UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, January 21, 2012

UFO Witness Testimony: True or False?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.


The Michalak UFO encounter at Falcon Lake, Canada in 1967, noted earlier here, has dubious value for some of you.

I think it has a patina of authenticity.

Speculating about witness testimony creates all kinds of amateur opinion and brings forth shards of erroneous information from the internet.

However, witness testimony is often, or usually, all that we have when it comes to UFOs.

When someone or a few people report a strange light in the night sky or a strange object in the daytime sky, one can equate the observations with misperceptions of mundane things or one can catalog the observations for what they are: strange lights or objects seen my normal people with normal or near-normal eyesight.

And that’s it. Nothing more can be done with such observations.

Our foray into witness testimony from Roswellians always causes a ripple of contention and debate.


But Roswell’s witnesses, for the most part, didn’t see a UFO, in the sky or on the ground.

Some said they held pieces of “metal” that behaved oddly when toyed with.

Some said they saw a field of debris that was different from what they normally saw in the deserts and farms around Roswell.

Some even said they saw bodies of entities, in the desert, in hangars, and other venues.

But no one saw a UFO or flying saucer, and all the testimony about bodies and strange metal fragments came forth in the late 1970s and early 1980s after some UFO hobbyists started poking around, culling testimony that is besmirched by flawed questioning and psychological projections by the hobbyists.

So Roswell isn’t a platform from which worthwhile UFO testimony can be gotten or evaluated.

Roswell is a potpourri of maltreated memories and contrived imaginings better left to psychiatry and sociologists.

But there are many other UFO-related encounters, like that of Stefan Michalak, or Lonnie Zamora, the police officer who came across a unique craft and attending entities.


There are dozens, hundreds even, of accounts where people have seen something that has come to be defined as a flying saucer, and many of those accounts include entities that rival creatures from fiction.

UFO books and the internet are replete with such accounts.

But what are we to make of such accounts?

I think that what has been presented by those who’ve experienced encounters with craft and creatures are as they have been recounted, caveated by the personal peccadilloes of observation that plague human beings.

But those peccadilloes are minor, and the over all experiences provided are essentially as they are described.

Michalak encountered a machine that caused him some physical pain and markings.


The 1959 Father Gill sighting in Papua, New Guinea is what it is: a sighting by an Anglican priest and his mission staff and members of a object that floated above them, from which entities waved or interacted with the observers.


The sighting may be ascribed to a kind of mass hysteria, but it makes more sense to allow it to be as it was recounted, without the psychological overlay.

The following accounts are detailed in John Spencer’s World Atlas of UFOs; Sightings, Abductions, and Close Encounters [SMITHMARK Publishers, NY, 1992]

The 1979 Mindalore Quezet “abduction” was what it was: a experience of a mother (Meagan) and son (Andre) who, under hypnosis, elaborated on a sighting of this object and its occupants:


Was there an Oedipal element that explains the sighting? Perhaps. Or it was as it later was remembered. (More of this, upcoming.)

The 1970 Imjärvi, Finland encounter, in which two young fellows (Aarno Heinonen and Esko Viljo), while skiing, spotted a saucer-like craft that shot a beam of light to the ground near them, from which a short humanoid creature emerged, wearing a helmet, and glowing like “phosphorous.”


The being held a black box that emitted a light that struck the young men, creating a mist, that beclouded the creature, and the beam of light that went back up into the craft, taking the little being with it.

One of the boys, Aarno, was partially paralyzed, and both fellows had symptoms similar to radioactive poisoning.

(Aarno went on to have other sightings and encounters with space women and men. He became a kind of contactee.)

Did these young men actually have the experience they reported? Their after-event symptoms indicate that something happened, but like Mr. Michalak’s encounter, exactly what?

The 1979 Taylor encounter in Livingston, Scotland, detailed here in an much earlier blog posting,
fascinates me.

Sixty-one year-old Robert Taylor was a forester who, while inspecting some new trees, was confronted by a globular object from which emerged to spiked spheres that grabbed Mr. Taylor by the legs, dragging him toward the large, globular object.


Mr. Taylor lost consciousness, but awoke disheveled and unable to stand comfortably. His truck was mired in mud and he had to walk home.

He suffered a headache for some hours after the incident and had a inordinate thirst that lasted for two days.

His heavy blue serge trousers were torn, ostensibly from the spikes on the spheres that grabbed him.

Mr. Taylor had an unsullied reputation in his community and BUFORA, a British UFO investigative group, found ground traces that seemed to confirm Mr. Taylor’s account.


Did Mr. Taylor concoct his story? Why?

Like Mr. Michalak, Lonnie Zamora, Reverend Gill, and the others noted here, what would be the motive, the reason for such bizarre contrivances?

Did each of these people misperceive a mundane event? Unlikely. Misperceptions with such similarities would create a category of hallucinations that would throw psychiatry in to a dither.

Are each of these encounters, of which there are many, many more, neurological quirks? Again, a neurological etiology would force neurologists to establish a mental substrate that lies outside the sensate reality humans work within, or misconstrue.

Are such stories evidence of Jose Caravaca’s Distortion hypothesis or Jacque Vallee’s ethereal others explanation?


Perhaps. But that would mean something is intertwined with humanity to the exclusion of any other kind of rational reality; that is, something or some presence is fixated on inserting experiences in the minds of common folk, and to what end?

But does the idea that alien visitors are engaged in such foolery make any more sense?

What we are left with is the question of witness testimony.

Is it as it is recounted? I think it is. But I have no idea what it means, nor do I have any inkling of an explanation.

While memory over time fades and/or confabulates, these encounters were reported in situ and do not have the flaw of time to corrupt the descriptions.

What was said to have happened happened.

Now where does that take us I keep asking…


Thursday, January 19, 2012

Nick Redfern is back in the desert, near Roswell...

Nick just can't leave Roswell alone.

Again, he caters to the Roswell quidnuncs with this HERE.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Tangible Distortion, Psychological/Physiological Affliction, or actual Alien Encounter?

Stefan Michalak, a mechanic by trade and amateur prospector, who died in 1999, came across a cigar-shaped craft while on a weekend prospecting jaunt near Falcon Lake, which lies between Manitoba and Ontario, Canada; this on May 19th, 1967.

Click HERE for an excellent précis of the encounter.

Mr. Michalak, as the story, presented in the link tells, was burned by some kind of exhaust that emanated from the craft he chanced upon:


According to Jose Caravaca’s developing hypothesis, dubbed Distortion, Mr. Michalak was intersecting with a presence that co-mingled its imagery with Michalak’s to provide a scenario, for reasons not clear, but palpable.

However, would Señor Caravaca’s scenario create something as palpable as severe burns which eventually produced nausea and illness that resembled radiation poisoning?

Or did Mr. Michalak create his burns by psychological inducement, much like those who create stigmata out of their religious fervor?

Or do we need to concede that Mr. Michalak confronted a flying machine that was either a military prototype or a craft from another world or universe?

Here’s Mr. Michalak’s drawing of the machine he came across:


A reading of Mr. Michalak’s account and the follow-ups by UFO researchers and mavens indicates to me that Mr. Michalak wasn’t faking his encounter or producing a hoax.

His background and subsequent illness mitigate against a fraud.

If he created his stigmata-like burns marks from a psychological or mental thrust, we would have a new category of psychiatric etiologies.

If he was the recipient of a Distortion scenario, the instigators were a little harsh in their instigation of the “drama” – not an impossibility, but a bizarre encroachment on reality as we know it.

My feeling is that Mr. Michalak met up with a tangible machine, and suffered physical and mental trauma afterward.

The question is what was the origin of the machine?

Your take(s)?


Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Nick Redfern provides an intriguing story

Nick Redfern brings forth a story about a British Air Marshall's brush with a human-looking alien, dubbed Mr. Janus.

Click HERE for Nick's interesting tale.

(No, that's not Mr. Janus, pictured, but our favorite movie extraterrestrial.)

Ufological censorship and envy

I see that Paul Kimball is over at Kevin Randle’s blog railing against Anthony Bragalia.

Why not here, Paul?

And Lance Moody has slid into the anti-Bragalia mode there also…probably because I won’t let him get a foothold here.

Paul and Lance are guys who would censor weird UFO ideas and methodologies that offend them.

This is a topic, UFOs, where there is no core, no moral or scientific rectitude, about which one (or many) can revolve, intellectually.

The UFO enigma eludes ratiocination. The very unknown nature of UFOs prevents sensible reasoning.

And since Mr, Bragalia engages in hyperbole and obtuse, but interesting to me, research, we, the RRRGroup, give him an open forum.

Mr. Moody is a reactionary, a debunker and skeptic. I like his skepticism.

But he would censor and censure the likes of Mr. Bragalia but never dare to go after the UFO UpDate quidnuncs who give reason and commons sense a bad name.

Mr. Moody, as far as I know, doesn’t theorize about UFOs. He just attacks those who do.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like, as I said, Lance Moody, and when he comes here to comment, I’ll engage him in counter-argument if need be….to no avail, but at least face-to-face as it were.

Paul Kimball is a “friend” of mine or so I believe.

He has a thing about Mr. Bragalia, and Scott Ramsey – the Aztec crash promoter.

I’m not privy to why he “hates” these men or, rather, their ideas.

But to lump Mr. Bragalia in with the likes of Kal Korff and other UFO reprobates is shameful and unreasoned.

That Lance and Paul go to great lengths to besmirch Mr. Bragalia offends me.

I know how hard Mr. Bragalia works to get at what he thinks are important UFO issues.

We, Tony and I, are not on the same page about many things.

I don’t think the Zamora/Socorro event was a prank, but Tony has mustered some intriguing circumstantial evidence for his view that it was.

And I think the Wanaque UFO beam photo is a hoax, but Tony, again, has gathered information that belies my hoax opinion.

As for Roswell, the story is so screwed up now that one can’t have a sensible opinion about it, although Kevin Randle’s “Dream Team” is going to try to clear away the dross and get back to the facts and/or the reality of the “incident.”

I say let them have at it, cold-case style.

Mr. Bragalia has hovered around Roswell for some time, with memory metal follow-ups and his latest probe that has caused a ruckus: Veterans who say they weren’t at Roswell during the 1947 episode but whose military records indicate otherwise.

Tony calls their denials of service dishonorable, which make Paul and Lance, and others (CDA and Gilles Fernandez) to cringe.

Now the cringers haven’t talked with the veterans. Mr. Bragalia has.

He is competent, in my mind, to ascertain whether these old men are lying or holding back information, and Mr. Bragalia is better suited to pass judgement on their positions than anyone else….he (Tony) has made a connection with them.

That Lance, CDA, Paul, Tim Printy, et al. don’t like how Mr. Bragalia has defined these veterans’ responses is fair game.

But to attack Mr. Bragalia’s conclusions because they – the cringers – have some misplaced affection for old guys who were in the military and now refuse to admit to such is intellectual insanity.

It’s an attempt to control the UFO debate, which is a sin of UFO UpDaters, like UFO compiler, Jerry Clark and his lackey Don Ledger who try to do that with obtuse views at Errol Bruce-Knapp’s forum.

I won’t allow a censoring of Anthony Bragalia, or my own oblique views, or anyone else’s that we choose to highlight here.

That they have carte blanche to use Kevin Randle’s blog to vent their spleens is fine with me.

But they won’t get an easy path to show their envy or unreasoning personal attacks here without a fight from me.

That’s all….now back to the UFO phenomenon, which is what we all should be trying to explain.


Monday, January 16, 2012

Roswell Vets don't own up to being at Roswell (1947)

Anthony Bragalia has interviewed a number of veterans whose military records indicate they were stationed at Roswell in 1947, during the alleged flying disk crash.

However, those veterans continue to say they weren't there, despite the official records indicating otherwise.

Click HERE to read Mr. Bragalia's account and research about this quirk that is endemic to Roswell veterans.

It's a significant element in the Roswell story.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Two UFO things that baffle (me)

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

In Peter Kolosimo’s Spaceships in Prehistory (noted here in a previous posting) are these two pictorials of ancient drawings on cave walls:



Such images are used by Ancient Astronaut theorists to indicate that the pictures depict extraterrestrials wearing space helmets, like those used by today’s Earthian astronauts.

The extraterrestrials, apparently couldn’t breathe Earth’s oxygen-rich air, when they visited eons ago.

However, today’s alleged extraterrestrial visitors – the so-called “grays” – don’t need helmets, as they are generally spotted without any.

Why would this be?

Also, why would AA’s space visitors be wearing space gear like that of Earth’s Twentieth Century space travelers, but not something a little more advanced?

It’s queer.

Then, while I continue my reading of Kevin Randle’s very interesting book, Reflections of a UFO Investigator, I read a case study on Page 50 about an unnamed farmer who, among several others, found weird, circular depressions in his fields.

But this fellow also saw an egg-shaped craft, from which emerged two small entities (and left with a blue-flame propulsion thrust):


Mr. Randle cites the Lonnie Zamora sighting from 10 years earlier, and wonders if the farmer was telling a tale based on that famous sighting.

What intrigues me is that the farmer’s egg-shaped craft was drawn, by the farmer, with the egg standing upright on landing legs, not unlike another sighting noted earlier here.

Zamora’s craft was drawn with the egg-shaped craft horizontal, not upright (similar to the La Madera craft seen in the same time-frame – 1964):


Why would a hoaxer not follow the Zamora drawing if they were using that sighting as the template for their fraud?

Or did Zamora have it wrong?

Just wondering….