UFO Conjectures

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Scouring History, Literature, Biography, etc. for UFOs: Nada


When purported UFO incidents are expunged from the Bible – Ezekiel, Elijah, the God-dove at Jesus’ baptism, et cetera – the vast written material provided by mankind (prior to 1947) is devoid of flying saucer and/or UFO accounts that stand as bona fide sightings of the phenomenon.

The striking dearth of such events or appearances – excluding the scant mariner observations by Columbus et al. and the apocryphal stories about Alexander and Constantine, along with the metaphorical images in Vedic sacred writings – indicates that the general population of human observers and writers didn’t see or experience the things we know today as UFOs.

Thucydides, Herodotus, the Greek philosophers, the Conquistadors, Magellan, Captain Cook, Lewis and Clark, Livingstone, Thoreau, Dostoevsky, Melville, Bierce, Margaret Mead, and all the other explorers and writers we read or read about have nothing in their journals or oeuvre that comes close to what has become the “literature” of flying saucers and UFOs.


And the context of the few early UFO episodes – those often cited by ufology writers as proof of the ubiquitous UFO phenomenon – is mythological or religious, not historical or literary.

This plays into the Vallee hypotheses, not the Friedman theories.

That is, UFOs are either a kind of mythos, not the recent visitors to the Earth as Friedman contends.

Or UFOs are a product of the modern age, generated by, initially, Cold War anxieties and more recently as existential artifacts, produced by man’s intuition that we are alone, with no galactic companions and gods (or God) to assuage the mess we call life.


UFOs are not mystical as some ufologists believe, nor have been intrusions by a concomitant race hidden to man (so far) as Mac Tonnies portrays.

They haven’t been projections of human psyches, as Jung suggested.

(Early human strife would have provided such projections, and the Holocaust in particular, where no UFO sightings were recorded or noted, not even by Victor Frankl.

UFOs could be the bolts-and-nuts craft that Stanton Friedman has established his credentials upon, but the armada needed to fulfill his armload of visitors seems iffy for a number of reasons: intergalactic travel restrictions, support facilities (mechanical and sustaining supplies such as food and water), the unimportance of Earth in the great scheme of the Universe, et cetera.


One would expect that extraterrestrial races would not be that different, if Friedman et al have it right.

And the UFO configurations seem to hint at races not very technically different from us.

But UFOs exhibit behavior that is different. UFOs do not communicate, whereas Earth explorers always went out of their way to communicate with the strange tribes and life-forms they encountered.


UFOs could stem from time-travelers but, again, the number of UFOs seen in modern times would mean that creatures from our future (or past) have an inordinate interest in this time and place.

Even the great explorers of the past were small in number compared to the total human population, representing a scintilla of interest in what was out there while the primary human contingent (the rabble) went about their lives with not an iota of care for what lay beyond their immediate environment.


So UFOs from time seem problematic, unless almost everyone from the future (or distant past) found this time period obsessively intriguing.

Where does this leave us, conjecturally?

UFOs have not been a part of humanity in any significant way, as the lacunae in literature shows.

The few apocryphal sightings say more about the writers of that apocrypha than the reality they bent for various reasons, most self-aggrandizing.

UFOs – some UFOs – may be visitors from space (Friedman) or time (Goldberg) but not all of them.


Some UFOs are psychical projections, and hallucinatory, considering the dementia of many UFO devotees.

A few – quite a few? – UFO are hoaxes. (Dementia again)


Or UFOs are a counter-reality that impacts some Earthlings but not many actually.

And the import of that? None…none whatsoever.

Thus, UFOs are a game, meant for a few, not the (Spock) many.

Therefore they can be dismissed or ignored, and nothing will happen when they are ignored.

So fellow UFO mavens move on to something worthwhile…..


  • What the *hell* are you babbling about dude? Remove any mention of ufos from history and literature and then claim there's no mention of them anywhere? What kind of drugs are you on?
    If I were to remove any mention of "George Washington" and "America's First President" from historical records and literature and then claim there was no such person because there's no mention of him, what kind of nutcase would I be?
    Have you read the book UFOs AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE by Dolan?These things are what they are and they do what they do independently of what you or I or anyone thinks they "should" be doing. You don't think they exist? Tough shit dude, they do. These are definite, physical, kick-the-tires machines, according to 50-plus years of study by the U.S. Government, and others. What has not been determined (at least publicly) thus far however is where they are from, where they go, what they are doing, and who they belong to.
    Read the book.

    By Blogger Iguana, at Wednesday, July 09, 2008  

  • Iguana...

    To scour -- range over as in search.

    Not scour, as in clean.

    And you might re-read the post, since you miss the meaning.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 09, 2008  

  • I have to agree with RRRGroup in that we have NO hard evidence attesting to the fact that these phenomena are comprised - even partially - of any sort of craft as Friedman and his ilk have posited. While it remains possible - as do many theories - it also remains unproved.

    RRRGroup has always promoted, and I agree, the idea of the UFO Phenomena (that's plural, mind you). It's the belief that various discrete phenomena comprise what we term UFO's. Some of these might be hereto unknown atmospheric phenomena, or they might be misidentifications of known craft, or even the remote possibility of extraterrestrial or transdimensional craft.

    That said, I do find the following argument flawed:

    "...iffy for a number of reasons: intergalactic travel restrictions, support facilities (mechanical and sustaining supplies such as food and water), the unimportance of Earth in the great scheme of the Universe, et cetera."

    We cannot dismiss a posssibility simply because it doesn't adhere to our homocentric understanding of the universe. We cannot suppose that any such craft could not traverse the stars simply because our still-evolving physics cannot yet explain how. While it remains, at present, improbable, it has not yet been determined impossible. The same would hold true for physiological arguments concerning any nutritional needs an alien species would need. For all we know, it wouldn't drink water. And we mustn't let myopia cloud our understanding of Earth's import to anyone. After all, I think spending your entire career studying one subspecies of the common wren is of no importance in the scheme of things. But you know somebody out there has done that very thing.

    Humility is something science doesn't hold in high regard, crowing their accomplisments while sweeping their mistakes under the rug. The shocking things that have been learned over the past century about the nature of the universe are only now realized as the tip of the iceberg.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Friday, July 11, 2008  

  • Cullan:

    Of course you're right about the possibility of space-travel, via methods as yet undiscerned by us.

    But I can't imagine a species so enamored with Earth that they send craft here, continually, while in the whole of the Universe there are so many other attractions, even within our solar system.

    However, if we are a product of that species, then I could see the on-going study (like your wren).

    So, some UFOs may be from elsewhere, but not many, and not on a permanent basis.

    UFO creatures, unlike ufologists, would have the good sense to move on....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 11, 2008  

  • Maybe we're a menagerie and we just don't know it. Either way, isn't it nice to have an intellectual discussion instead of cussing and screaming as Iguana does?

    I also got to thinking about your post on parallel universes. I was struck, in reading it, with the image of an individual sandwiched between two mirrors who sees himself stretching off into infinity. Perhaps that's the way the multiverse (or what have you) operates but with minor differences.

    In our grand Sci Fi imaginings, we like to think of vastly different worlds; maybe green skies spread out over pink lawns, for instance. But what if the differences are far more subtle than that. What if they exist at the quantum level and are comprised mostly of how physics works in that world. I think we get caught up in seeing drastic differences as the result of great changes, but perhaps the opposite is more apropos: subtle changes have drastic consequences. Perhaps something as simple as the inversion of particle polarity in another reality creates a world where something unimaginable is possible. Food for thought is all...

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Friday, July 11, 2008  

  • And, Cullan, what if quantum mechanics, the physics thereof, are an insertion from a multiverse and have nothing to do with this Universe, and Einstein has been right all along?

    Michio Kaku posits exactly what you suggest, that other universes, other realities, pose possibilities that we can't even imagine.

    That's why the UFO phenomenon -- the flying saucer element -- strikes me as too similar to this Earth for it to be from another dimension or galaxy, far, far away.

    Flying saucers are mundane, whereas UFOs bespeak something altogether foreign -- perhaps.

    It will take more than conjecture, or blogging to come to some kind of valid explanation though.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 11, 2008  

  • Your premise is flawed on this one.

    Such accounts exist in vast numbers in antiquity. Read the Ramayana, the Puranas, and the Mahabarata for instance. Flying disks with fearsome weapons abound in those Hindu texts, along with descriptions of other worlds and a world inside our own.

    Similarly, Alexander the Great is recorded by contemporary historians as having encountered "flying shields" on at least two occasions. On one occasion these "shields" shortened his seige of Tyre by destroying the walls with "lightning bolts." See


    On another occasion, he and his armies witnessed such shields coming and going from a river in Asia:


    There are many, many other examples of this type which fit perfectly into UFO literature, and hold their own against modern eyewitness accounts.

    Suffice it to say, I won't go to the trouble to look them all up and list them here and now. But the examples cited above demonstrate that your premise on this topic is flawed.


    -W.M. Mott

    By Blogger wmmott, at Thursday, July 17, 2008  

  • Also read Campbell's "Tales of the West Highlands."

    Folk traditions have always abounded with phenomena that may be identical to the UFO phenomenon, or aspects of it.


    By Blogger wmmott, at Thursday, July 17, 2008  

  • Thanks, W.M. Mott,

    We'll check it out.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 17, 2008  

  • John Keel, excerpted from:


    Essentially the phenomenon can be divided into two parts. The meandering nocturnal lights are the real mystery and still remain unexplained by astronomy. The objects and apparitions seen on the ground, or close to it, comprise the second part. These range from complex hallucinations to elaborate transmogrifications, often accompanied by incredible distortions of reality and manipulations of time and space. Such manifestations have been known, and recorded, throughout history, and their true nature was recognized and defined thousands of years ago.

    Collectively, American ufologists are ill informed and poorly educated in history, philosophy, and the behavioral sciences. So they have failed to recognize what is actually happening (in contrast to what they think is happening).

    Ufology is essentially a new system of belief, not a new system of scientific fact. As such, it is no more substantive than the study of angels and the medieval cataloging of chimeras. Indeed, the deeper one penetrates into the ufological problems, the more he finds himself rediscovering Heraclitus.

    By Blogger wmmott, at Thursday, July 17, 2008  

  • Thanks, again, W.M. Mott,

    The above sounds about right to us.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 17, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home