Wonders in the Sky

David J. Hufford, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Psychiatry, Penn State College of Medicine and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania provides the forward to Jacques Vallee’s and Chris Aubeck’s book (pictured above).

Professor Hufford is erudite and insightful.

Here are some examples from his Foreward:

I [Hufford] was pursuing the heretical idea that folk belief traditions might actually incorporate accurate observations…

[Vallee in his books, Anatomy of a Phenomenon and Passport to Magonia] recognized the difference between the core phenomenology of [UFO] reports and the local language and interpretations that clothed that core in traditional accounts.

Criticizing conventional UFO investigators for “confusing appearance and reality” [Vallee] said that “The phenomenon has stable, invariant features….But we have also had to note carefully the chameleonlike character of the secondary attributes of the sightings.

The willingness of [Vallee and Aubeck] to cast a very wide net, andn ot to allow the particular cultural interpretations of events to limit their view, offers us a remarkable opportunity to seek patterns that may lead to new understandings.

Those with a view of these matters narrowly focused on a particular interpretation, especially the extraterrestrial idea, may be annoyed by the mixing of the aerial and the religious, the political and the mystical and more.

The problem with “spaceship” is not that it is anomalous; it is that it is an interpetation rather than an observation.

But Vallee and Aubeck undercut these judicious remarks by Professor Hufford by making these comments in their Introduction:

We will show that unidentified flying objects have had a major [sic] impact not only on popular culture but on our history, on our religion…

…the fact would remain that an unexplained phenomenon has played and continues to play a fantastically important role in shaping our belief systems, the way we view our history and the role of science.

…their [UFOs] impact has shaped human civilization in important ways.

UFOs have never had a “major” impact on humanity or civilization or history or religion.

The phenomenon has always been a remote and peripheral aspect of societal life, of human existence.

UFOs, today, are as inconsequential to humanity and society as a whole as they have always been, despite Vallee’s insistence that UFOs have been and are integral to life on Earth.

Irritated by Stephen Hawking’s postion vis a vis UFOs – “I am discounting reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?” – Vallee and Aubeck obviously don’t agree.

The persons seeing UFOs are not cranks and weirdos. Hawking is wrong. The people who study UFOs are the cranks and weirdos.

RR

Lamont Wood's Out of Place in Time and Space

A book filled with fascinating anomalies -- items, ideas, images et cetera -- that don't belong (seemingly) where they are found is reviewed by me at Fringeology and our usual review venue: The Explicator.

I only mention the book here, because it has a number of UFO related anomalies, most having to do with UFO-like images in Middle Age paintings.

RR

An Early Contactee?

Nick Redfern adds to his Contactee oeuvre with this find:

Click here to read Nick's account

Something doesn't add up: The Wanaque Reservoir UFO sighting of 1966

There are several Wanaque sightings for 1966: one in January, one in February, and one in October.

Photos of the UFO(s) seen by many witnesses during those sightings have been published, one of them here:


But we don't know if the photo is from the January, February, or October sightings.

The David Ickes web-site quotes Tony Bragalia (from The Bragalia Files):

"I am not aware of the location of the negatives (given they exist) nor the identity of the photographer/s who took these intriguing images. Though I cannot vouch for their authenticity, at least one of the witnesses contacted thought that there was a good similarity to what was seen at Wanaque.

They could though be “fakes” made after the event to simulate what had happened at Wanaque. Or perhaps they are of a similar event."

Dominick has provided a link to Mallan's excellent accumulation of witness testimony for the October and earlier sightings.

Click here for Mallan's article

Lloyd Mallan's exegesis of the Wanaque UFO sighting of October 11th, 1966 is an example of superb research and interviewing technique(s), both of which he is noted for.

In the linked piece that Dominick provided, Mr. Mallan gets one of his interviewed cops to tell him what kind of weather was extant on that October 11th, 1966 night:

"Was the sky clear?" I asked Sergeant Thompson.

"It was a perfectly clear night, yes."

The weather for that night is listed by NOAA weather as this:



Now, was it a clear night or a rainy/snowy, highly precipitate night?

Also, Tony Bragalia told me to observe that deatils were seen through the ray that allegedly emanates from the UFO -- something that Tony thinks authenticates the photo and sighting.

If it was indeed highly precipitate both on October 11th and October 12th, 1966, how could such details be so readily seen, or photographed?

Mr. Mallan also got this testimony for the earlier sightings in January or February:

"It was overcast, starting to rain - the sky was just starting to be socked in. You couldn't see any stars in the sky or even the moon..."

And the same caveat applies -- if it was raining during those sightings, how was it possible for the camera to catch details in the background of the UFO photo?

Also, Ms. Mallan's interviewees give testimony that the object was the about the size of a car (close up) or just a bright light (when seen from a distance).

Anyone familiar with how a camera, circa 1966, would capture something in the sky, they know that an object's image wouldn't be as large as that which the photo depicts.

The photo, above, for me (and Lance Moody, among others), is a fake, but Tony Bragalia and others (Jeff Ritzmann for one) think an analysis of the photo(s) or their negatives will provide proof of a UFO or not.

Getting hold of the original snapshots (or negatives) will be daunting, but Mr. Bragalia has pulled other rabbits out of a hat, so....

While a few things don't add up here, the "research" goes on.

Nota Bene: I can't determine the exact date of the alleged Wanaque photos. Who took them and when is murky.

RR

Is this a faked UFO photo?

This photo appeared as part of the January 11th, 1966 Wanaque Reservoir, New Jersey UFO sighting.

Anthony Bragalia has been researching the sighting and his initial story appeared at The Bragalia Files, and may be read by clicking HERE

Mr. Bragalia insists the photo is of an authentic UFO. I think the photo is of a faked flying saucer/UFO, similar to others offered in the time-frame:



Mr. Bragalia's view stems from the "fact" that the photo was allegedly taken by local cops.

Is there a photographer in our midst who can determine (analyze) this photo, as we have it -- Mr. Bragalia is trying to obtain the original (photo or negative) -- and tell us if it is bogus or real?

RR