UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, August 10, 2013

UFOs and Clouds: The Reportage

This account appears in David Richie’s UFO: The Definitive Guide to Unidentified Objects and Related Phenomena [MJF Books, NY, 1994, Page 87]:


In my August 6th offering here about the sack of Orléans, France by the Huns, there was this:

When their prayer was ended, a third time … they mounted the wall, and looking forth they saw from afar, as it were, a cloud rising out of the ground.

Are such “historical reports” accurate? 

Why the resort to clouds, and not anything else – a tangible thing for instance?

The Hebrew Bible and Old Testament, and even The New Testament, are rife with clouds attending mankind, associated with divinity, like that in the Orléans tale:

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud. [Genesis 9:14]

Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud. [Job 37:11]

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” [Matthew 26:64]

And some (many?) modern UFO reports seem to indicate that UFOs have an affinity for water, and clouds are water (vapor).

One commonly reported element of UFO close-encounter cases is a cloud or mass of vapor that is said to occur around or near a UFO or a contactee. [Richie, ibid, Page 46]

But are UFOs cloud-like or just using clouds as a cover?

Water is a commodity that seems, in the scheme of the universes planetary make-up, to be more valuable that gold or platinum – a necessary ingredient for carbon-life forms.

But are UFOs intrinsically water or water-based?

If they are, their source of origination would seem to be water-based, and such sources are rare, indeed, in our area of the known universe.

UFOs as clouds or in clouds or around clouds seems to be a topic for study, even as UFOs in or near water has been.

The evanescent quality of clouds – whether used as cover for the comings and goings of UFOs or as UFO themselves – may be a clue to the inherent nature of UFOs.

That is, if the reportage is accurate.



  • This issue of clouds, water vapor, the differential between ground and atmospheric temperatures, etc has a echo in my own research to humidity levels, and the commonly reported phenomenon of drastic, localized ambient temperature drops that often accompany anomalies. No myths required, but there is always a six degrees of separation, little kernels of truth in inaccurate historical accounts that have a cycle of variegated repetition to them. However, finding a pattern and then to attribute it to a single root cause, albeit unknown, especially with ambiguous source material hearkens back to the lint filter that is Roswell. For me personally, it's more advantageous to remain in the present as a pragmatic choice, but there are provocations from the past that hint of anomalies, whether they remain true or exaggerated or false.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • I expect some lenticular clouds are not recognized and reported as UFOs now and then . . . . although not the Kelly Johnson case. ;)

    Good camouflage seems to be part of the UFO pattern, blending into clouds or a clear sky. Taking on water gets reported too.

    On our end, I think the hydrogen fuel cell has a lot of potential for us down the road. Thinking about UFOs and the what ifs they bring has some value to me. It's an interesting subject.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • BTW..I should have been more clear. If you know the principles of the air conditioning cycle, you have a clue as to how ambient temperature drops in relation to humidity, and atmospheric water vapor. IE, transient and anomalous ambient temperature drops Consequently, the opposing principles of atmospheric vapor storage in clouds may give a clue to "cloud like" manufactured phenomenon. In either event, the laws of nature do not change. Or, at least that's my view of it.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • One last bit..if you know what causes these effects by the laws of nature, you can back engineer the characteristics of what caused them. Sorry for the disjointed posts. I keep getting interrupted by the "real" world. LOL..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • Spreading wild and woolly stories, Rich? Oh my...

    This, from the regimental history of the Norfolks:

    "The 1/5th Battalion was recruited in north Norfolk, including one company from the Royal Estate at Sandringham. On the 12th August the Battalion was part of an attack on Turkish positions inland from Suvla Bay. They received conflicting orders and advanced beyond the point where they could be supported by other troops. They were surrounded and suffered extremely heavy losses. Their unmarked graves were found in 1919. Despite the facts being published immediately after the war, the fate of the 1/5th Bn has given rise to all kinds of wild speculation and myths."

    See: http://www.rnrm.org.uk/history/history_11.html

    See also the regimental history, which is reproduced here:


    Note this:

    "Writing on September 23, 1919 the officer commanding the Graves Registration Unit in Gallipoli says: We have found the 5th Norfolks - there were 180 in all; 122 Norfolk and a few Hants and Suffolks with 2/4th Cheshires. We could only identify two - Privates Barnaby and Cotter. They were scattered over an area of about one square mile, at a distance of at least 800 yards behind the Turkish front line. Many of them had evidently been killed in a farm, as a local Turk, who owns the place, told us that when he came back he found the farm covered with the decomposing bodies of British soldiers which he threw into a small ravine. The whole thing quite bears out the original theory that they did not go very far on, but got mopped up one by one, all except the ones who got into the farm."

    One doesn't have to be an ace historical researcher to quickly straighten things like this out, or to find out that it was the 1/5 (and not the Fourth) that was annihilated. Those kinds of details matter, too. It took me 10 minutes on the Internet (which I followed up with a quick Skype call to a chum in the UK who is a regimental historian).

    For more on the real record of the Norfolks, who served in the Great War with honour and courage, see: http://www.forces-war-records.co.uk/Unit-Info/276

    Alas, I expect better from you than simply repeating the kind of hamhocked drivel that the UFO hoi polloi regularly spread about. But if there's a useful take-away from this, I guess it would be that "Ufologists" can take almost anything and make it seem mysterious and other-wordly... and then those stories take on a life of their own, and are uncritically repeated ad nauseum. In doing so, they distract from those truly anomalous stories that are worthy of consideration.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • A little harsh Paul -- yes, I'm sorry for finding your last podcast on the blah side..

    If you get the nuance(s) of my posting, I'm questioning such stories, which an astute reader, such as you should surely see.

    The point, in part, going back to a previous post the other day, writing about schlock in ufological accounts, should have been obvious.

    That said, the UFO and cloud connection remains viable, either way, fictively, or actually. Why?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • I knew you'd use the "nuance" caveat, but it's tiresome, Rich. If you knew that the story was bogus, then don't publish it, or say it's bogus in the post. Do the kind of simple, basic research that you're always excoriating other people for not doing.

    And don't try to deflect valid criticism, either, by hinting that the critic is upset at something you wrote about something unrelated that he / she did. It's unworthy of you. Own what you wrote, which was a hash, and do better next time, as you're always encouraging others to do.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • Paul,

    You having a bad day?

    One can see my questioning with all the gammatical marks I've placed.

    Nuance? Tiresome?

    Nuance is everything.

    As for owning what I write, there it is, initialed by me, as usual, lousy or whatever....it's right there, for slings and arrows.

    (Since I am not writing about UFO ex cathedra, One should expect some bad calls and postings.)

    Take it easy, the world isn't coming to an end, and maybe you'd like to say something about the cloud/UFO connection as Bruce and Frank S did.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • Paul
    You are way too young to be waving a cane at Rich, hectoring this hapless lad over the truth, but it is entertaining from the sidelines. I got a chuckle from Rich about Dean Radin being on the blah side of life.
    Of course none of this has anything to do with clouds, but I suppose it's more like dropping water balloons, or putting butter pats on the ceiling, waiting for them to drop.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • Bruce:

    Dean Radin and Paul may have been substantive with the content of their discourse, but it was so low-key and enervated, it was like a Faure trio, not a Bach cantata or Tchaikovsky overture.

    The back-and-forth was without overt passion, soporific.

    I needed stimuli. jaded as I am (for spice and punchy dialogue).

    (I'd never drop a water balloon on Paul's head, and you know why. I kid.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • Wow. Cool. Name drop a few more "high brow" headspace friends of yours and maybe it will motivate us elevate the discourse here at...pretty much the only public website with this level of discourse.

    Looking gift horses in the mouth left and right.

    By Blogger TSH, at Saturday, August 10, 2013  

  • Nice work, Paul.

    Ufology needs something like Retraction Watch, where questionable research is documented and discussed. It would be handy to have an index of discredited work so one doesn't accidentally cite any of it (or waste time exposing nonsense that has already been exposed).

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Saturday, August 17, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home