UFO Conjectures

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Kevin Randle: Detective par excellence

kr21.jpg
Kevin Randle, in his effort(s) to cleanse the Roswell record of falsehoods or erroneous materials has provided at his blog -- kevinrandle.blogspot.com-- an expository recounting of one Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. French who is a distinguished military man that Mr. Randle has interacted with, but who [the Lt. Colonel] seems to have confabulated parts of his career.

Lieutenant Colonel French has, according to Mr. Randle, inserted bogus information about involvement with Roswell, the MJ-12 documents, fellow officer Lieutenant Colonel Philip Corso, et cetera.

The sordid confabulations sadden and trouble Mr. Randle, but it's part of the vetting process he (and his Dream Team) are in the midst of re: Roswell.

Kudos to Kevin Randle for his journalistic foray. It offers hope for the coming Roswell denouement.

RR

Barry Goldwater on the General Curtis LeMay [UFO] Scolding

Giuliano Marinkovic, provided at UFO UpDates, a link to a YouTube video of Senator Barry Goldwater telling about his request to General Curtis LeMay for access to the alleged "secret [Blue] room" at Wright-Patterson Air Base in Dayton, Ohio.

Click HERE to see/hear the video.

This should settle the matter, once and for all!

RR

The Hardness (tangible presence) of UFOs.

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

project.jpg 
In my survey of Jung’s treatise on Ufos [sic], I found that Jung proposed the phenomenon as real, psychically or physically.

He wrote that both or either were a kind of reality.

My leaning towards a psychical explanation for many UFOs doesn’t imply that hard, material UFOs do not exist.

UFOs, whether misidentified prosaic flying devices or something more esoteric (unknown actually), are real in the Jungian sense.

Jung thought the reports of flying saucers (Ufos) were real; the content up for interpretation.

But does a person actually create a UFO sometimes, from his or her mental observation?

Is such a creation possible?

Quantum mechanics allow that things observed are altered by their observation (or measurement), but that isn’t creation of those things; it’s creation of the peripheral elements, such as movement, location, et cetera, that the thing is subject to or beholden to: the vicissitudes of quantum laws or even (rarely) Newtonian laws.

My question is, can a projection produce more than a visual observation?

That is, can one’s mental configuration create a tangible, material artifact?

Common sense tells us, no.

Hinduism’s Maya and Oliver Sacks neurological hypotheses say things seen but not actually there are illusions or delusions.

Yet, Jung told us that such things seen have their own kind of reality.

But is Jung’s “reality” a tangible reality, a you-can-touch-it reality?

It seems not to be.

However, for the person or persons encountering a UFO and/or its “pilots,” such as that which Travis Walton or Betty Hill or, even, perhaps, Steven Michalak (of the 1967 Falcon Lake episode), their UFOs and “crew” (in the Hill/Walton tales) were as real as real could be, assuming that their accounts are not confabulations.

Michalak was burned by his UFO. That’s pretty real. (Chris Rutkowski and others think Michalak came into contact with an exotic test craft of the military.)

m15.jpg
Was Lonnie Zamora’s 1964 Socorro sighting a total projective “reality”? It has all the earmarks of an hallucinatory episode [See Sack’s book, Hallucinations, for hallucinatory features], but with tangible elements (burning shrubbery and indentations in the ground) that has made it a bona fide “real event” for most UFO aficionados.

The 1959 Reverend Gill group sighting is a “pure” example of a projected reality.

gill.jpg
These episodes aside – they are controversial and iffy for many reasons – let me suggest that objects in the sky, those evanescent lights and “objects” that many persons have seen but not touched are as tangible as a cloud or fog patch, real but untouchable in the sensory way.

Yes, clouds and/or fog are made up of physical particles, but so, too, as far as we know, are UFOs.

They leave traces on photographic plates (as Jung noted in his Ufo book).

They have left traces on the ground in some instances. (See Bloecher).

They interact with radar (Paul Kimball’s RB-47 incident for example).

So there is an inferred tangibility, but is that tangibility real or of a nature that hovers between tangible and intangible – a kind of uncertain quantum state, as it were.

For the observer of a UFO or UFOs, the thing(s) seen have a reality, so one has to accept that the reality is palpable, no matter what the essence of that palpability is.

UFOs impinging on the eyes and mind of observers have got to be real if conscious awareness of them is manifest.

Even if they are illusionary, in the sense of imagined, they still have a reality, as Jung indicated: a psychical reality which is just as authentic as a Chopin sonata or a howl in the woods by a wolf or the images on a computer monitor or movie screen.

So, one can say that psychical projections reverberate on the observer(s), the creator(s) of the projection, becoming as real as any kind of reality we, as humans, are familiar with.

The nature of those projections, those created-from-projection UFOs are?

We don’t know yet – new or inscrutable phenomenological entity?

But UFOs are, that’s certain.

Are they worth all the energy spent on them? Jung says, “One can hardly suppose that anything of such worldwide incidence as the Ufo legend [sic] is purely fortuitous and of no importance.” [Page 13 of his book]

RR 

Can Psychic Projections Create UFOs? (Carl Jung doesn’t help me with that)

Copyright 2103, InterAmerica, Inc.


jungbook.jpg 
In re-reading Jung’s book – Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies [Bolligen Series, Princeton University Press, 1978] – for this excursion, I was taken aback by this in the Editorial Note by W.M. [vii]:

As early as 1946 Jung had begun to collect data on unidentified flying objects … he read virtually every book on the subject,

And Jung wrote [Page 131]  … in spite of the interest I have taken in the subject since about 1946

What (extensive?) material was there in 1946, about flying saucers? The Swedish “ghost rockets” and what else?

Jung refers to UFOs as a “rumour” and deals essentially with “the psychic aspect of the phenomenon”  writing that  “they [Ufos]  are to be regarded as symbols representing , in visual form, some thought that was not thought consciously. … The visible form, however, expresses the meaning of the unconscious content only approximately … the meaning has to be completed by amplificatory interpretation. [Page 19]

… [one] must think of such images not as forms inherent in the psyche but as existing somewhere in extra-psychic, metaphysical space, or else ad historical facts. [ibid]

He writes that “The alternative hypothesis that Ufos are something psychic that is endowed with certain physical properties seems even less probable, fro where should such a thing come from? [Page 110]

And … there is a … possibility: that Ufos are real material of an unknown nature, presumably coming from outer space … [ibid]

The possibility of a purely psychological explanation [of Ufos] is illusory, for a large number of observations point to a natural phenomenon or even a physical one. [Page 132]

The “disks” … show signs of intelligent guidance such as would suggest quasi-human pilots. [ibid]

Interestingly, Jung offers this about contactee Orfeo Angelucci, whose tale Jung presents in toto:

Angelucci has described in the greatest detail the mystic experience associated with a Ufo vision … The story is so naïve and clear that … it could be regarded as a unique document that sheds a great deal of light on the genesis and assimilation of Ufo mythology. [Page 117]

On Page 107 (in the paperback edition I’m using here) Jung writes:

Professor [Donald] Menzel, has not succeeded, despite all his efforts, in offering a satisfying scientific explanation of even one authentic Ufo report. [Page 107]

even if Ufos are physically real, the corresponding psychic projections are not exactly caused but are occasioned by them. [ibid]

And for some of us who think some UFO reports are hallucinatory is this:

In the individual, too, such phenomena as abnormal convictions, illusions, etc., only occur when he is suffering from psychic dissociation … [Page 13]

Jung got much of his Ufo information from the work of Captain Ed Ruppelt and his [Jung’s] association with Donald Keyhoe, and the Lorenzens (APRO) somewhat, with whom he was misinterpreted as a “flying saucer believer,” a position he disavowed.

Jung’s absolute position about flying saucers and Ufos [sic] was:

Something is seen, but it isn’t known what [Page 136] which he reiterated several times in his book and writings on the subject.

Jungs treats UFOs as archetypal symbols (the mandala) and products of psychical projections, skirting their reality as material objects.

His view, as I understand it, doesn’t allow for UFOs to be created, in situ or actually, by psychic projection, but he comes close to saying that:

I have found it impossible to determine even approximately the nature of these [Ufo] observations. So far only one thing is certain; it is not just a rumour, something is seen. What is seen may individual cases be a subjective vision (or hallucination), or, in the case of several observers seeing it simultaneously, a collective one. [Page 131]

Something material could be seen, or something psychic could be seen. Both are realities, but of different kinds. [Page 136]

And for CDA and a few others, Jung closes with this:

If it is true that the AAF [American Air Force] or the Government withholds telltale facts, then one can only say that this is the most unpsychological and stupid policy one could invent. Nothing helps rumours nd panics more than ignorance. It is self-evident that the public ought to be told the truth, because ultimately it will nevertheless come to the light of day. [Bold italics are mine]

And for Lance Moody and a few others:

The press seems to enjoy lies more than the truth. [In a letter to Donald Keyhoe. Page 138]

N.B. I’ll be providing, next up, what the title of this posting promises.

RR