UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

A 1947 Precognition of UFO sightings to come?


This Science Fiction book [Dorrance & Company, Philadelphia, 1947], with a flying saucer-like craft and three entities emerging seems to pre-figure a number of UFO events, some of which we have highlighted here as has Jose Antonio Caravaca at his blog (The Caravaca Files).

Do such images (from book covers, movie posters, advertisings, et cetera) form a sub-text in the collective unconscious, which manifests itself when there is an existential crisis in the body politic or a societal pathoneurosis (caused by other factors)?

That UFO sightings, en masse (generally), might be a result of a techinical imago dei should be addressed, seriously, by UFO buffs.

Such an "investigation" won't resolve all UFO sightings, but it may help explain some notable sightings; i.e., the 1890s airship observations, Roswell, the 1954 European wave, and the late 1950,early 1960 abduction accounts...among others.

RR

14 Comments:

  • The human mind has always had a tendency to create fictional narratives and loves hearing them. That by itself is a fascinating path to explore without UFOs or paranormal absurdities.

    We tell stories.

    Lots of them...

    If you think about it, we've covered just about every aspect of imagination and only add embellishments that reflect whatever is topical for the time.

    In that light, pretty much anything that happens has been described in narrative fiction and oral folklore.

    100s of books have been published ,year after year, to the point that damn near everything could be described as 'precognition.'

    If a bunch of aliens landed on international TV, they might be disappointed to find that some author or movie has already stolen their thunder. Douglas Adams would appreciate the notion.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, November 15, 2011  

  • How in the world can "UFO buffs" seriously address (as you suggest)the hyphothesis that book and movie posters "form a subtext in the collective unconscious"? We can speculate that there might be a correlation between such images and subsequent UFO sightings, but correlation doesn't mean cause and effect. The "collective unconscious" generated Roswell?! Now that's a stretch that even skeptics might balk at. I think that I vaguely recall that someone tried to tie the T.V.showing of "The Interupted Journey" to subsequent UFO and abduction cases; as I recall, they were unable to do it. Once we integrate world-wide sightings and reports into the analysis, focusing on some movie poster or book cover in the U.S. leads us precisely nowhere.

    Bottom line: Thousands of people have seen "real"things that perform "real" physical activities. Just what precisely they see and what the activity is all about remains a mystery.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, November 15, 2011  

  • Kandinsky...

    You're being a bit facile here (maybe).

    My point is that such imagery, often ubiquitous, is triggered when humans (society members) are anxiety-ridden by events that impact them in some intense but internal, even abstract way.

    Like the Cold War, often producing what news media called "Cold War jitters."

    Freud deals with this in his insightful book "Civilization and Its Discontents."

    And Jung covers the same material in "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" as did Viktor Frankl in his "Man's Search for Meaning."

    Jung posits, more so than anyone else, how images, symbols, and the like, are clues to what's going on internally (mentally) with people who are suffering from psychologically induced anxiety.

    UFO sightings often don't cause an overt reaction or obvious affect on people, certainly not long-lasting affects.

    But unconsciously, they can be, and often are, seriously brutalized by what they experienced, even if that experience isn't really a UFO event at all.

    They substitute a UFO (benign, far away, fantastic) episode, using such imagery as depicted above to assuage their real, up close and personal trauma.

    I'm talking with Jose Caravaca about the Hill "abduction" which falls into the category I'm suggesting here.

    He has provided some material that may help support my upcoming hypothesis (which I've treated earlier, to some extent, here and at the RRRGroup blog).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 15, 2011  

  • Dominick:

    You continue to forget that I think there are real, tangible UFO events and there are other, not so tangible UFO events -- some made up, some hallucinatory, some misperceptions et cetera.

    You want to have one explanation for UFOs...one enigma.

    I don't think think we're dealing with a phenomenon.

    I think we're dealing with phenomena, despite Jerry Clark's distaste for my using the plural for what he sees as a singularity as you do.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 15, 2011  

  • But, RRR, for me, "made up" UFOs and simple hallucinations and hoaxes are not UFOs! Who cares why people hoax UFO photos or accept them as real; we should only care about the photos that are not hoaxed and in the data that they reveal, if any. Now as to the UFO phenomina v. phenomenon issue, I am willing to admit that there might be "not so tangible" aspects associated with UFO events, i.e., feelings that time stands still, telepathy, etc., BUT as I said previously, why can't this just be associated with "magic" technology that we, at this point, simply cannot understand. I see a hard-core UFO phenomenon that displays various phenomena that remain a mystery.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, November 15, 2011  

  • Dominick,

    I tend to agree with your position, as you know.

    I like the tangible UFO events, or those that seem so.

    They are something we can contend with.

    But a bevy of the posse here are steeped in the ephemeral UFOs, those evoked by mental aberrations or tricks by tricky "others."

    So I'm trying to present all facets of the "phenomena" to keep the discussion open and academic.

    If I'd just cater to your preference (or mine), we'd be reading this blog, all alone, and we wouldn't be considered open-minded, that's for certain.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 15, 2011  

  • Doesn't Martin Kottmeyer bring up this 'collective unconscious' idea in his writings?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

  • Yes, Christopher, he does, along with a few others.

    It's not a new idea by any means, and it is one that has some validity as an hypothesis (for some UFO accounts) I think.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

  • Rich,
    Your point here is well taken and I must say I like it! Kandinsky makes an incredible point in reference to "embellishments" & "precognition" as they relate to human nature. I have been also following MR. Caravaca's excellent speculations as well, and I have to state that it all seems tied together with what you have presented us here with. How can anyone of sound mind disagree with as much?

    The mind is so incredibly powerful that IMO, we haven't even scratched the surface of what it's capable of with respect for what we call reality.

    If the mind is powerful enough to stop bleeding within it's own body and blot out tremendous pain in the same, "how in the world" (I couldn't resist) could we keep from accrediting something as simple as "filling in the blanks", to it?

    When the mind is confronted with the absurd, the mind will immediately do it's best to make sense out of whatever absurdity is taking place. That does NOT mean it will seek out the mundane, or that which conforms to any certain notions of how reality should be. It simply takes a snap shot and makes a very quick guess based upon previous understandings whether related or not. That's why hunters shoot old fast food bags, and worse, other people's pets when they are CERTAIN it was a deer. Their mind's rationale and sentience combine to overload resulting in an actuated flawed perception.

    Is this what is responsible for UFOs? I am certain you can safely bet it is some of the time. I am also just as certain that it's NOT the case all the time.

    In this sense, and most likely several others as well, UFOs are assuredly a phenomena and not singular as in the case of a phenomenon.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

  • Jeff,

    I love your thought processes.

    They are so close to my own.

    But to quell Dominick's possible pique, I have to point out that some UFO sightings are of tangible, real objects with real entities.

    From whence? I don't know.

    It's a fascinating set of phenomena, no matter what.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

  • i have a flickr membership and i created a group and invite folks to post photos there. so it's my hobby to browse recent uploads for hour on end. i have seen it all. kinky sex, vacations, pets, cars, houses, planes in flight, sots out plane windows, great cities, great ruins, great mountains, great oceans but no UFO's. why? anyone care to expound on a conspiracy theory?

    By OpenID quantumskunk, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

  • QS:

    Flickr people aren't nutty.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

  • Speaking of precognitive pop culture images, has anybody here seen the cover of Fantastic Universe from June 1954? (It can be seem here:
    http://www.library.umass.edu/spcoll/galleries/scifi2.htm, seventh row down on the right.)
    Its a really uncanny prefiguring of how the Roswell Incident would come to be depicted by artists in the eighties.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

  • Tristan:

    It's actually the 1957 issue, not 1954.

    That aside, it is as close to the Roswell depictions after 1980 as one can get.

    Nice find, by you.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 16, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home