UFO Conjectures

Saturday, July 23, 2011

An example of UFO testimony that varies because of witness differences

In an article – Alien Contact in Ancient Japan -- by Bruce Schaffenberger in the May 1997 of Official UFO’s Ancient Astronauts magazine, the author presents accounts in Volumes 1 and 2 of the Zuihitsu Taisei of strange women, in or near bowl-shaped objects that appeared, in one instance, on the beach of Harayadori in northern Japan and, in another instance, several hundred miles away, both during the Edo Era (1603 to 1868).

In the first account, fishermen pulled the object ashore, peered inside and saw a peculiar woman with a crystal-ringing box. The woman spoke to the fishermen but they could not understand her.


In the second account, a strange woman was seen near the object on the beach. She held a humming box.


(The account is available on the internet, at many venues, and may be found by a Google search.)

Our point here that it seems both occurrences involved the same object and “woman” but as you can see from the depictions rendered by witnesses, the incidents differ, not in substance but in details – details that may be meaningful but flummoxed by how the witnesses saw or interpreted the episodes.

This is, in our estimation, a recurring problem with witness testimony, in all UFO accounts and reports: witnesses will see, remember, and record events in ways that are shaped by their mental make-up.

This has been the bane of the Roswell story and others, where multiple witnesses are involved. And where one witness is reporting an event, the interpretation or account is surely muddled by the personal vicissitudes of the lone observer.

At least with multiple witnesses, one has a chance to compare details and data to see what, if any, corroborate the testimonies being proffered.

While the Japanese report(s), above, are minutely different, it is obvious that both accounts are of the same phenomenon. The differences can be reconciled, and they should be able to be reconciled in modern UFO/flying saucer reports too. Witness testimony is inherently flawed, but not to the point that the truthful or real elements can’t be discerned, forensically, by serious researchers.

One last note – in the drawing for the first observation, depicted above, there was a symbol or symbolic writing, reproduced here:


If the 1964 Socorro insignia was not bollixed by an Air Force scheme and the complicity of Ray Stanford, one might see similarities in the Japan symbol to that originally indicated as what Officer Zamora said he saw on his craft and reproduced.


That shenanigan aside, there is grist for study in the Japanese drawing of the symbol seen/reported by witnesses.

So while there are major caveats about witness testimony, there are also nuggets of importance in such accounts…..perhaps.


  • As far as commenting on this example of an interaction that is not an arms length transaction of behaviorism, I suspect that nothing can be gleaned from the details you cited in symbols, as these are the work of a certain mimicry that has no context, as they may be a shell of appearances that when cracked open have no context in our world but are naive representations of our own appearances that have one distinctive feature of a sort of natural camouflage, which is an aim of mimicking a phenomenon (us)in order to probe what makes it tick. Since we are living creatures and not watches that can be opened to see what makes our behaviorism or sense of identity "work", setting up phenomenological markers to see what moves where to me makes sense.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, July 25, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    You are being pessimistic.

    Everything is pertinent and everything is a clue.

    The symbols have meaning, and can be interpreted in a number of contexts.

    It's only a matter of making the attempt to decipher.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 25, 2011  

  • I don't sense a pessimism in my approach but I suspect trying to tie a logical and rational chain of causation of a unknown phenomenon to ourselves in our own terms ( our geometry and semiotics) leads to a whirlygig that spins without a destination. Look at the MIB phenomenon in terms of a naive intelligence probing behaviorism by mimicry. I think in terms of circumstantial evidence, there is a stronger probability that this is a non linear chain of causation. Symbols must have a context, and I don't see any, not that I am not looking. If everything, as you suggest is pertinent and has a meaning in this phenomenon, it may be a matter of what yardstick we use and where we place it (as in quantum physics) arising from a relativity of data. I am curious as to what contexts you are citing as inferences.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, July 25, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Some of the contexts, wherein the symbols might be addressed are:

    The paranormal context
    The ufological context
    The mytholgical context
    The sino-cultural context
    The "psychological" context
    The sociological context

    And a few others perhaps.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 25, 2011  

  • Are there any matches in the Japanese incidents that one could derive a pattern of behaviorism? Or are these not structural in terms of empirical considerations? Again, either I am thick or I am not getting where the symbolism in the Japanese incidents becomes coherent. I see your point in all matters have a relative value that goes into the stew, but his one does not strike me as anything other than a intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of the prosaic. a feint, a bad carbon copy acting as a probe. Of course all this is the nexus of the biological subjective, becoming as a proc4ess rather than a set of postulates. I just don't see the connection between these symbols of Japan and New Mexico.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, July 25, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    You're making too much of this.

    The symbols provided in the Japanese depiction are, suggestively, to me, somewhat similar to the "bogus" depiction that Zamora provided for the Socorro craft at the behest of the AF.

    That's all.

    You are making more of my obtuse observation than it deserves I think.

    (I'm merely, as usual, considering everything, in the Sherlockian or Columbo way; that is, minutia is often the clue to an explanation of the matter at hand.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 25, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home