The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, October 07, 2011

A Charles Fort movie

Our University of Bristol "colleague" Robbie Graham tells us that a movie about Charles Fort is in the works.

Click HERE for Robbie's blog where the details may be found.

RR

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

UFO Invisibility?


ABC's GMA did a thing on the invisibility "discovery" generating "news" lately.

Click HERE to see the ABC report, after sitting through a short commercial and afterwards some innocuous banter.

(Does the "discovery" lead to conjecture about UFO invisibility?)

RR

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Invaders From Mars


Our "colleague" from Bristol, Robbie Graham, has provided an hilarious (he writes) look at a deleted scene from the classic movie Invaders From Mars -- one of my favorite SciFi movies.

Robbie thinks we should view the scene for an intriguing insight of some kind, so click HERE for that "insight."

RR

Monday, October 03, 2011

Rex Heflin's inspiration for his UFO photos?

pvilla.jpg

Paul Villa was an alleged flying saucer contactee, living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who provided a slew of crisp (faked) UFO photos in the 1960s:

villa3a.jpg

villa3aa.jpg

villa3cc.jpg

These two photos were taken in 1963/64 by Mr. Villa, a mechanic.

villa-hef3c.jpg

villa-hef3b.jpg

Did Rex Heflin see these photos and tried to duplicate them in 1965?

heflin3a.jpg

rheflin.jpg

RR

UFOs: Why Science Isn't Interested

science3a.jpg

Scientific methodology is thwarted when it comes to the UFO phenomenon.

What can science study when it comes to UFOs?

There is nothing tangible for scientists to study. There is no evidence that can be tested or any behavior that can be replicated or pinned down in any way.

Photos of aircraft or even of evanescent phenomena (lightning for instance) can be examined, but UFO photos offer nothing specific for science to look at.

The photos of Adamski, Villa, and Billy Meier, to name a few, would offer elements for science or intelligence agencies to scrutinize, if they were authentic photos.

adam3a.jpg

villa3a.jpg

meier3a.jpg

Photos, less detailed, and maybe real, of amorphous UFOs don’t offer worthy elements that can be studied either. Does no one take a telephoto picture of a UFO? Where are the professional snapshots?

As for trace elements in supposed UFO landings (Socorro) or debris elements (Roswell), those are so indefinite or imaginary that science really has nothing to examine. (Anthony Bragalia has discovered that Battelle has studied malleable metal, allegedly from the Roswell incident, but Bragalia’s findings are beclouded by Battelle’s “secrecy” in what they’re doing or have done.)

Scientists need specimens to study, or hypotheses based upon observation(s). Witness testimony, regardless of the support of such by some UFO buffs, is useless, for scientific purposes. Sure, a credible witness might provide a clue that helps a scientist see an avenue for study, but witness testimony, all by itself, is generally useless.

UFO sightings nowadays are even more transitory that flying saucer reports of the past, those that supposedly left indentations (Socorro again) or radiation traces (the Desvergers, Florida tale), so science is even less inclined to get involved with sightings.

des3a.jpg

Some UFO mavens keep indicating that the O’Hare sighting of a few years back is a prominent UFO sighting, but others (Lance Moody for one) ask for something tangible: where are the photos? After all, almost everyone has a camera-enabled cell phone, and so many persons relate that they saw something strange over the Chicago airport, one wonders (along with Mr. Moody) why none of them had the presence of mind to snap a photo of the alleged O’Hare UFO?

Scientists might have trouble with a photo, as noted, but at least they’d have something to scrutinize. (Of course, some UFO hobbyists insist upon the negatives or original photos for study but today’s photos are captured electronically, so there are no negatives to offer. That argument, from UFO tyros, even when applied to older photos, is just stupid, non-scientific.)

The point here, by me, is that science has nothing with which to grapple when it comes to UFOs. The phenomenon is primarily witness-induced today, or hoaxed, just as it was in the past. However, those past UFO or flying saucer incidents had a few ingredients (radar blips, movie-film captures, trace elements) that today’s sightings do not have.

Moreover, the topic is so tainted by the goofiness and circus-like atmosphere, even by those who once had some credibility and cachet when it came to UFOs, that science won’t touch the phenomenon at all, often acknowledging it as not a legitimate area for scientific scrutiny.

So, science is out. And ufology is a sham. That leaves us with what? A curiosity that is not going to be explained or understood as it stands right now.

To pursue the matter further takes a mind and/or personality that is in a state of denial about reality, and what is purposeful for life.

RR

Sunday, October 02, 2011

UFOs are Mega-tachyons


Kevin Randle's blog is riffing on the loss of "robust UFO sightings" that we and others have mentioned recently.

Click HERE for a paper that provides a clue as to where "robust UFOs" have gone.

RR

Three books you haven't read...

The Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm, Maryland, 1979

University Books, Secaucus, New Jersey, 1976

Bantam Books, New York, 1984

Material from these books is being discussed on our U of M blogs.

I don't suppose that visitors here, most, have or have read these books, so it would be futile to present hypotheses generated from content found in them.

That the internet has become the sole source of intellectual input for many visitors here is disheartening, to say the least.

I keep noticing that even the most "brilliant" among you have a tendency to misread what is written here or mistake the intent of comments, by me and others.

This is distressing.

RR

Stanton Friedman needs pocket change?



This letter to Beyond Reality magazine [March/April 1978, Page 6] from Stanton Friedman indicates, to me, that one of the purposes of Mr. Friedman’s immersion in the UFO mystery was and is to accrue some money, not riches perhaps, but monies with which to subsist.

Retired from his profession – a profession that seems to have ended early for him; we’re not sure why, retirement or ?? – Mr. Friedman has tried to gather or recoup costs for his UFO adventures.

For me, trying to obtain money from an obtuse hobby, any obtuse hobby, is unseemly and detracts from the credibility of one who honestly pursues an interest, above or beyond one’s main source of livelihood.

If UFOs, for instance, are a nagging source of curiosity, scientific, ufologically, or any other kind of curiosity, one can try to capitalize upon that curiosity, but to do so invites mercantile motivations that make questionable one’s interest in the matter.

A number of “ufologists” have tried to make a living from UFOs – Jerome Clark, Brad Steiger, Kevin Randle, Mr. Friedman, and many more. Some have been successful (Steiger), while others have struggled to even break even; that is, they haven’t even gotten back the monies spent on travel (to conventions and UFO event sightings) or the expenses of running web-sites and blogs, as niggardly as those expenses are.

One can’t condemn a person for trying to make a living, or from trying to get back monies they’ve spent on their obsession. But one can question one’s motivations when asking for money becomes the sine qua non of their initial curiosity.

Mr. Friedman may have needed the few dollars he solicited in his Beyond Reality offering, way back in 1978. And he may need the few dollars he gets from his writings today or from his sojourns at conventions or from TV appearances.

I don’t begrudge him the little bit of money he is able to gather. But I do wonder what lies at the heart of his UFO pursuit – an explanation of the phenomenon, or the need to keep his head above the waters of everyday living.

RR