UFO Conjectures

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

UFOs: a lot of data; a lot of nothing


I’m fascinated by the accounts in the Vallee/Aubeck book, Wonders in the Sky, from the earliest of times, in which “beings” (often clothed in white garments) were reported seen in the presence of strange celestial objects [Pages 35, 37, 39, 40, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 62, 63, 67, 71, 72, 75, 77, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 95, 103, 105, 106, ff.]

(Remember, Zamora’s Socorro craft was accompanied by beings clothed in white, as were beings allegedly spotted outside Woomera, Australia, which some, us included, tied to the Solway Firth “spaceman” photo. And there are other sightings in which entities were garbed in shiny or white clothing or uniforms.)

And a look at cave art also raises the specter of strange beings mingling among early mankind (used by Alien Astronaut devotees for their hypothesis).


Then, of course, we all have access to hundreds, thousands actually, of UFO stories that have accumulated since 1947, and appear in books, television, and the internet.

But none of this data or information has taken us to an explanation of what flying saucers or UFOs were or are.

That dastardly skeptic Phil Klass said none of us would ever get an explanation for UFOs in our lifetime. His “prophecy” seems to be accurate, at least so far.


My point is that we have the data, lots of it, but we are nowhere near an explanation of what UFOs are or what their raison d’être might be.

And the chase has become wearying for some: Paul Kimball and a few fellows here, plus others who have dropped off the UFO merry-go-round.

Why Roswell remains an active source for UFO mavens. That incident had aspects of concretebility: recovered debris, alien bodies (supposedly), credible or near-credible witness accounts, an official Army Air Corps release, newspaper stories of a captured disk, and the status of a hardened myth.


Roswell is just as evanescent and non-determinant as the data mentioned above, but it, at least for the UFO die-hards, has elements that seem to be provable if one can just break through an alleged government/military cover-up.

However, in a final analysis, no amount of data or information with a UFO tinge is going to solve the mystery.

The phenomenon remains elusive, and Phil Klass’s assessment also remains intact.



  • So much of the subject is geared towards internecine bitchery and pissing on lamp posts that it shouldn’t even be noteworthy that wheels are spinning in dirt. It’s something I was thinking about in relation to various archives. For example, the 1st and 2nd generation of UFO researchers often hold their own ideas and ridicule different views. Groups coagulate around hypotheses and discount much of the evidence that challenges them.

    Ideally, the sum total of the archives could be centralised and accessible, but who would be neutral enough to administer it? Who would the divided researchers trust to manage it?

    Well, it couldn’t be the abductionists because their methodology is all out of whack. It couldn’t be the ETHers because all that’s simplistic. The IDHers are too wishy-washy and the Forteans haven’t any boundaries. Anomalist experiencers have already settled for never knowing and the Control System followers are too mystical. What about the demonologists? Well, they’re too religious. AAHrs are full of shit. Folklorists? Gotta be joking because they’d rule out any physical evidence cases! Pelicanists? Nope. Cryptozoologists? Everyone knows bigfoot doesn’t belong in ufology! The independent researchers are too mysterious and haven’t ‘nailed their colours’ to any mast…and so on and so forth.

    The phenomena are certainly slippery by nature and possibly intentionally. An admittedly weak analogy is that of a crime. If the cops refuse to work together or share resources the crime is going down as unsolved. If these analogous cops only stop name-calling to wail about how their investigation isn’t taken seriously…what can you do?

    Human consensus is equally as elusive as the phenomena and maybe the biggest obstacle. Throw in the obscurantist policies of various Intel agencies around the world and the conclusion/s will never be found.

    I’m just some background, ‘back of the bleachers’ observer of all this and that’s how it all comes across. Don't get me wrong, division and conflict is human nature (good and bad), but if we're honest, the biggest thing holding this research back is us.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, August 16, 2011  

  • K:

    You are soooo right.

    We, here, are part of the problem, but do hope for solutions, and try to foster such.

    Anthony Bragalia has been encouraged to keep after the metal aspect of the Roswell story, and I can tell you (if I'm not giving away anything), he is on to something, and has the attention of those who might know something about the alleged Roswell debris.

    But we, as a group (the UFO crowd generally) keep getting in each other's way, as you note.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 16, 2011  

  • Re your remarks on Anthony Bragalia: Oh please!

    This is a completely false trail. It has about as much chance of succeeding as David Rudiak's hypothesis on the Ramey memo.

    I do agree, however, that Bragalia's approach is a new one and he has injected fresh ideas into a moribund subject. Give him credit for that, but as for being "on to something", not a ghost of a chance. Why? Because the vital hard evidence is, and always be, missing.

    But I am getting in his way, aren't I?

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, August 16, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    You can be so skeptical sometimes.

    Tony Bragalia, I assure you, has scratched the curiosity of some significant scientists, who are providing him with insights and sources and real information about Roswell metal.

    I can't say anything more or I'd be stealing Tony's eventual thunder.

    Anyway, try to be a little less skeptical, until the matter is resolved, one way or another.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 16, 2011  

  • Just stumbled on this site, not really into ufology for the very reasons given here...immense ambiguity re "data" and evidence. My background is in comparative religions and what has struck me is the parallel here with so much that's encountered in the domain of "religious experience". This has led me to conclude, at this point, that we're dealing with a similar phenomena, something more in the "paranormal phenomena" camp. In this regard, we need to get a better grip on understanding the nature of human consciousness and reality itself in light of the "new physics"...this seems to me to be critical...for just like in the domain of religion...there's enough data to suggest a basis for belief yet enough ambiguity to raise doubt. People on either side...avid believers and the skeptics...are not taking the whole picture into account. Linda Christensen PhD ConsciousLivingPrograms.com

    By Blogger Unknown, at Wednesday, August 17, 2011  

  • Linda,

    We hear you.

    You might check out our RRRGroup blog http://rrrgroup.blogspot.com
    (the earlier posts).

    And we have a new blog, Gnostication(s) where I hope we enlighten our visitors about Gnosticism, wherein you might have much to tell us.

    (Our first postings there should appear soon, and we'll link to them from here.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 17, 2011  

  • No amount of "data", in whatever form, will convince anyone, or at least very few, to give up what are, in effect, very deeply held emotional positions. Some of the skeptics I've talked with, when pressed, are quite simply just not comfortable with the idea that highly advanced aliens are visiting the Earth.

    By Blogger gleaner63, at Friday, August 19, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home