UFO Conjectures

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Thank you Bruce Duensing (and Parakletos)!

Bruce Duensing provided a video link in a comment for my UFOs: The Tangibility Factor post today [1/5/12].

I found the interviewed witness to be so impressive that I'm placing his link here:

1977 UFO Interview of a 1954 sighting

Her story is remarkable for several reasons, as Bruce discovered and shared with us.

View the video and let us know what you think.


Parakletos has provided some additional material for this posting....

Another YouTube interview of Jessie Roestenberg (the woman) which you can view by clicking HERE

And a rather current photo of her holding a depiction of what she "saw":




  • Rich:

    This is very interesting (it's actually a 1977 interview; the case was 1954), as the Jessie Roestenberg affair is one that is little-known in today's UK Ufology world. But, it was a classic Contactee type encounter of that 1950s era.


    There's always a but!

    Here's why I have my doubts about the ETH when it comes to UFOs and Jessie's experience.

    Ranton is a very small, very old village in the English county of Staffordshire, situated only a few miles from where I grew up.

    And, Ranton is (and has for decades) been an absolute hotbed for high-strangeness.

    In 1879, the tree-shrouded Bridge 39 on the local canal - the Shropshire Union Canal - was the site of a "British Bigfoot" sighting.

    The creature became known as the Man-Monkey, a subject I wrote a whole book on: "Man-Monkey: In Search of the British Bigfoot."

    Plus, back in the 1870s, there was a story of a Tulpa-like creature having been created/summoned to protect Ranton Abbey.

    The area has a mermaid legend, sightings of large black cats, and well... the list goes on.

    Maybe Jessie R did encounter long-haired aliens.

    But when the whole (very small) area has been a magnet for paranormal activity for more than 130 years, this is why I find it hard to accept that her encounter with alleged aliens happened to occur at a site already steeped in massive paranormal, cryptozoological, and supernatural activity.

    You can find more about the Ranton Abbey Tulpa-like thing at this link to an article I wrote on the subject:


    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • This 1954 story was first told in Gavin Gibbons' long forgotten book "The Coming of the Spaceships", and recounted on that BBC TV documentary 20 years later. I saw the latter as well. Gibbons took it as confirmation of Adamski's Venusian meeting. He also published a book on the Fry and Bethurum contacts, and seemed to go along with both.

    Jessie Roestenberg's narrative sounds quite natural and matter of fact, but unfortunately has overtones of Adamski, too much in fact. She certainly knew the Adamski story but the interviewer, Hugh Burnett, carefully avoided mentioning either Adamski or the fact that she knew about it.

    How real was her tale? Was it a vision like Fatima or the moving statues in Ireland? We cannot say. I do know she was a 'sensitive' and had attended seances in the past (before her sighting). She probably believed she was psychic. At one time she planned a book on her story, with the assistance of Timothy Good, but it never came to pass. I believe her husband, a Dutchman, also had some weird experiences but don't know the details.

    For some reason her story never 'made the grade' and certainly with the advent of abductions it got brushed off as just another contactee tale, even though it was hardly that.

    Personally I rank it as a psychic experience, perhaps triggered by a noisy low flying aircraft, and influenced by a reading of the first Adamski book.

    Nick's revelations about the village of Ranton are new to me.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Nick:

    What is important to me is the integrity of her retelling.

    The woman is cogent and clear.

    She is relating exactly and specifically what she experienced.

    That is a rarity. No hem-hawing, no prevarication, as far as I can tell, and I've interviewed lots of persons over the years.

    What she experienced may not be an ET encounter but it does smack of a dream-like experience.

    One would have to find out her associations and interests at the time.

    I don't imagine that was done.

    Ms. Roestenberg had a vivid something or other, and her account is one to pay heed to -- not as an ET event but, rather, as an hallucinatory event, as she thought might be the case.

    Your contactees had similar experiences, those who weren't hoaxing anyway.

    Are there geographical anomalies in and around Ranton, or magnetic anomalies?

    Do you know?

    Has anyone pursued such things there?

    Anyway, Jessie, bless her soul, provided a wonderful account of a bizarre experience.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Rich:

    Yeah, I should stress I do believe Jessie had an experience, and that she related it as she recalled it.

    But, I do wonder - given the many other anomalies in the very same area - if we may be looking at something akin to Jacques Vallee's messengers of deception, or something more Keelian.

    Yep, many of the Contactees did experience something just like Jessie - which leads me to believe many of them (like Jessie) had genuine encounters with "something."

    That nature of that "something", though, keeps me guessing.

    Yeah, would be a good idea for someone to look at the geography of the area etc. I'm not sure that has been done yet though.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Christopher:

    That she had psychic proclivities intrigues.

    The influence of Adamski's book will thrill Jose Caravaca I bet.

    The mental machinations and imagery that she recounts is important, but obviously overlooked or discounted by those steeped in the ETH.

    It's an atypical interview.

    She seems forthright and honest to me.

    The "event" is otherwise.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW2RMWyRnr4

    Another interview of her, for comparison purposes.

    from Arthur C. Clarke`s Mysterious World - Discovery Channel

    And a more recent photo of her holding a picture of what she says she saw:


    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Nick:

    Vallee's "messengers of deception" like Jose Caravaca's "others" call for entities of some kind to input the events recalled.

    I'm thinking the experiences are self-induced with the help of natural but strange anomalies in the Earthian ether; that is, minds are affected by things not exactly prosaic but endemic to our known reality (or unknown reality).

    Outsiders need not be considered.

    And the influences are from phenomena, not ghosts or things that go bump in the night.

    Phenomena that is without sentience!


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • What I find most interesting is not so much that neither of her two boys were interviewed, but that no reason was given as to why. That's just really bad journalism.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Given that no attempt was made to speak with the 'boys', and no reason was given by the interviewer as to why, why are we to believe that she is recalling an actual event, rather than recalling a dream that she had?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Rich:

    Personally, I think there IS an outside, sentient phenomenon (or phenomena), but that it manifests according to the confines, ideas, beliefs, prejudices etc of the people of the relevant era.

    The biggest puzzle, for me at least, is WHY the phenomenon interacts with us, and arguably, may be responsible for sightings of aliens, goblins, angels, demons, Virgin Mary, Space-Brothers, Grays, Djinn, etc etc.

    Something, I do believe, is interacting with us. Or, mind-fucking might be a better term.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Yes P, that is odd, but not unexpected in the UFO field.

    Lots of missed or calculated misunderstandings.

    The boys would have added or detracted from the experience.

    They are surely still alive, and one might hope that an enterprising Brit ufologist would try to track them down.



    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Oh, I think it was a dream, a waking dream perhaps, with, to take your suggestion from another comment, a folie a trois (that involved her after the boys were "afflicted."


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • And Nick, you don't believe in God or gods?

    Oh my...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Rich,

    I don't discount the possibility that the three boys might have also been 'afflicted', but I just don't see the evidence.

    We don't see any evidence at all stating what the boys did or did not also see. We have her statement that the boys told her that they also saw a UFO in the sky, but that could be all within the context of her waking dream. The boys may have been nowhere around her, or completely uninvolved with the 'experience'.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • I have just looked at an old newspaper clipping, from The "Wolverhampton Express and Star" (Oct 22, 1954) which gives details of the sighting. The boys, Tony and Ronnie, were aged 8 and 6 at the time. It says the elder boy "thought it was a jet that was going to crash".

    I know she had at least two later children.

    There is a sketch of it, which does resemble the Adamski saucer. She says the object left a vapor trail and exuded a violet light as it sped away, but was completely silent as it hovered over the house, and was 15 to 20 feet in diameter (which is about one-third the size in that 1977 interview).

    No mention of Adamski in the press report. I find it very hard to believe the reporter did not spot the similarities of the object and its occupants to Adamski's story.
    Also, no mention whatever of Mrs Roestenberg's background.

    At the very end of the column is something about experiments with monkeys being launched from rockets in the US and then being mistaken for dwarf space visitors when they fell back to earth!

    This last bit is completely new to me, and remember this was October 1954. I wonder what is the source for it.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • The huge missing piece is certainly the testimony of the boys. But even if they confirm their mother's story, what then? Someone will just say that they may be lying to protect her(after all these years?)or someone else will argue that it can be explained as a shared hallucination. Without tangible evidence, right back to square one...

    By Blogger Dominick, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Well, I believe people believe they have encountered deities, angels etc.

    In much the same way I believe people who say they have encountered aliens.

    But, I'm inclined to think (granted this is theory, not fact) that it's the same phenomenon at work. But, its point of origin is the big mystery.

    So, yes, people - for thousands of years - have interacted with something strange, something that seems to have one-to-one communication at its core - and communication that sometimes provokes profound, life-changing situations.

    Are there really any major differences between the experiences of certain saints, Joseph Smith, Whitley Strieber, and George Van Tassel? I would say not - aside from the guise in which the phenomenon appears for the relevant person in the relevant time-frame.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • I have some questions that I would like to get to the bottom of with your help.

    1) What's with this anti ETH movement of late? I thought this was a phenomena wherein there were no certainties. I certainly find the most abundant amount of hypothetical evidence pointing to the fact that UFOs do not come from "here", as in our reality "here". Whether they travel by means of dimensional manipulation or not, they still show up on radar from time to time,
    so at very least some are definitely SOLID. Are you stating that because you personally don't believe an alien takes off from their home planet and arrives here post a great distance, that UFOs IYO are not represent of the ETH, or is it just because they may come from a different reality than the one we share a relevance with and that makes them non ET in your mind?

    2) If people hallucinate aberrational occurrences for whatever reason, why are specifics (UFOs) superimposed onto the perceptive reality that the witnesses are actively participating within at the time of their supposed witnessed account? In other words, why not a hallucination where the environment is changed along with the UFOs appearance rather than superimposing of UFOs all the time, which makes no sense whatsoever as the mind has no greater propensity to conjure UFOs than it does Santa Clause.

    If there are electromagnetic interference anomalies causing hallucinations or perceptive abberations, the same question applies.

    How or why in the name of all that begs reason can we attribute the UFO phenomena to a bunch of "tricksters"

    Holy personification!

    You know, in this sense, tricksters and God are none too far apart.

    I am really serious about these questions guys. I see a number of ideas floating around here that just do not add up in my mind and would like to know how it is that I am in the "I just don't get where you're coming from" mode.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • one might hope that an enterprising Brit ufologist would try to track

    According to one of the video comments, the boys refuse to speak about this case.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • In the video link you provided, P, she asked the boys if they saw what she did and they said "yes."

    I don't imagine she was lying.

    (Although she may be conning everyone. She does look a little like a gypsy. And I can say that, as my mother was a gypsy, with psychical attributes; she used to read tea leaves for the neighbors, all with a straight face.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • CDA:

    Curiouser and curiouser.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • 'Kandinsky?'

    The 'boys,' would be in their 60s/70s now and haven't commented on the mother's claims as far as I know.

    It's possible they've made mention in some UFO book I haven't read, but as it stands - it's Jessie's word that they shared the sighting. On top of that, she had two more exotic sightings that involved several other witnesses and yet she's still the only one to be on record.

    There's hearsay support from Daniel Fry who visited her, but his version of events differs from hers. Fry is considered an unreliable reporter so that doesn't substantiate her claims either.

    She's been recorded for two 1970s TV shows and her account seems sincere despite a couple of differences in the telling. In one version, the saucer did three circles of Vicarage Farm and in the other, it did one and a half. A trifling detail that, to me, could be suggestive of a fantasy.

    When I first saw the interview it captured my imagination due to the sincerity and how the claims coincided with so many other encounters. After reading around, my confidence diminished and she's in the 'grey basket.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • As I mentioned in the last post in relation to local geophysical factors seldom being noted or investigated, Nicks account of the Staffordshire region's history of long term anomalous activities brought to mind the statistical studies Presinger conducted in the U.S, Ted Phillips Marley Woods investigation and Colm K's experiences at Skinwalker ranch.
    There are many statistical markers that could be used beyond silly ET bias projection.
    1.The local prevalence of a similar conceptual bias to repeat these events as having had occurred over a long term may create a localized anticipatory effect in a shared mindset that creates a sort of open door policy on several levels that even fits nicely into a quantum frame in addition to 2, Geophysical factors creating unique localized environmental factors such as the signatures of energy fields as a backstop for atmospheric activity.
    If any of this is in the ballpark of how what gets inside to make the outside an virtually associative holographic field, it may be the 3. signature of the human energy field and it's resonance. By way of Presingers work, 4. some are more sensitive than others to these fields particularly 5.ELF which the military and more than any other, the 6. Navy utilize for long range communications. Another factor is 7. Atmospheric activity.
    Some of these markers were analyzed using card punch technology a long time ago and a lot of lost time has passed since then while the experts were stuck on E.T

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Jeff
    "the mind has no greater propensity to conjure UFOs than it does Santa Clause. "
    In my twenties, I worked in an aide\ security position at a secured Naval Psychiatric facility in North Chicago Ill on the grounds of the U.S Naval Training Center and you are absolutely wrong in terms of visual projections. No offense intended, but you are talking out of your hat.
    It was essentially a prison for those who were so divorced from reality, it made "one flew over the cuckoo nest" a bedtime story.
    These were permanent biochemical -neurological anomalies versus transient incidents.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • @Bruce
    Forgive me, but are you stating that these interference possibilities detract from an ETH or EDH?

    I certainly don't see how unless you can reproduce the effect at will.

    I know you can't possibly be stating that the UFO phenomena is the bi-product of the human mind alone coupled with such interference. Such man made interference didn't exist when many UFO sightings took place.

    In plain English, could you tell me precisely what you are stating?

    Do you believe that UFOs are real or fabricated hallucinations for one reason or another?

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Jeff
    What I suggested is an alternative methodology not adding or subtracting from your pet theory.
    It could swing either way but no one has the will or wherewithal to eliminate suspect local anomalies that cluster. Its a scientific methodology not an opinion.
    What I was referring to was the analysis of statistical probabilities as markers by their cartographic location that could be measured with time and money to determine if a pattern appears. That part is comparatively easy. the analysis is difficult. Several studies would have to be conducted, not just once and you are done.
    1. Geophysical composition.
    2. Measurement of unique naturally occurring field anomalies.
    2. A neuro-biological examination of somatic anomalies in witnesses.
    3. Corresponding extra solar and atmospheric transient events of a energetic nature.
    4. The back ground environment for high ELF microwave or other high levels of similar unusual radiant activity.
    Etc, without getting tiresome.
    A multidisciplinary scientific panel would have to be assembled. In the meantime, we have been stuck with personal bias, hoaxes,manipulation, wishful thinking, mythos, and subjective opinions.
    It will never be studied seriously as some insist on inserting answers in front of questions. I said this many times before.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • I forgot to respond completely to your question
    "Do you believe that UFOs are real or fabricated hallucinations for one reason or another?"
    I don't believe in anything regarding the phenomenon. The best we can have are suspicions. 'Perhaps" is a word I use often.
    In a sense I use ( in R.A Wilson's term) a guerrilla ontology. There can be more than one theory at a time. Belief has nothing to do with it.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • In the video link you provided, P, she asked the boys if they saw what she did and they said "yes."

    I don't think she's lying at all. But I still think there is a significant difference between asking the children 'inside' her dream vs. afterward. I haven't seen anything that indicates that she wasn't merely speaking to them inside the dream/hallucination.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • also@ Bruce,
    Forgive me Sir, but when you in the very least suggest someone is talking out of their hat, when in fact I have done nothing but ask honest questions, you OWE that person an answer to the very concise questions that they posed in the first place. Not some anecdotal fact that you worked at a secured navel facility that housed mental patients. I'm impressed, I really am, but the fact remains I am more interested in how precisely such information brings us closer to defining the UFO phenomena via the questions I have asked here.

    How about we bring this discussion down to a level that me and my hat can understand. Word salad is one thing Bruce, however, I am asking far more intelligent and concise questions here, ones that you have not even began to answer.

    The floor is yours.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • I can understand kids wanting to go on with their lives not be being under a microscope and not wanting to be stamped with prejudice one way or another. The central issue for me is the witnesses often become no longer simply an adjunct to an event but become the event itself in a sort of stupid circus. This event by anyone's standard was a couple of seconds in what would be a long life for these former "kids"
    The way some alleged witnesses attempt to exploit their five seconds of notoriety is pathetic.
    Sideshows and selling books out of a trunk.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Jeff,
    Your opinion is your prerogative and as I said, no offense was intended. I have no motivation to frame a debate when all we have between us are opinions.
    If you think that my experience is irrelevant, I have no issue with that, as you were not there at that time, so it's senseless.
    Your opinions are fine with me. I happen not to agree.
    Cest La Vie.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Hey Bruce, total and SINCEREST APOLOGIES from me, as it seems my impulsiveness has resulted in some seriously delayed and out of phase response/s here.

    That's the problem with me and UFOs at times, I'm too damn sincere not to mention ultimately impatient.

    Truth is Bruce, recently, you of all people have inspired me to tremendous imaginative heights.

    Einstein said it best,

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge"

    and indeed one of my favorite twilight zone moments of all time,

    Max Plank gives us "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'

    This is to state that in a game of rock, paper, scissors... sentience will get you further than it's present co-navigator reason, every time.

    This is why my ire is so easily aroused by the empirical injustice done, those same literally retarded processes that compartmentally keep us all routinely looking backward, instead of straightforward into the mind's eye of discovery together.

    Reason, the navigator. Sentience, the vehicle, Spacetime, the specific virtual accommodation continuum.

    Sounds like the matrix, but I really don't think so. I think it's basically life in sequence, interacting in integral and synchronous fashion, while responding to the atypical life giving evolutionary stimulus of the universe. That same energy that couses through the ionosphere, runs us.

    Many presently see evolution only as a result of their immediate physical environment. Personally of late, I have began to wonder.

    Thank you Bruce, you rule, not to mention the fact that my current best pet guess is based on a single imaginative spark culled from a few posts we exchanged on IM several months back.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, January 05, 2012  

  • Jeff
    No apology required. All of this is simply akin to a game with no winners or losers, nor any real pragmatic purpose attached to the necessities of life. In between comments, I went to the grocery store, took the dogs for a walk..did some laundry.etc
    It's interesting but not a game changer for me or that germane where I am vested to the extent I feel slighted by a contrary opinion..my tenure in the psychiatric prison haunts me, hence my reaction, which is strictly a personal flaw that belongs to me alone as far as ownership.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home