UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, June 04, 2011

The Socorro/Zamora Craft?

Outside Roswell, July 1947

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Life, death, life and UFOs: The witness failure(s)


The book, Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience by Pim van Lommel, M.D. provides extensive data and information about the so-called near death phenomenon or the NDE (near-death experience).

The author covers virtually everything about NDEs, including an extensive account of Quantum Mechanics in relation to the experience.


Most of you have read or heard the accounts of persons who died and “came back.”

What I want to zero in on are a few of the descriptions that the dying or dead witnesses provide; namely, the beautiful music and beautiful flowers they experience, and how this relates to UFO reports, as they has been presented by persons who’ve experienced that phenomenon, also.

Every NDE account that Dr. Lommel provides from the literature and his own accumulated reports, from his practice or that of colleagues, tells of the dead/dying person’s hearing “beautiful music” [sic] and seeing “beautiful flowers” [sic] on their way to a blissful landscape after transitioning that tunnel with a light at the end of it.

But no one, and I mean no one, has reported exactly what kind of music or what kind of flowers they experienced.

Were the flowers gladiolas, petunias, roses, dandelions?


Was the music classical, operatic, chorale, jazz, rock, even hip-hop?


No one has ever provided a definitive account or identification of the music or flowers.

Did no musicologist, opera buff, composer, or musician have a NDE?

Did no horticulturist, avid gardener, or flower enthusiast ever have a NDE?

That is, why does no one provide an exact, precise descriptive of the music or flowers, if the experience is a real one and not a metaphor of the mind?

Now, this also applies to those who witness UFOs, in the sky or up close and personal.

Has ever an aeronautical engineer seen a UFO and can provide a description of the design that corresponds to his or her expertise as an engineer of aircraft?

Has ever a chemical engineer or metallurgist provided a description of the smell or patina of a UFO that has appeared near them?

Has a pilot ever – really – provided an actual account of what a UFO did in the context of its flight; that is, has anyone with flying acumen given an account that explains or shows the proclivities of flight by a UFO, in ways that indicate they actually took in the experience in a way that was or is real – Kenneth Arnold, Gorman, or Lt. Coyne, notwithstanding?


No UFO report by a witness of a UFO has ever provided a forensic description of what was seen or experienced; the details come after the fact by UFO investigators and/or “researchers.”

No UFO report has ever been definitive, in portraying what a UFO or flying saucer was constructed of in essence.

Yes, Scully gives details that resonate in his account of the Aztec crashed flying disks, but that’s second or third-hand information, and concocted as most UFO mavens think.

But no UFO witness, with credentials that count – engineering, chemical, aeronautical – has given a report that provides actuality – no one.

This means, on the face of it, that either NDE’s and UFOs are chimeras, or that witnesses to either are incompetent or without credentials that allow them to be professional in their reportage.


UFO Review

Esteemed British publisher Stuart Miller produced some of the finest compilations of UFO material found anywhere.

His UFO Review was a fount of interesting, insightful takes on the UFO phenomenon and its mavens.

While Mr. Miller has gone subliminal since the demise of his exemplary Alien Worlds magazine, we still think of him fondly.

Click here for a PDF of a UFO Review issue with items by and about Nick Redfern (Saucer Spies), The Scully/Aztec "hoax" (we believe the story), and a plethora of other things that you'll find worth your browsing time (cartoons, UFO people, and other fascinating stories.


Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Blog Policy?


Poynter/Romenesko, a media notifier, provided this Wednesday, June 1st, 2011:

The Big Picture, a finance blog, offers these guidelines for user comments: “Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.”

(This might be a good policy for our blogs.)

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Nick Redfern on Jacobsen and more....

Nick Redfern continues to tackle the Jacobsen saga, which has grabbed the attention of media, the U.S. military, and UFO aficionados, believers and skeptics alike.

Click here for Nick's current salvo

Monday, May 30, 2011

The Flying Saucer from Mars and CDA

Back in the day I thought that this book by “Cedric Allingham” corroborated the Adamski alien contacts and story:


Here are the Adamski-like photos that Allingham purportedly took of a flying saucer that allegedly came fro Mars:



But the story was a hoax, concocted, for some bizarre reason, by respected and credentialed British astronomer, Patrick Moore:


And who was the journalist who unmasked the hoaxer and the exposed the hoax? Our favorite skeptical thinker, Christopher Allen, known here and in the UFO community as CDA.

Click here for the story

CDA has cachet with us and with those who like clear thought, gentlemanly argumentation, and skepticism in its revered and best sense.

So when you read his comments here and elsewhere, take a moment to appreciate his bent of mind and research acumen.