UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, February 11, 2012

UFO Phenomena [sic]

UFO compiler Jerry Clark suggests (at UFO Updates) that UFOs should not be categorized as one thing or another; that is, the nuts and bolts provision isn’t the only explanation for UFO sightings.

There are other possibilities, none of them exclusionary.

UFOs may be nuts and bolts, or Vallee-induced craft, military misperceptions, or a lot of other things is what I think Mr. Clark is saying.

His observation is obvious and a little late to the table.

He offers that UFO buffs will get no where with a solution to the UFO question until they address the possibility that UFOs are phenomena, not a phenomenon, or singularity.

He may have held that view for a long time but he’s now offering it a bit dynamically, as age and death creeps up on him and the other UFO geezers and they’d like a denouement to the soul-crushing and futile search that has consumed them for most of their (wasted?) lives.

Yes, UFOs are phenomena, in that the sightings may be ascribed to many things, some real, some hallucinatory, some general misperceptions, some neurological, and even some caused by an ethereal presence that Jose Caravaca, Jacques Vallee, and Nick Redfern, see as the progenitor(s) of UFO events.

But is there one phenomenon among the phenomena that UFO aficionados should be devoting time and effort to?

Is it the extraterrestrial (nuts and bolts) craft phenomenon? From other worlds and other galaxies or even other dimensions or time?

Is it the neurologically’psychologically produced phenomenon?

Is it the Mac Tonnies, Jacques Vallee concomitant civilization intrusions?

Is it Jose Caravaca’s Distortion “entities” or Nick Redfern’s Fortean presence(s)?

Is it the intersect that caused the idea of God or gods in the human mind, from time immemorial?

Jerry Clark is right to bemoan the plight we UFO mavens are in – the plight of not knowing what to do next.

With the intellectual state of most UFO hobbyists, I think we are surely lost…


Thursday, February 09, 2012

Addenda to the Tassili hypothesis

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

Joe Caravaca has provided supplementary photos of the Tassili paintings, acquired from J. Blaschke, R. Brancas and J. Martinez, and published in LOS DIOSES DEL TASSILI [1978] after an expedition to Algeria.

The first one shows flames inside the alleged ship that Jose thinks the alien creature was dragging his captive toward:


The second shows the being doing the capturing:


Yes, it does look like a kind of spaceman, but note the extended genitalia. (This gives credence to Bruce Duensing’s view that the painting depicts a fertility rite, common to primitive tribes.)

Jose provides a view of the wall, which has a UFO on it (lower left):


Here are two close-ups of that UFO:



And a photo of a UFO that is strikingly similar to the one depicted by the Tassili painter(s):


(It would appear that the ship visiting the primitive tribe in Africa, thousands of years ago, wasn’t technologically upgraded by the time the photo was taken, in the Twentieth Century I assume.)

Jose is conjecturing here. Alien Astronaut theorists will accept his conjecture as proof of their views.

The rest of us should only see it as ruminations of a ufological kind, nothing more, nothing less.


Alien Abduction(s) of Primitive Women?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

Jose Caravaca, our Spanish colleague, conjectures that some of the images found in the rock paintings of Tassili (above/below) indicate scenes of abduction by, we assume, extraterrestrial visitors.

The paintings below, he envisions, show women being led to a "saucer" or circular craft:

This painting (below), from Tassili, is often cited by Ancient Astronaut theorists as an image of a space-helmeted alien being from outside the Earth:


And in the yellow painting above, one sees that same "helmet" on a woman being taken somewhere.

Were the helmets needed for travel outside the Earth's atmosphere?

Were the helmets actually space helmets? Or part of primitive ritual garb?

Senor Caravaca's view is interesting, but is there another explanation for the images?

We don't find an anthropological thesis exactly.

Dr. Giorgio Gualco, in the article used by Josh Sordelet, in his posting about Tassili a few days ago, suggests that the paintings are "characterized by human figures with round heads, often bearing headdresses of horns or feathers."

Dr. Gualco is saying the depictions are caricatures of adornment, but the Tassili paintings didn't caricature the animals presented, or anything else.

The humans pictured are (artistically) stylized, but not to a degree that they are unrecognizable as human beings. The women's breasts are notable and their femininity compared to pictures of men is obvious.

So why would the painters create headdresses (helmets!) that are removed from their actuality; that is, why helmets that are "caricatured" when everything else isn't?

Jose Caravaca's keen eye may have found something -- something to support AA theory and Alien Abduction stories also.


Wednesday, February 08, 2012

The Socorro Imbroglio: ET, Hoax, Mistaken Observation, or ?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.


I’m sorry to regurgitate the Lonnie Zamora/Socorro sighting of 1964 but it keeps rearing its head, even when we attempt to take only an element from it – the insignia that Officer Zamora said he saw.

Steve Sawyer, a “ufologist” on the fringe of the UFO community, without blog or web-site, who parasitically attached bromides to others’ sites and blogs or inserts infrequent commentary at UFO UpDates, insists that the Stanford “mythology” that Officer Zamora was induced to draw an insiginia/symbol that was different from what he actually observed.

We’ve addressed the issue over and over again, as have others who visit here.

And we concluded that the story of a concocted symbol, to thwart hoaxers from duplicating Zamora’s observation, was a shill by the Air Force, Hynek, and ultimately Ray Stanford’s treating it as real occurrence, to throw off UFO investigators; that is, the disinformers wished to side-track UFO researchers, because the symbol is the vital clue as to what Zamora actually saw.


Mr. Sawyer perpetuates, or tries to, the concocted mythology, because he’s an intrepid supporter of the views held by the UFO old-guard, and wishes to remain in their good graces for some obtuse reason, not quite clear to me and others.

Here’s Zamora’s quoted observation:


That aside – we dismiss Mr. Sawyer’s sad attempts to keep the UFO phenomenon attuned to the ET scenario as espoused by UFO geezers – let’s see what we have experienced of late about Socorro…

Anthony Bragalia bludgeoned me yesterday [2/7/12] with his litany of circumstantial “evidence” that Officer Zamora was “punked” – Bragalia’s word.

Mr. Bragalia says that Officer Zamora was a cop who hassled New Mexico Institute of Technology students so they set out to create a UFO hoax to get back at him.


Mr. Bragalia has marshaled, I admit, some intriguing material that indicates a hoax may be a possibility.

And a hoax has been on the Socorro table since the sighting (in 1964).

We, like others – David Rudiak among them – dismiss the hoax hypothesis as ludicrous.

The observation by other witnesses takes Bragalia’s pyrotechnics and balloon scenario out of the reach of possibility.

Moreover, Mr. Bragalia hasn’t got a confession from any hoaxer, even after much diligence to find one.

He has found hints, but no one will admit to hoaxing the 1964 event, even after forty-eight years.

Mr. Bragalia’s “theory” is exquisite in its wayward presentation but too convoluted to pass muster with sensible people.

It is a fiction hoping to pass as fact.

Then we have those who think that Zamora observed an extraterrestrial craft, which is supported by other observations in the same time-frame: La Madera et cetera.

I accept the possibility but have leaned toward the idea that Officer Zamora observed a Hughes prototypical lunar lander that went astray, as explained by this man:

From the History Channel

Our hypothesis can be found earlier here, at this blog,, and at our RRRGroup blog, among other places, for those still interested at this point.

There was an Indiana University engineer who recalled a story he read in a magazine, in the 60s, about a balloon escapade by a paper company, a balloon excursion that went awry and came down in New Mexico.

We looked for that magazine article fro a very long time, and everywhere – internet archives, library archives, et cetera – to no avail, although some paper company logos do look like Zamora’s symbol -- the one he drew – the real one!


(In that vein, a contributor to our blog – Matthew Gilleece – found Hughes logos that also looked like the Zamora symbol drawing.)


My point here is that a seminal UFO sighting is rife for interpretation and debate still, after all thse years.

And why? Because it has elements that can be seen to support a number of explanations.

The ET explanation isn’t easily ruled out, in context of other sightings at the time.

The hoax scenario is a possibility and has been one since 1964, supported by much circumstantial material found by Anthony Bragalia recently.

The IU engineer’s balloon tale is still slightly open as I see it.

And my Hughes Aircraft/Toolco/CIA/Raven prototype misadventure remains viable for those who really understand what was going on the New Mexico area in 1964 pertaining to space adventures and experimentation.

But the bottom line for me has been that symbol - - that insignia that Lonnie Zamora saw and drew.

The problem is that the drawing has been compromised by the Stanford story and its promotion by such peripheral UFO stalwarts as Steve Sawyer.

If we can agree on what the actual symbol was, we might be able to trace it back to its originators: ET, NMIT hoaxers, a paper company, or Howard Hughes….


Tuesday, February 07, 2012

A Brilliant Discovery

A 10 year-old discovers a new molecule....not the one above (caffeine) but this one:

Click HERE

Fromm on Dreams, Fairy Tales, and Myth (and more)

The book above, by Erich Fromm in 1951, is a must-read to go forward here, and I think it may be had as a free download.

Google "Erich Fromm The Forgotten Language" to get a copy. It is pertinent to past and future discussion(s) here.

And also try to track down the book below, which contains essays that are relevant too.

Both books deal with reality -- what it is and what it isn't.

These books will revamp your thinking about UFO sightings, some UFO sightings anyway.


Monday, February 06, 2012

UFO codes, mental Interceptions, or just plain coincidence?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

Rummaging through some old material I found some UFO symbols we’ve highlighted before and noted how similar some of them are to each other or to symbols of notorious UFO sightings.

For instance, Eddie Laxon, of Temple, Texas noted these markings on an alleged UFO in 1966:


And Morris Heflin, of Oklahoma City in April/May 1971 indicated he saw this on a UFO:


Then we have the symbol/insignia that Lonnie Zamora drew after his UFO encounter of 1964:

Stylized representation

(Zamora’s drawing has been compromised by the machinations of Ray Stanford (who insists the United States Air Force with the complicity of J. Allen Hynek had Zamora draw a pseudo-symbol to make sure a hoaxer wouldn’t use the “real” symbol in a bogus account, or something like that).

But if Zamora’s drawing is, in fact, the symbol he saw, one drawn from a sighting of 1964/65 is similar:


Do these representations authenticate each other?

Or has a kind of mental infection produced the images, across time and space?

Or are we dealing with coincidental hoaxing?

And then there is the possibility that the perceived markings are what was actually seen, and provide clues to the sightings appended to them.

The numbers 4,7, and 8 in the first two examples above could have been part of a prototypical aircraft, but no one followed up on that possibility at the time, accepting the sightings as other-worldly, as was the bias at the time by “ufologists” (and still is).

The Zamora insignia is more probably as indicated, despite Stanford’s attempt to make it otherwise.

And it’s a major clue as to what Zamora saw, as we’ve written over and over again: Bragalia saying it’s part of his hoax scenario and we saying it’s part of the Hughes Aircraft/CIA flight that mis-landed in Socorro.

But what about the similar drawing in the same time-frame?


Do we have UFO code here? Or something else?

And why don’t we get reports of such symbols or markings from today’s sightings?


UFOs and The Nature of Reality

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

When it comes to UFOs we constantly ask ourselves what is the reality?

But that presupposes that we have a grasp on reality itself, and not just in the realm of UFOs.

What is reality?

Okay, we can’t presume to answer that question in this ratty little blog, or anywhere else for that matter.

However we can approach the topic of reality in a cursory way and see how the philosophical dilemma impacts our interest in UFOs…

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., & The Free Press, NY, 1967] in Volume One addresses Appearance and Reality (Page 135 ff.) by opening with a statement by Bertrand Russell in his The Problems of Philosophy:

…the distinction between appearance and reality [is] “one of the distinctions that cause the most trouble in philosophy.”

The segment goes on to cite Protagoras (Man is the measure of all things), Plato, Augustine, Kant (The things we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit…as appearances, they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us), Leibniz, et al.

And philosophy, that confusing discipline, has never clarified reality for anyone.

Quantum physics has made matters worse.

Science, is seems, is as confused about reality as are we.

So when it comes to UFO reports, what are we to do with the “reality” that is suggested by those who witness sightings or encounters?

We can only take down what they relate and compare it to data and other information we’ve accrued over the years and hope we get a good approximation of the UFO reality.

The problem is that UFO reality is even more convoluted than practical reality, the reality that confronts our everyday existence.

Persons who see a UFO or have an encounter become, generally, discombobulated; their senses presenting information to their brain that, because of its unique character – the UFO information – the brain has to handle in various ways, which we’ve dealt with here, somewhat, in out neurological outings.

So details get smudged by a person's memory banks and physiological responses.

The cave painting posting by Josh shows reportage that is created under calmer circumstances, as best as primitive life can be said to be calm.

We can state, though, that cave painters would not be, I think, as mentally compromised as modern man is: stress, minds filled with all kinds of media input, and a loss of connection with nature.

Therefore their depictions have an informational purity that may be missing in modern renditions of “fact” or reality as purveyed by witnesses to events.

(I have a slew of papers and sources indicating the flaws endemic to testimony, eyewitness and otherwise, should anyone care to read them.)

Commonsense tells us that observers will, invariably, botch their observations, inadvertently but sometimes purposefully, to avoid ridicule or to enhance their accounts.

I lean toward accepting first-hand accounts of UFO sightings and encounters as veracious, with caveats about memory after a long period, wherein the account is separated by time and subject to the vicissitudes of human memory: extraneous material added by neurological quirks.

But we can assume accounts that are set down almost immediately after a UFO sighting or encounter are tarred only slightly by neurological input that doesn’t pertain.

It’s the similar elements in sightings that makes them reliable, as Jose Caravaca has outlined in the many sightings/encounters he’s researched.

That is, if a detail or element continues to show up, one can assume that the witness rendition has validity.

But is that reality?

We’re back to what constitutes reality. Having similar experiences would normally provide a foothold on reality as Descartes explained.

Yet, when it comes to UFOs, or historical events, or quantum perceptions, everything is up for grabs and reality is an open question -- a chimera likely, far removed from what really is.

And then, when it comes to UFOs, there is the contributing factor of ufological interference: the addition of ineptness, bias, and ego into UFO accounts.

The academic disciplines attributable to other areas of knowledge, as flawed as they may be, are totally missing – totally – when it comes to that instilled charlatanry known as ufology.

So, we’re left with Russell’s assessment: the distinction between appearance and reality (when it comes to UFOs) causes the most trouble.


Sunday, February 05, 2012

ETs stalking primitive tribesmen?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

In a cave, Tan Zoumaitak, at Tassili in Ajjer, part of the Algerian Sahara, are drawings by primitive peoples, one of which appears above.

Does the depiction show extraterrestrials (upper, middle left and lower right) mingling or stalking desert tribes people after embarking from a flying saucer (lower right)?

One can make the conjecture, and some Ancient Astronaut theorists will, but is there another explanation?

The cave “painting” dates to a period circa 6000-7000 B.C.

The article by Dr. Giorgio Gualco notes the paintings found in the area and caves seem to depict “little demons with thread-like bodies” along with “gigantic figures found in Jabbaren” – “Jabbaren in the Tuaregh language means ‘giants’ and in fact one can find several figures of very large size there.”

Dr. Gualco continues, “it is therefore thought [that these figures] represents a god related to a fertility cult.”

Do the paintings indicate “giants” or diminutive entities” – like the greys reported in recent UFO encounters?

Or do the paintings represent imaginary depictions of gods? And why would gods become a mental fixation, of primitive minds, worthy of being noted on a cave wall?

Other “paintings” from the Rock Paintings of Tassili:




Can Spanish researcher Jose Caravaca’s Distortion Theory account for the depictions?

Does Nick Redfern’s hypnagogic suggestion apply?

Or do we see what the primitive painter saw?

That is, have we a representation that represents a reality that isn’t imaginative or artistic but, rather, a reported event, put down for posterity using techniques of the time?

No one knows, not anthropologists or Ancient Astronaut theorists or UFO buffs?