UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Why do most UFO buffs concentrate on the older sightings?

ezekiel10.jpg

The early flying saucer and UFO sightings were more exotic than those of today.

Today’s sightings are generally of amorphous lights, abstract triangles, and benign fly-overs.

The earlier sightings often involved landings, with entities, electromagnetic disruptions of car motors or house lights and electricity, and interactions of various kinds, including alleged abductions of sighters.

walton10.jpg

Also, earlier sightings were free of modern accretions: cynical skepticism, fakery and embellishment for fame, or psychosomatic stress, and media waywardness.

Yes, some contactees, Adamski, the worst of the bunch when it came to fame-seeking, and a slew of teen-agers or wannabes and never-were corrupted the study of flying saucers and UFOs but they were meticulous, pretty much, in their follies.

adamski10.jpg

Today, the fakery and search for fame is cavalier, often slovenly, dismissive even, just a lark for a few minutes of attention.

And UFOs seem to perceive that human dismissiveness, appearing nonchalantly as a phenomenon nowadays, whereas back in the day(s), UFOs or flying saucers really put on some shows.

Where are the Roswell-like events today, or a Socorro, or a Rendlesham, or a Hill experience, a Travis Walton episode, or a Pascagoula?

pas10.jpg

There are none.

Just lights in the sky, orbs, or triangular craft.

No Flatwoods monsters. No Villas Boas examinations. No Aztec concoctions. Nothing sensational or exotic at all.

flat10.jpg

That’s why UFO mavens keep harking back to the old-tales, the old sightings. Those sightings and UFO events had something.

RR

The Zanesville Hoax [Redux]


Anthony Bragalia deemed the Zanesville (barber) photo a hoax in a posting for us a few months back.

The photo was categorized as a hoax in a (Contact) letter to Official UFO magazine (May 1977 issue, Page 8).

Click HERE to read that letter, and click on the JPG to enlarge for easier reading.

RR

More on the Heflin UFO photos


Hayden Hewes and William Spaulding wrote How To Evaluate Flying Saucer Phptography for Argosy (Special Annual Edition) UFO, 1977, Page 24 ff.

Their comments about the Heflin photos indicate that the pictures were hoaxed.

Since a few visitors here don't think so, and many do, you can access the Heflin portion of the Hewes/Spaulding article by clicking HERE.

(You can also click on the JPG to enlarge it for better reading)

RR

Thursday, September 08, 2011

The Navy, Georgia, 1947, and Roswell?


This photo appeared in True Flying Saucers & UFOs Quarterly, Number 4, Winter 1977, Page 74.

The inscription reads -- you can read it yourself by clicking HERE and then clicking on the image (to enlarge) if it remains unreadable:

When a rash of baffling "flying discs" flooded the Georgia skies in 1947, the Navy came up with a possible answer to the spectacle, saying the "discs" were probably so-called "raywinds", [sic] tenfoil [sic, again] covered devices borne aloft by balloons to to measure high wind velocities. [Italics mine]

The questions that come to mind are these:

What does the Navy have to do with "flying discs"? (I've always maintained that the Navy is the fount where UFO buffs can find more pertinent information than from the Air Force.)

What was the flap in Georgia in 1947?

Did it have anything to with Roswell?

And why does this balloon array look like the Mogul array?

What's your take, if you have one?

RR

Ghosts, not UFOs!


Two books about ghosts and other strange ghost-related phenomena were sent my way, and I dutifully reviewed them.

The reviews are adrift from UFOs but some visitors here might like to read about the books, which I, who is not a ghost-chaser by any means, found interesting, to say the least.

Click HERE to access my review(s) at The Explicator.

Thanks for indulging me...

RR

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Oh my....Phil Klass! On the Trent/Heflin Photos


While I eschewed a few regular visitors bringing the Phill Klass "crap" over here to this blog from Kevin Randle's, I'd like to present something I found in Official UFO magazine for November 1975 that I found interesting, and showing how reasonably skeptical Phil Klass could be or seem to be.

It's an interview by George Earley with Mr. Klass [Page 20 ff.]

Entitled "Why I Don't Believe in UFOs" it contains two segments that we've touched on here, and with which I am in agreement.

They are the Trent and Heflin photos.

Now we all know that Phil Klass could be a S.O.B. and nasty man, using inuendo or worse to undercut or undermine those whose views about UFOs he abhorred, Dr. McDonald, Stan Friedman among them.

Such behavior is not unique to Klass. We have three people, one a BIG name in ufology, who've employed such tactics about me, out of envy or distaste for my views, one of the fellows, a ufological biggie asking Chris Aubeck to remove me from Aubeck's Magonia group at Yahoo, to which Aubeck, I'm sad to say, acquiesced, bringing opprobrium from my friend Nick Redfern but no re-admittance for me by Aubeck, with whom I remain friends despite his kowtowing to a spiteful man.

That aside, click HERE to get Scan One of Mr. Earley's interview with Klass -- the Trent photos, and click HERE for Scan Two of the interview -- the Heflin pics.

N.B. I've provided the material as a (JPG) scan so you'd get it intact, from the pages of Official UFO. (Click on the images to enlarge them for reading.)

RR

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Man in the Moon?


From Curious Myths of the Middle Ages by S. Baring-Gould [1867, Kessinger Publishing reprint, Montana] Page 198:

The belief in the Moon-man seems to exist among the natives of British Columbia; for I read in one of Mr. Duncan’s letters to the Church Missionary Society, “One very dark I was told that thre was a moon to be seen on the beach. On going to see, there was an illuminated disk, with the figure of a man upon it. The water was then very low, and one of the conjuring parties had lit up this disk at the waters edge…It was an imposing sight. Nothing could be seen around it; but the Indians suppose that the medicine party are then holding converse with the man in the moon…After a short time the moon waned away…”

This is just one of many such accounts of beings seen inside ships (or moons). Aubeck’s and Vallee’s Wonders in the Sky is replete with such tales.

But what do such tales tell us, about UFOs or anything else?

I suppose that had such an incident as this occurred today, a few avid researchers would descend on that beach and look for tell-tale signs of a moon-landing.

The Indians would be sought out, and one or two would provide testimony and maybe even a drawing of what they purported to have seen.

This is what happened in the Socorro/Zamora sighting of 1964, and in many other so-called UFO or flying saucer sightings.

Such occurrences are not rare. And their redundancy may be intrinsic to the phenomenon we discuss here.

Yet, anyone with a yen to discover the meaning of such accounts is stymied by a lack of concrete substantiation, having only witness testimony as evidence of such events.

So what is the point of pursuing such accounts/stories?

There is nothing that can be examined scientifically.

Those who find such tales to be intriguing or curious are left with ephemeral data, and I’m using the term “data” loosely.

Today, photos and videos are compromised by the onslaught of concocted imagery.

Witness testimony is besmirched by the vicissitudes of modern man: stress, psychological and medical aberrations, the insertion of mind-modules from movies, books, and television, plus the belittled but rampant UFO meme.

Governments and military agencies are holding what they know within the province of secrecy or corrupting what they impart to the point that anything they disclose is virtually worthless.

There is no way forward, as far as I can tell.

Along with our outcry about the unraveling of ufology, the matter of UFO research is beleaguered by the above constraints and the ineptitude or cavalier approach to UFO study hat has been and is endemic to the topic.

Ufological newbies haven’t the expertise to pursue the UFO phenomenon, and the UFO old-guard has missed so many opportunities to clarify significant sightings by diligent research and acumen that those with a penchant for the enigma are hamstrung; separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were, is daunting, to say the least.

Should we give up the pursuit of an explanation for the UFO phenomenon? Common sense says we should, letting the dust settle, and allowing the old-guard to pass away so a new beginning might be attempted, as we’ve written often before.

The muck and mire that afflicts ufology needs to wane, just as that moon waned in the above story.

RR

Monday, September 05, 2011

The Unraveling of Ufology


It is obvious to the observer who’s paying attention that the topic of UFOs has reached a nadir.

The problem is much worse than when we noted the submersion several months ago or when Paul Kimball saw the writing on the wall causing him to ostensibly withdraw from the UFO scene, again, in July.

UFO debate is either totally bizarre, as practiced by newbies stumbling on the raft of UFO blogs and web-sites extant or the UFO debate has become impotent and irrelevant because of the site-tracking of substantive issues by protracted and silly confrontations about peripheral issues – really peripheral – as one can see at Kevin Randles’ blog or UFO Updates (about Phil Klass at Randle’s site and totally inane topics at UpDates).

The UFO subject matter has been weakened more than ever by the onslaught of stupid argumentation -- and I really mean stupid!

The oneupsmanship desired by some skeptics (and UFO advocates) has pulled UFO hypothesizing and investigation from the realm of intellectual or intelligent discourse to a realm of petty bickering about minutiae that is so much farther on the fringe of practical reality that it makes ufology as a “discipline” seem positively profound.

Visitors to our blog(s) and Randle’s, among others, more often than not, skew the original posting premise and take the material to the outskirts of banality.

I thought that we might corral some intellectual discussions here, but I was wrong.

For instance, Anthony Bragalia has done research on the 1966 Wanaque sighting that is intriguing but his work has been stiffed by most who’ve read it.

And we note that a discussion at Randle’s blog, about UFO curmudgeon Phil Klass’s malevolence had some sidebars about the alleged Socorro sighting, as a set-up job or hoax.

Yet, no one had the temerity or smarts to incorporate Anthony Bragalia’s hoax hypothesis (which, even if discounted, has enough circumstantial elements that allow a sensible person to see the possibility that a hoax was in place during or concomitant to the 1964 sighting) into the comment section where Randle, himself, has succumbed to the red-herrings and non-topical broadsides of the commentators.

One-time UFO devotees has become harpies, persons who want to show how much UFO minutiae they’ve accumulated and how that puts them atop the Ufological mountain which, itself, has been a dung-heap for a long-time now.

UFOs, as a topic, have become slimier and slimier of late and we, like Paul Kimball and a few others, have to weigh whether or not we wish to muck around in the effluvia any longer….

RR