UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, June 20, 2008

UFOs and Evolution


If Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct – and we think it is, with some caveats about how evolution was generated – then the idea that UFOs contain beings very much like us, from other (extraterrestrial) worlds doesn’t work, and can’t.

The evolutionary process, as Darwin explicated it, is unique to Earth.

The chemical make up, the geology, the vicissitudes of Earth’s history cannot and would not be duplicated elsewhere. The odds against that are 10ⁿ.

The physiology and mental make-up of mankind is a product of this Earth – if Darwin is right – and only of this Earth.


Creatures evolving on other worlds – even on some moons of the Solar System or Mars – would not be subjected to the same chemical/geological interactions that are specific to the Earth.

(The time-traveling hypothesis of some ufologists and/or the concomitant Earth civilization of some – Mac Tonnies comes to mind – might make sense within the Darwin framework, particularly the UFOs-from-our-future scenario, which we’ve addressed here previously.)


Since most of the creatures spotted outside and inside UFOs (the Hill abduction is one) have features, physical attributes similar to those of humans – see our previous post -- those beings cannot have come from afar.

Even if we posit the Creationist “theory” of mankind’s rise to ascendancy here on Earth, the UFO inhabitants would be unlike humankind, unless God made them, on their world(s), in His image and He is a “gray.”


But that’s a stretch, even for us, and Stanton Friedman.

The uniqueness of Earth and its creatures – if Darwin’s theory is true – dilutes the extraterrestrial hypothesis, unless….

…unless the idea that we -- all things on Earth – were seeded by extraterrestrials, which is the SciFi version of Creationism.


Since we are cozy with the idea that UFOs are phenomena – many diverse things – we can allow a number of hypotheses, except for the one that says UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors from galaxies and worlds light years away, who or which evolved in the same way as we have on Earth.

That idea just doesn’t work in the context of Darwin.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Cultural Factors and Flying Saucer Beings


When flying saucers – the hard metal kind (or so they appeared to be) – started landing in the late 1940s, the 1950s, and 1960s, debarking (usually) little beings, the appearances centered in Europe: Italy, France, Belgium, Spain….

The Rosa Lotti encounter [Italy, 1954], pictured above, represents the beings generally reported.

Patrick Huyghe recounts an episode of 1947 [in his Field Guide to Extraterrestrials, Avon, 1996, Page 38] in Villa Santina, Italy where two “little green men” accosted a professor of geology, Rapuzzi Johannis.


In North America, beings emerging from saucers were rather normal looking in the contactee stories, which can be discounted we think.

More reliable accounts described monster-like beings [Flatwoods, West Virginia, 1952] or goblin-like creatures [Kelly Kentucky, 1955].


South America, meanwhile, was reporting creatures with animal features, usually fur and/or fangs [Caracas, Venezuela, 1954], with several animal-like beings showing up in the 1970s.

Russian encounters had descriptions that likened the creatures to robots, usually tall in stature [Voronezh, Russia, 1989] which was antedated by a similar 10 foot tall, one-eyed being encountered in the Minas Gerais State of Brazil (the same area where Villas Boas had his CIA encounter) in 1963.


Nordic encounters [such as that in Imjärvi Mikkeli, Finland, 1970] indicated short beings (3 feet or so) with features that simulated an ice-elf.


The small, gray humanoids appeared after the 1961 Betty/Barney Hill episode, but those seem, to us, to be copy-cat descriptions, whereas the former and later encounters appear to be bona fide, at least in the recounting.


Huyghe reports in his book [above] a 1951 encounter in Salzburg, Austria that resembles the Higdon account (covered here previously) and an interesting report [Page 66, from Jenny Randles’ “Alien Contacts and Abductions,” 1994]] that took place in 1896 in Lodi, California, where three 6 foot-tall, delicate, strangely beautiful beings were encountered by two reputable witnesses.


Huyghe also gives pages to inanimate objects, mechanical in nature, from various sources that appeared emerging from UFOs and flying saucers for the time-frame of 1947-1977 but mostly in the 1950s.

Insect-like creatures have also been reported [Cooksville, Maryland, 1973] along with reptilian beings [Marzano, Genoa, Italy, 1978 and Mount Vernon, Missouri, 1983] plus amphibian creatures [South Ashburnham, Massachusetts, 1967 and Orland Park, Illinois, 1951].


The Pascagoula, Mississippi Hickson/Parker encounter of 1973, with elephant-skinned, robotic-like beings strikes us as bogus or hallucinatory, but that’s only a gut-feeling; Hickson acted as if in a transitional mental state that influenced his buddy, Parker much in the way that Betty Hill influenced Barney Hill in his 1961 account.


British episodes [such as that in Rowley Regis, West Midlands, England, 1979] often mimic fairy stories that are and have been ubiquitous in the British Isles for many years going back to the Middle Ages, and seem to represent, à la Jacques Vallee, something other than alien, extraterrestrial encounters.


We feel that an anthropological-sociological scrutiny of such reports might provide a clue to one aspect of the UFO phenomena – the creature element(s).

That is, do cultures and societies see flying saucers, UFOs, and such creatures as those listed above in ways that are skewed by their environments and societal histories?

This seems to be an area of ufological study that may be fecund with interesting insight(s) and information.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Science vs Ufology


The difference between science and ufology can be seen, clearly, by comparing two talks: one by UFO “expert” Brad Sparks and another by physicist Michio Kaku on SETI and UFOs, both at Paul Kimball’s discursive blog.

Sparks regurgitates the Roswell/Mogul conflict, and Kaku examines the SETI mistake(s), with some asides about how any UFO study by science would kill the career(s) of the scientist(s) involved.

Sparks rambles, and digresses, which he readily admits. Kaku is concise and to the point.


The patina of Sparks’ exposition is one of staleness and conspiracy: the government, especially the Air Force, has policies that pit them (the AF) against ufologists.

Kaku avoids a SETI conspiracy – to defraud alien speculation – and makes it clear that the issue of alien civilizations (and UFOs) is a bit more complex than SETI or ufologists acknowledge.


Sparks is fixated on the Air Force, as are most ufologists.

It’s the United States Navy where the UFO mystery is flummoxed and controlled. The evidence is overwhelming, and we detail it at our UFO web-site.

The other thing is that Kaku is articulate, Sparks not. Sparks is not a speaker. Yes, he has some bona fide UFO credentials, but speech-making? Not his forté.

Kimball accumulates lots of material from ufologists and non-ufologists, but we find very little creative UFO hypotheses by Kimball himself.


Since this is the case, it would do well for Mr. Kimball to provide more Kaku and less Sparks, or any other ufologist of note.

You see, ufologists, aside from Stanton Friedman, just can’t hold a candle to the likes of a Michio Kaku.