UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Favorite UFO sighting(s) or tale(s)?

We all have a UFO sighting or story that titillates us, absorbs our interest or curiosity.

It’s Roswell for CDA and Kevin Randle’s “Dream Team” certainly.


For Paul Kimball, I bet it’s the 1957 RB-47 encounter.


For Frank Warren, it’s the 194? L.A. sighting and shooting of a strange object off the Pacific coast and/or the alleged 1948 Aztec/Scully flying saucer crash.


For Nick Redfern, it’s any one of the contactee tales (but he may have one or two others).


For me, it’s Socorro or the 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter/Hillsdale “swamp gas” sightings.


But what is your favorite – not the best, but favorite -- UFO sighting, and why?

It can be a UFO tale that you find interesting, but don’t think is true, yet you like it anyway.

Be definitive and serious, if you will.



  • "It’s Roswell for CDA and Kevin Randle’s “Dream Team” certainly."

    Is it?

    Actually I am far too occupied just now with reading, watching & listening to the UK media over the death of a certain politician (guess who).

    Of course I MAY only be joking.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Joking, indeed, Christopher...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • For me it's the flurry of UFO reports in and around Malmstrom and Minot AFBs, 1967 and 1968. Admittedly, I have an emotional tie to both areas, being assigned to Malmstrom and doing temporary duties at Minot.

    In the Malmstrom cases, I'm interested in the how and why such cases were propagated...what makes sense or doesn't. Also the technological angles. Motivational aspects is of further interests.

    Last is the psychological angle. It's there, if one is willing to dig deeper.

    Roswell? Too much of a series of circular arguments for my taste.

    Tim H.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Interesting, Tim.

    Important sightings not overexposed.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Hello,
    To summerize my "curse" in UFOlogy, I like (and thanks) specialy all IFO cases, because they show us how people are able to made extraordinary reports from... ordinary (sometimes rare), but conventional phenomenon(s), object(s), stimulus (i).

    I have now a great "conviction" that every residual cases are probably the same: "extraordinary" reports made from ordinary, conventional (sometimes rare) stimulus.
    Only the statut "explained" versus "non explained" probably makes the difference between UFO and IFO (cause lack of investigation, lack of the determinant informations, luck to identify the good candidat, etc).

    IFO and UFO have probably no one difference in nature, only in statut... but a conventional object not identified...

    I know, I know, you dont like this point of view. That's mine: I'm UFO-Skeptic, sorry...
    The rest is Ufology^^



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Gilles:

    Your view is not anathema to me.

    Its reasonable, in its way, but a little too conclusive.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • The Father William Gill (and friends) sightings of June 26 and 27, 1959 in New Guinea. As Richard Hall once put it, ",,,the report of a large structured object (with moving humanoid figures) below a low overcast is not easily explainable." Absolutely correct. I would add that this phenomena was observed on two consecutive evenings with multiple witnesses that, to my knowledge, have never alleged any fakery. The only thing missing is photos.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Yes, Dominick,

    The Gill sighting is intriguing.

    That some think it's a case of myopia, and the Planet Venus, along with associative hallucinations (or a kind of mass hysteria) seems to be a stretch.

    There are questionable elements in the story, but nonetheless whatever the episodes were, they fascinate.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • One of my favourite reports would be Damon, Texas 1965. Two sheriffs describing a large object and one of them allegedly having a wound that healed during the incident. It's one of those reports where they were either in cahoots and lying or something unusual occurred.

    Tim Hebert's examples are also 'up there' in interest. Not in one specific incident, but in the sequence of reports from diverse bases relating to 'phantom helicopters' and unusual lights that still haven't been understood. Who was doing what and why?

    Tom Tulien's detailed review of the '68 Minot events is mystifying. I can be cold-blooded and skeptical sometimes and yet it's hard to rationalise the incident as hoax, psyops, hallucinations or Cold War hijinks.

    Even if we took the view that it was all staged, the motivations/agenda would still elevate the case into the realms of highly curious.

    A few years ago (2003?), friends and I saw a red object zig-zag across the whole sky in about 4 seconds. Whatever it was ignited my curiosity.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Your examples and sighting, Kandinsky, are what keeps us tethered to the phenomenon.

    It's a great curiosity.....still.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • My favourite sighting is my own - Shocklach, England, May 2009 - shared with another witness.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Care to elaborate, Paul?

    Your observation would carry great weight with all of us.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Shag Harbour. Much more interesting than any New Mexico crashed saucer story because there are witnesses to the crash, many of whom are still alive.

    JAL 1628. It was explained away as a split radar return, which doesn't explain everything reported by the flight crew.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • PG, Shag Harbor never grabbed me as an interesting UFO event, although it has some intriguing elements.

    (I think my disdain derives from Don Ledger's involvement. Mr. Ledger strikes me as a pontificator rather than a real UFO investigator.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • One of the best is the series of sightings around Levelland, TX in November 1957. You had witnesses at multiple locations, you had the craft interacting with the environment and you had an example of how the Air Force conducted its research at the time.

    By Blogger KRandle, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Thanks, Kevin,

    Independent observers, overcast skies, and that interaction.

    1957 was an active year, and the Levelland sightings are, indeed, some that indicate there's more to UFOs than hallucinations or misinterpretations.

    And the object was egg-shaped some said. Interesting.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Washington DC 1952. Ground sightings, air sightings, radar hits, solid targets displaying capabilities far beyond any vehicle on Earth, headlines, news conferences, a documented meeting in the White House attended by Truman himself. How much more do you want? People ask why doesn't ET land on the White House lawn? Well they came close enough for me in July 52.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Frank,

    The 1952 Washington D.C. sightings were unique surely, and stirred the flying saucer pot when they happened.

    I think there is more to be found about those radar returns and scrambled jets.

    I've looked through Truman's published and unpublished letters to see if he mentions the sightings.

    He doesn't.

    I find that odd, but there's much I find odd about Truman, as you know.

    Nevertheless, the 1952 sightings still resonate as a strange UFO appearance.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 10, 2013  

  • Starting at 12:11 in this episode of Ghost Cases: http://redstarfilmtv.com/redstarfilms/television/ghost-cases/the-case-of-the-haunted-graveyard/

    By true definition, a "UFO" (although "UAP" is more apropos).

    That one night in Shocklach changed the way I look at the "paranormal."


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Thanks for the clip, Paul; I hope visitors here will view it, in its entirety.

    That you had film and sound equipment but did not capture the "void" in the sky or the sounds of spirit horses irks, but as you note, someone or something seemed to be playing with your team and you.

    I'm leaning toward a quantum effect: you measure (or observe) an alleged quirky area (church/cemetery) and by measuring (observing) affect what would normally be seen or recorded; that is,your observation (measurement) causes the changes in what would be a normal scene into a a paranormal event or scene.

    The observation alters the event, alters reality, in the direction of your mind-set and that of your colleagues.

    Your UFO (or UAP) is an intangibility rather than a material thing.

    It's interesting but more neurological than actual, as I understand it.


    At some level you willed into existence a UFO/UAP event though your purpose was about ghosts -- a related but totally different phenomenal species.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Hi Rich,

    I don't buy the neurological explanation given that not only did I see and experience things, but so did others - and others had in that place before. It could almost be described as a theater of the absurd / paranormal, which fits my general idea that what we're dealing with is a single advanced non-human intelligence interacting with us throughout the years in myriad guises. I don't think there's anything "tangible" about any of it, at least not in the materialistic way that we define "tangible."


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Your view takes precedence over mine or anyone else's Paul.

    You were there and you deal with such things more diligently than most, so I think your explanation is close to the truth.

    Mine is only conjecture, from afar.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Yep, I'd say the Contactees, you got that right. I'd add some of the more intriguing MIB tales too.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Oops. I forgot one. The 2006 O'Hare UFO.

    Actually, I'm more interested in events that happened after 1965. Stuff older than this has been rehashed to death, and focusing on it exclusively is beginning to suggest that Ufology is suffering from short-term memory loss, one of the first signs of the mental deterioration that comes with aging.

    Of course, maybe Ufology simply has been around too long . . .

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Interesting thread!

    1. Fatima - When you read the early eye witness accounts (before the Roman Catholic Church 'layed the smack down' making it a religious event) it's a metallic disc. Also an entity (interpreted as the Blessed Virgin Mary in this case) who contacted the children (contactees) with hidden, cryptic messages.

    = = =

    2. Antonio Vilas Boas case - The better detailed accounts report Boas and his brother were actually stalked by unknown lights, for a few nights, before the alleged abduction.

    Then the conscious memory Boas had of being with a humanoid woman who could now, over 50 years later, be described with that controversial word -"hybrid". Then there's the sexual/reproductive component. This existed long before abduction researchers picked up on it or could of in any way influenced Boas in the late 1950s.

    Also, Boas was hospitalized, after the abduction, with what was diagnosed as radiation sickness.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Susan,

    I have to really insist you look at my contribution to Nick Redfern's "Contactees" book about he Villas Boas case.

    You might find the Bosco Nedelcovic allegation by Googling it or looking for it here and at our RRRGroup blog.

    Nedelcovic, a DoD/CIA agent told me that the Villas Boas incident was a military/CIA experiment, which he was privy to as part of his AID assignment in Brazil/South America.

    After some interesting incidents about Nedelcovic, which you can find inside the UFO UpDates archives, I (and Mr. Redfern) tend to believe that Nedelcovic was telling the truth.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Rich, I'm familiar with that. I do not believe MILABs or the CIA had anything to do with Boas. I think the same of the Hill case. I don't buy the disinfo.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • I agree Susan, somewhat.

    When I was "friendly" with Nedelcovic (a Yugoslav), I doubted many of his tales, including the Villas Boas story.

    But after subsequent information and contact from a former FBI agent who was doing something about Nedelcovic, I gave some credence to his CIA/military psy-ops tale.

    Nick's vast information about such military/CIA shenanigans allowed him and me to accept Nedelcovic's story as possibly valid.

    Yet, there is always that nagging doubt.

    So, it's not unreasonable to hold the view you have.

    The Villas Boas incident, whether a weird ET account or a psy-ops scenario, is one of those that truly intrigues.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • R-squared-

    Two words:

    Cisco Grove. (CA)

    if you read the original case investigation, the events described are as funny as a scene from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • P.S. ...oh yeah, also Cash-Landrum as a head-scratcher...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • KP:

    I find the Cisco Grove "event" -- a few months after Lonnie Zamora's Socorro sighting -- to be interesting, not Monty Python-like exactly (although one can see it as a Python skit I suppose).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • While researching my forthcoming book on Contactee narratives I found the story of Elizabeth Klarer, whose book Beyond the Light Barrier details an odd romance between her and an extraterrestrial human, which resulted in a child. What's fascinating to me are is this:

    A truncated, non-romantic version appeared in UFO zines in the 50s, at the time of the occurrences. Her book was published in the 70s, and is full of commentary tangentially related to the political and social upheaval SA was going through at the time. Klarer, from an old English family, filled her story with racial overtones and overt fears of a coming race war.

    It's a well-written story which demonstrates the social commentary nature of the Contactee tales with the additional value of its non-American and female origins.

    By Blogger ajgulyas, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • OK R-squared... allow me to try one more time:

    Cisco Grove has a simple poor archer (a bowhunter) hunting in a primitive forest around dusk....suddenly he is confronted by a three mysterious knights (beings encased in a metallic armor-like covering, which some call a 'robot')... the knights have a case of halitosis that borders on the lethal (nerve gas??).

    ..our poor archer manages to survive the knight by climbing a tree and throwing burning scraps of his clothing down at his assailants...

    ...he survives, but by daybreak he down to only his underwear.....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • KP:

    The story is so wacky that it has to be true -- almost.

    I liked it, and it could be a favorite for anyone who likes the bizarre.

    It's a superb UFO account, in its way...and could figure into our Divine Matrix or God Game scenario.

    Props to you for remembering this offbeat UFO account.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Rich, Josh,

    Yes, those two cases are certainly at the top of the list. I might add that a great friendship was borne with one of my research partners Dr.Scotty Littleton, (with BOLA) may he rest in peace.

    With that in mind, that's one of the side-bars in this thing we call Ufology–the friendships garnered along the way . . ..

    Rich is a prime example.


    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Thank you Frank,

    For many years now you have been one of the great joys of my life.

    Your UFO acumen is topnotch. just like your friendship.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 11, 2013  

  • Hey Susan

    Certainly, the Nedelcovic story - as it relates to the Villas Boas case - is controversial.

    There is one important thing to keep in mind, however.

    Nedelcovic said that Villas Boas was taken aboard a helicopter, where the UFO event was fabricated while he (Boas) was in a chemically-altered state of mind.

    Now, we can't prove that. But, it's important to note that Villas Boas described seeing the object, which was not a flying saucer. In fact, it was very, very helicopter-like.

    Here's what I wrote about this aspect of the story in my "Contactees" book:


    It was, he said: “…like a large elongated egg…On the upper part of the machine there was something which was revolving at great speed and also giving off a powerful fluorescent reddish light.”

    Then, when the experience was over, said Villas Boas, the craft rose “…slowly into the air until it had reached a height of some 30 to 50 meters…The whirring noise of the air being displaced became much more intense and the revolving dish [that sat atop the object] began to turn at a fearful speed…At that moment, the machine suddenly changed direction, with an abrupt movement, making a louder noise, a sort of ‘beat.’”


    A “large elongated egg”-shaped object, atop of which sat a “dish”-like structure that was “revolving at great speed,” and which made a sound described as “a sort of beat,” does indeed sound astonishingly like a near-perfect description of the body, fast-spinning rotor-blades and noise commonly associated with a helicopter.

    It doesn't prove anything, but given that the words I quoted above are Villas Boas' own words, I think (given the close descrption to a helicopter) we can't rule out the Villas Boas story as told by Nedelcovic.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, April 12, 2013  

  • Sorry, RR, can't think of one. But since I want to play this game, allow me to paste this recent bit from elsewhere:

    || Name one, make it your favorite, I'll dismiss it in a word or two. You see, [name], good skeptics have already debunked nearly every major case to my satisfaction many times over. Believers just ignore these completely rational, real world, mundane explanations and grasp at another phony "UFO" case that's never what believers pretend it to be. Then they recycle these thoroughly debunked "flying saucer" fairy tales repeatedly. Arnold: Hoax! Trent: Hoax! Trindade: Hoax! Hills: Small group scare and confabulation. Cash: Hoax! Terauchi: SGS and confabulation. RendleSham: SGS first night, then Halt's Hoax! ||

    and on and on....

    Believers in the myth and delusion are possessed by the subject; Scientific realists have dominion over it.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 12, 2013  

  • || IFO and UFO have probably no one difference in nature, only in statut... but a conventional object not identified... ||

    Ah, Gilles, the Null hypothesis.

    Over a century of data with two interpretations: the sacred and the mundane.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 12, 2013  

  • || ... it’s the 194? L.A. sighting and shooting of a strange object off the Pacific coast....||

    RR; Is there no minimum standard of evidence for a "UFO" event to enter the catalogue or is the mere suggestion all that's required? Shouldn't a purported modern "UFO" event at least have been reported in its time as a "UFO?"

    I happen to live right next to Fort MacArthur in San Pedro, where most of the action took place, and the event is still remembered very well. And for decades, no one--absolutely no one--ever thought, imagined or even suggested that the so-called BOLA was anything more than a false alarm. A refinery near Santa Barbara had been shelled by a Japanese midget submarine two days before, but at most, the stimulus for the LA false alarm was an AA blimp that drifted from Santa Monica to San Pedro and fell into the SB Channel.

    That is, until the 1990s, when some fantasy-prone, self-styled ufoolergist began promoting the false idea that a typical but enhanced LAT photo of AA spotlights converging and reflecting on the nightly SoCal marine layer--no different than similar photos--was somehow, suddenly and inexplicably, newfound "evidence" of some extraordinary unidentified thing!

    Knowing the story very well, when I first saw this utter nonsense suggested on the Internet about 1995, I could only guffaw at its inanity. If the pseudoscience of ufoolery really needed its ridicule factor enhanced, then this revisionist--manufactured by forced context--phony "UFO" event and intentional idiocy was the ticket.

    Is every photo of the reflection of lights on fog now a "UFO?" Is the only requirement for consideration as "evidence" the mere suggestion by some scientifically illiterate Believer in the myth and delusion who shanghais an historical event and spins it into a "UFO" yarn? What new absurdity is next in this grand conspiracy-mongering mode that reinterprets all things in a "UFO" context?

    For every other aspect of reality there exists some minimum standard of evidence; apparently this bare minimum does not extend to ufoolery.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 12, 2013  

  • Zoam,

    I'll let Frank Warren answer this if he wishes.

    My point here was to allow visitors to vent about UFO reports they think are real or to spiel about UFO tales they think are not real but like them (as a fictive account).

    UFOs are sci-fi or paranormal (per Paul Kimball) fodder, or they are a real phenomenon.

    That phenomenon can be an element of mythology, or neurology, or psychology -- or it can be a real tangible phenomenon. deserving of scientific scrutiny.

    You see UFOs as a total chimera, which is okay with me.

    That's a little closed-minded as I see it, but not an unreasonable position.

    The UFO topic is so beclouded by input from tyros and non-thinkers and wackos, one understands why you and people like Gilles Fernandez hate the subject.

    For me and persons like Paul Kimball, who've seen strange things in the sky, it's rather difficult to dismiss the matter of UFOs lightly.

    We are curious.

    We're not committed to any one explanation. It's an open question as to what UFOs or the UFO epithet mean.

    Your view Zoam is fine for discussion and almost intellectual in its way.

    But it's not "philosophical" or truly objective.

    Yet it does provoke, which I like.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 12, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home