UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, August 16, 2013

The Accuracy of UFO Reports

The Accuracy of UFO Reports

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

PurrlGurrl and Kurt Peters observe that we UFO buffs only have UFO accounts/reports, not UFOs themselves, with which to deal or strive to explain; all we have are the reports.

That is basically true (unless one believes that Wright-Patterson Air Base in Dayton, Ohio houses UFO artifacts and remains, the thesis of the Carey/Schmitt book, The Real AREA 51, castigated by me in a review, you might recall).

But are UFO reports to be treated so dismissively?

I don’t think so, and here’s why…

A person who observes a UFO and reports it is subject to an intervention by a UFO organization, police report, or media member.

The report, the initial observation, will, generally, be succinct, pithy to the point of frustration by anyone who wants a precise, thorough accounting, but it will contain a gist of what was seen or experienced, with the salient details.

People aren’t devoid of descriptive talent, and usually accurate as to what was the essence of their observation, even though the consensus is that witness accounts are flawed by the observer’s errant sensory input or biased mind-set.

The gist, no matter what, is usually accurate, however; that is, the basic observation, stripped of errant accretions, is not far from the reality.

The problem with UFO reports is that those taking down the accounts often have a livid bias, one way or another – an ET tendency (MUFON) or an atheistic tendency (the cops).

That bias will end up, subliminally and often overtly, in UFO reports.

(I’ve included examples prior to this posted insert, and you are familiar with many elaborate UFO tales that are marred by falsehoods, erroneous additions, and errors of various kinds.)

But if one can get back to original accounts, by the witnesses themselves – sooner than later – one will have a substantive narrative worthy of exegesis.

(The problem with Roswell, as our skeptical friends continue to tell us, is that witness accounts at his late stage of the story, and even in 1978, are marred by the vicissitudes of memory, age, mental disfigurements of many kinds, and even purposeful confabulations.)

But what if we have pristine renderings, some found in the Vallee/Aubeck book, Wonders in the Sky, or in cave art and ancient clay tablet indentations?

Or what about this:

… I heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to the southwest some distance away … Flame was bluish and sort of orange, too … Sort of motionless flame. Slowly descending.  … it was a narrow type of flame. It was like a “streamed down” --  funnel type – narrower at the top than at bottom. Flame possibly three degrees or so in width – not wide …
Flame was about twice as wide at bottom than top and about four times as high as top was wide. Did not notice any object at top, did not notice if top of flame was level. Sun was west … Could not see bottom of flame because it was behind the hill.

No smoke noted.

Noise was a roar, not a blast. Not like a jet …

Suddenly noted a shiny type object … Saw two people in white coveralls very close to object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled – seemed to quickly jump somewhat.

…Objects [sic] were like aluminum – was whitish against the mesa background, not chrome. Seemed like oval in shape …

… Those persons appeared normal in shape – but possibly they were small adults or large kids .

Object was oval in shape. It was smooth – no windows or doors … noted red lettering of some type. Insignia about two and a half feet wide, guess. Was in middle of object like drawing. Object still like aluminum – white.

…I heard about two or three loud thumps, like someone hammering or shutting a door hard …

… I saw the object going way from me in a southwest direction …

The object seemed to lift up slowly and to get small in the distance very fast …It disappeared as it went over the mountains. It had no flame whatsoever …

I got my pencil and drew a picture of the insignia …

Excerpts of Lonnie Zamora’s Socorro report [1964] from Pages 214-218 in The Hynek UFO Report [Barnes & Noble Books, NY, 1997]

Could there be, is there, a finer UFO report extant? I don’t think so.

This is a pure, credible UFO report.

What it betokens is up for grabs, and has been since 1964, but as a report, it is without equal and a superb piece of “evidence” for the UFO researcher.

UFO not needed. The report is ample enough, and complete enough to allow conjecture and investigatory query.

If all we have are reports like this, or only this one, then Peters’ and PG’s plaint falls on deaf ears. A UFO at hand, while desired perhaps, is not necessary to see that something odd happened in Socorro in 1964. And that something appears (and has appeared) to be of such a queer nature that anyone with an inquisitive mind would see an explanation or, at least, offer a reasoned conjecture or hypothesis as to what Police Officer Zamora saw and reported.

And it is a report, after all….not a UFO, but a description of one that allows a sensible person to conclude that, in 1964, a thing was seen that provides objective mystery.

If we had other UFO reports, not unlike the Zamora report – and we do actually -- then one can make assumptions and statements about the reports and that which appears in them.

To pretend one can’t do so is obstinacy of an intransigent kind, something that belies scientific or scientific-like inquiry.


Supplemental Reading

This is a book -- one left at Amazon (for $20.43) -- that supplements some of the material here by me, and others (in comments).

The Amazon blurb:

Creations of the Mind presents sixteen original essays by theorists from a wide variety of disciplines who have a shared interest in the nature of artifacts and their implications for the human mind. All the papers are written specially for this volume, and they cover a broad range of topics concerned with the metaphysics of artifacts, our concepts of artifacts and the categories that they represent, the emergence of an understanding of artifacts in infants' cognitive development, as well as the evolution of artifacts and the use of tools by non-human animals. This volume will be a fascinating resource for philosophers, cognitive scientists, and psychologists, and the starting point for future research in the study of artifacts and their role in human understanding, development, and behavior. 

Contributors: John R. Searle, Richard E. Grandy, Crawford L. Elder, Amie L. Thomasson, Jerrold Levinson, Barbara C. Malt, Steven A. Sloman, Dan Sperber, Hilary Kornblith, Paul Bloom, Bradford Z. Mahon, Alfonso Caramazza, Jean M. Mandler, Deborah Kelemen, Susan Carey, Frank C. Keil, Marissa L. Greif, Rebekkah S. Kerner, James L. Gould, Marc D. Hauser, Laurie R. Santos, and Steven Mithen.

UFOs and Quantum Entanglement

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.


Wikipedia on Quantum Entanglement – HERE 
That UFOs behave very much like quantum particles – an hypothesis we’ve dealt with early on here, at this blog and our RRRGroup blog – offers the possibility of applying quantum mechanic methodologies to the phenomenon, or its reports, to determine the nature of the things.

During the appearance of multiple UFOs, if the report is extensive and exhaustive (or precise), one skilled in quantum movement and/or measurement, might be able to discern if UFOs act upon quantum principles; that is, do UFOs mimic quantum particles (or waves)?

I am inclined to think they do, after reviewing UFO accounts over the years.

There is also another area that might be explored.

When a UFO sighting or event takes place, is there a concomitant sighting elsewhere at the same time which duplicates, in essential ways, the first sighting under review?

For instance, if a UFO is seen moving erratically in the sky – moving from east to west in a notable way, is there another UFO sighting, anywhere in the world, where a UFO is seen moving in the sky, west to east, at the same time, simultaneously.

Also, if there is one of those queer UFO encounters with beings or an unusual object, can we find another encounter, elsewhere, at the very same time, that duplicates the behavior and features or aspects of the initial reported sighting?

Another take on quantum entanglement – HERE.

Quantum mechanics, as a theory of reality, is tough to understand, and quantum entanglement more so, perhaps.

But if UFO researchers want to be rehabilitated as serious persons with a serious methodology in their arsenal -- ufology – quantum theory should be considered.


Area 51 Really Exists! (Is that a revelation?)

USA Today headlines a non-story: