained in women, i.e., Leslie Gunther, PurrlGurrl, among them.

In the desire to make the 1964 Socorro incident an ET (extraterrestrial incursion), UFO buffs have created a fantastic panoply of ifs and buts to make an almost prosaic happening into an alien incursion that is atypical of other supposed UFO events.
The ET premise came about by the “investigation” of one Ray Stanford, an ET believer whose bias has afflicted the Zamora episode to its core, exacerbated by UFO buffs who, to this day, see Police Officer Lonnie Zamora’s unique observation as confirmation that Earth has been visited by an alien species in an egg-shaped craft.

The underlying need to insert alien beings into the muck and mire of human society is as ignorant, er mad, as the idea that gods descended to Earth in its earliest days and communed with men (and women), leaving no discernible evidence or help that would alleviate human ills.

Yet, today, UFO buffs, such as Ben Moss, Anthony Mugan, Neal Foy, and others, see the Socorro incident as resplendent as that of the Old Testament prophets (and madmen).

Of course, UFO madness isn’t as egregious as that being displayed by such insane groups as ISIS, nowadays, or those of lone madmen who shoot innocent people going about their mad pleasures.

But it is madness just the same. And a kind of madness that is insidious in its own ways, replacing logic and intelligent sense with cockeyed ruminations that take us nowhere but closer to a human nervous breakdown, or mental calamity, as Freud warned in Civilization and Its Discontents and Jung in his Civilization in Transition.

RR

From a Facebooker


Sunday, July 24, 2016

Ufology’s “smoking guns” – the Socorro insignia (this time)

Over at our friend Kevin Randle’s blog is a posting about the 1964 Socorro event, witnessed by Police Officer Lonnia Zamora, one of the exemplary witnesses in all of UFO lore.

Kevin presents the episode in his meticulous way, as usual, and then the UFO crazies are allowed their say in his commentary section.

Comments by UFO buffs is where the whole topic of UFOs falls apart. Those who have an opinion lack logic, common sense, and realistic loquacity.

Kevin believes in democracy and lets stand such obvious idiocies.

But it’s infuriating to us who try to be as intelligent as possible when it comes to examining UFO stories, old and new.

In the case of Socorro, the smoking gun, as I keep nagging, is that insignia that Zamora saw and drew.

The problem is that the symbol or insignia has two interpretations and no one knows for sure which one is the authentic insignia:
Ray Stanford insists it’s the inverted V with three lines through it. Others, including me, think it’s the haloed arrow.

The search for the source of that insignia has been grueling and long, once linked to a story of a balloon expedition by a paper company that allegedly landed in Socorro on the date of the Zamora-witnessed UFO.

Whether it’s the inverted V or the haloed arrow, the point is that the symbol connects us to the source of the thing seen by Officer Zamora, whether Earthly or not.

A fellow once gave us an interpretation based upon the logo used by Howard Hughes’s Toolco and/or aircraft company.

But that turns out not to be conclusive. (See responses to Zoam Chomsky’s ideas put forth at Kevin Blogs. Zoam, and others, seems unfamiliar with our long-ago dissertations of the Hughes’ efforts hat might explain the Socorro incident.)

At any rate, like the Ramey memo, if one can decipher the Socorro symbol, they will have solved the sighting, just as they might solve other classic UFO episodes by seeking the “smoking guns.”

RR

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Gods, not ETs?

Ancient Aliens on The History Channel had a new show, 7/22/16, ravaging Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, which is okay with me. The show was entitled The Prototypes and recounted the many diverse species of mankind that don’t follow the Darwinian path of evolution.

One of the problems, for me, is the dopey characters – excluding my pal Nick Redfern – who narrate portions of each show: Childress, Wilcocks, Noory, et al. and the certitude that aliens are responsible for life on Earth and all that mankind has attained, somehow.

The primary problem is that AA theorists assume the ridiculous idea that aliens from afar have spent (and are spending) lots of time here [Earth] to abduct humans now and spent much of our historical time readapting human DNA or accelerating technical advances.

You know my views on alien intrusions: the Earth is such a forlorn, backwater in our galaxy and even more so the Universe itself that any advanced alien species allotting such inordinate time reconnoitering this planet and involving itself in its machinations would have to be insane, not advanced.

So, for me, one can rule out alien incursions via UFOs or anything else to explain odd occurrences in man’s evolutionary trek.

But then we are left with few other explanations for the bizarre artifacts and happenings that show up when one scrutinizes events and sightings of weird things in the sky and on the ground, as recounted by records and reports over the years and even today.

So, the AA scenario remains a viable but loony proposition.

Then we have the religious scenarios: God created all hat exists and has impacted human kind with His or Her psychopathic behavior. (God is nuts, as The Gnostics have it.)

But even then why would God, like ancient astronauts, spend so much time on this flawed domain?

Here’s one possibility:

The Church of the Latter Day Saints, Mormons, believe that men evolve as gods (the “exaltation”) and such men have control over portions of the Universe, and the god who supervises our part of the Universe has made it what it is:


“Latter-Day Saints do not believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the only three gods there are. Rather, they believe in (though do not worship) a "plurality" of gods, gods without number, each one ruling his own creation. Thus, the three separate gods who rule our universe are finite in power—they sustain and govern only a tiny portion of all that exists.

“The other gods have either preceded or followed the Heavenly Father who organized our world. In fact, men living today on this planet will one day become gods of their own universes. As such, they will mate with heavenly wives, beget spirit children, populate new worlds, and receive the worship and obedience we are now expected to give to our particular, current God.”

This is just as palpable, maybe more so, that the AA theory or the God explanations of religious cults.

(Or we are in a “matrix” controlled by a madman or insane group of entities that could be assigned the sobriquet God.)

[Image used atop this post from nowscape.com]

RR

Thursday, July 21, 2016

In defense of the 1994 Ariel School (Ruwa, Zimbabwe) UFO event and the children who allegedly witnessed it

Robert Sheaffer provided a posting about Gilles Fernandez’ report on the 1994 Ruwa, Zimbabwe alleged UFO encounter by students at the Ariel school there:


I’ve covered this account several times, myself, and recently linked Gilles’ exemplary evaluation of the way Cynthia Hind, a UFO “researcher” and noted psychiatrist John Mack interviewed the children involved.

Here is an internet link to an article about how clumsy or errant interviewing goes astray. (The piece is about sexual abuse but the same exigencies apply to any kind of interview to get at the truth of a matter):

Interviewing sexually abused children

However, there are caveats with the contamination explanation offered, brilliantly, by Gilles.

A purview of the Two Volume Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, 3rd Edition [John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, 1946, 1954, 1970, Paul H. Mussen, Editor] allows for acceptance of child accounts as linguistically and mentally accurate; that is, free of fabrication or deviousness, unless one is dealing with a child who is predisposed to schizophrenia or other serious behavioral disorder.

An elaborate exegesis of how children see, remember, and recall moments is covered in Volume One, Page 944 ff…

“According to Bruner (1964, 1966a), the child [ages 7 to 11] first masters “enactive” representation … he then becomes capable of “ikonic” representation which summarizes events by selective organization of percepts and of images, by the spatial, temporal and qualitative structures of the perceptual field and their transformed images.” [ibid. Page 948]

However, “A human being can witness a [event] without at the time perceiving it himself…When this deferred imitation (Piaget, 1945) leads to a learned strengthening of the response, observational learning is said to occur.” [ibid. Page 956]

In a portion devoted to creative problem solving, there is this:

“Some of the ‘discovery’ methods confront children with questions and require[s] them to find the answers to them through their own efforts.” [Mackworth (1965) and Guilford (1956, 1967), ibid. Page 972].

One can assume that John Mack is familiar with the studies and literature, and while I watched Dr. Mack in the proffered interview segments, it was obvious to me, from my observations at Eloise Hospital (Wayne County, Michigan) between psychiatrists and patients during my psychological training (Wayne State University) that Dr, Mack was aware of the proper procedures for acquiring accurate information from those children he interviewed.

Yet, Gilles’ – a cognitive psychologist – contamination scenario strikes me as valid to a large extent.

The children weren’t confabulating but surely could have been influenced by their peers’ responses and Ms. Hind’s UFO predilections.

But to continue to present their “stories” – two months after the alleged event when Dr, Mack interviewed them and later in life, when grown up – would vitiate the idea that actual contamination took place, despite the onerous hypothesis Gilles so astutely presents.

That is, the children saw something odd, and did their best to portray that observation as best as they could, under the bizarre circumstances.

Mr. Sheaffer provides, surprisingly, a glib, facile observation in his posting.

Gilles, at least, offers substantive material to augment his skeptical view.

Zoam Chomsky merely excoriates the tale (or actual event) in his usual dynamic but breezy way.

This is a “UFO event” that needs more study, and follow-up, since the witnesses are still with us and at an age and in a mental condition to provide better and/or more information.

Let’s not be so hasty to write the account off because skeptics hate the idea that people see strange things and report them.

In this instance, challenging the view of children is particularly abominable, unless one has distinct evidence that such children are sociopaths or even psychopaths, both rare in children at the ages of those who saw the odd craft and odd being supposedly from it.

RR

Nick Redfern on various TV icons (that may have inspired MIB tales)


RR

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Three items of interest (perhaps)

I can't explain this spike:
This is a 3-D picture of the Universe (as explained). My 3-D glasses produced nothing (Mouse over the image to enlarge):
The new Einstein?

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/12/the-next-einstein-radical-new-theory.html#.V4-_rdQrKt8

N.B. The spike is from my Blogger account stats. The other items are from my MediaWatch Facebook news feed.

RR

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

For my ET-centric readers


Monday, July 18, 2016

The Ariel School, Ruwa, Zimbabwe 1994 "UFO event" [Redux]

A few weeks back I noted the UFO/creature sighting, titled above.

That 1994 episode has been brought up again at Kevin Randle's blog, where he's listed his top 10 UFO sightings and someone slipped the Ariel School episode in, allowing comments from our friend Zoam Chomsky and a note from mon ami Gilles Fernandez who has written a psychological exegesis at his blog, which is a must-read for those who want to understand how UFO investigations go awry:

http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2016/06/rencontre-rapprochee-ariel-school-ruwa.html

(Use the translator to read Gilles' posting in English.)

While Gille's evaluation of "contamination" is important and accurate, there are minute details among the school children's rendition of their "experience" that reside outside the contamination sobriquet.

The stories offered by the children, two months after the alleged UFO encounter, and told to Dr. John Mack, remained intact, and vivid, something that belies contamination, especially with children.

" ... contamination is a pathological response, pathognomonic of schizophrenia ..." [Psychiatric Dictionary, 4th Edition, Hinsie/Campbell]

Although Gilles is not using contamination in the psychiatric sense, but in the common parlance where one assumes that interactions between witnesses to an event affect and stimulate each other, as well may be the case in the Ariel sighting. But that's open to debate in this account of a strange being from a strange craft coming into contact with a bevy of school children.

The episode is not as easily written off as Zoam would make it, nor as easily explained as Gilles eruditely provides.

It's a fascinating case study for psychologists or sociologists, and "ufologists."

RR

Come on......be intelligent

Do you still think that Earth is a place that an advanced species would visit, as often as UFO reports indicate, when there are so many other places open to and inviting visitation?

And don't give me that "next door" argument; i.e., ETs close by, in The Milky Way, are the visitors.

A truly advanced alien species would traverse the Universe cataloging other life forms. and not spend so much time hovering around this hell-hole.

RR

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Before The BIG Bang

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2015/01/what-existed-before-big-bang.html#.V4vykNQrKt8

RR

Saturday, July 16, 2016

NIck Bostrom's views on ETs (which are exactly, or almost so, like mine)!

http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf

RR

Friday, July 15, 2016

Artificial Intelligence: The Retreat

Nick Bostrom (his most recent book on AI pictured here) along with Kurweil, Barrat, et al., alarmed personages such as Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, and Elon Musk, with the idea that the end-of-mankind scenario would be brought about by intelligent machines.

Yet, Dr. Bostrom, in an afterward, written in November 2015, to the paperback version actually backs off his initial forays into the dangers of AI, as the end-of-mankind-singularity.

And why did he do so?

Here's a clue from that afterword:

"It is no part of this book's argument that an intelligent explosion is imminent ..." [Superintelligence, Page 322]

"Those inane Terminator pictures are taking a toll. It can't be much fun to have aspersions cast on one's academic discipline." [ibid., Page 323]

Apparently, pressure from Bostrom's peers (and bosses?) have suppressed his one-time view that an AI Singularity was, indeed, imminent and would take control of mankind, eliminating the human species along the way.

I see his original Singularity, and that of Barrat, Kurzweil, and others as a distinct possibility, and continue to suggest the idea that UFOs may be AI machines or contain AI machines, and that they have been and are reconnoitering Earth, like von Neumann probes.

RR

UFOs: Death by Murder

I’m not a “conspiracist” by nature, but I am well-read enough to know that conspiracies to eliminate persons of power or knowledge have often been committed in human history:

Tutankhamun, Julius Caesar, Jesus of Nazareth, Thomas Beckett, King Ludwig II, Leon Trotsky, et al.
There are countless others.)

I just finished Where’s the Truth edited by Mary Boyd Higgins [Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NY, 2012] which is a compendium of journal writings, diary entries, and letters from Wilhelm Reich (from 1948 to his “death” in November 1957).

I’ve always felt that Dr. Reich was killed by operatives of the government who wanted to stifle his odd work (and experiments) with orgone energy and UFOs, too.

The book provides a plethora of incidents and legal maneuvers of a diabolic kind to put Dr. Reich out of business and out of life.
In the context of the Cold War, where the mind-set of the United States government was likened to the communist behavioral modus – the end justifies the means  -- anything was okay to do, even to killing persons who were inimical to U.S. geo-political aims.

(I have a book coming – Against their Will: The Secret History of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America [Pargrave] – that shows how the government behaved in the time-frame (and also supplements or supports Nick Redfern’s thesis in his book, Body Snatchers in the Desert).

The Cold War provoked illegal and murderous activity instigated by the highest levels of the U.S. government, which has always made me think that James Forrestal was thrown out the hospital window where he was a patient….mostly because this was something that happened to another “enemy” of the U.S. government (cited here, at this blog, earlier).
Forrestal was involved in flying saucer business, as was M.K. Jessup (also dying mysteriously), Ed Ruppelt, head of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book (who had a “heart attack” at an early age, much as Dr, Reich supposedly had), Dr. James McDonald who was a heavy advocate of UFO reality and prominent in the matter; he committed suicide allegedly, and others as listed at this web-site The Awake Zone and also amply reported by our pal, Nick Redfern:


My point is that, while UFO deaths might be natural, there are accounts that raise the issue of possible murder, and that because agents of the U.S. government were inclined to kill people who might disclose secrets – UFO secrets – that were not meant to be opened to public scrutiny.

But the question that needs to be addressed is Why?

RR

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The Macro-Reality of Quantum and UFOs

An internet link from the Science web-site stresses the idea that some experimentation with neutrinos, and the measurement of them, could turn our concept of reality on its head:


And there’s this from that Science piece:

“Garg says he still hopes somebody will push the test he and Leggett devised as originally intended: to test whether realism holds for a truly macroscopic object. If it fails, our sense of reality really would go out the window.” [Bold print, mine]

I bolded the words above to dissuade readers here from going off on an errant tangent about quantum; that it doesn’t represent the macro-world, only the micro-world.

Science has been applying, for some time, quantum mechanics to the world we inhabit, the outer, “real” world of things that are bigger than the quantum world of quarks and particles that are below human perception.

(I’ve discussed this here and at the RRRGroup blog many times.)

The point of the Science article is that measurement affects reality, micro and macro. And experimentation with neutrinos – zero electric charge and (perhaps) zero mass – mimics, as I see it, the measurement of quantum artifacts, as indicated in the notable Schrödinger cat hypothesis.

That is, nothing is real (in the micro world and macro world) until it is measured, or observed, as I’ve insisted in previous postings here and elsewhere.

(I’ve used Marshall McLuhan’s idea’s about how reality is affected by the insertion of a camera or observer in a social setting.)

So, how does this pertain to UFOs?

UFOs, in the sky or on the ground, in all those exotic encounters, in the lore, are not real until they are observed (measured, as it were).

Do UFOs (and all those odd creatures reportedly seen outside a container of ship of some kind) exist before they are seen?

Maybe not.

This would mean that the observer, the measurer, creates the phenomenon, but from what?

Jung predicated, in his popular book, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky, that flying saucers [UFOs] are projections from the psyche of those who see them.

That is somewhat how I see the quantum possibility, but there is more to it…

Persons spotting UFOs have a predilection of some kind – that predilection up for the debate I think – to see UFOs (or ghosts, Big Foot, and other paranormal entities).

The observations are not unlike the “reality” that encompasses what psychiatry calls schizophrenic delusions (which I see as real things, seen by adepts buggered by the idea that they are insane).

UFOs do not exist until someone sees them: pilots, farmers, truckers, Travis Walton, Betty Hill, Parker and Hickson, Lonnie Zamora, the Trents, Frank Mannor, et al.

Once observed (measured), UFOs become, like neutrinos in the article linked above, open to experimentation.

They [UFOs] become “tangible” and subject to radar detection, ground impressions (in the encounter cases), “accidental” harm (burns and probes), and “abductions” for those too adept!

Thus, UFOs are not real, until and unless they are measured (observed or perceived).

[Image used at opening, above, of posting from Octanis.org]

RR

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Remnants of a death on Mars?

Martian skeleton

RR