UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, August 31, 2013

The Little Blue Man [January 28, 1967]

Scanning David Richie's 1994 book, UFO...(noted here many times), I came across an odd account on Page 125 about a group of United Kingdom children espying a "little blue man" in a dell near their school on January 28th ,1967.

Googling "little blue man," I found this account at:

http://myths.e2bn.org/mythsandlegends/textonly30-the-little-blue-man.html

The Little Blue Man
On January 28th back in 1967, some young friends, aged between ten and eleven years, were playing near the Dell at Studham.

A footpath leads to the Dell, which is like a small overgrown valley, surrounded by bushes and trees beside Studham Common. It had been raining earlier but now the sky had cleared.

As the boys chattered, suddenly a flash of lightning struck nearby. One of the boys, Alex Butler, who was a little way ahead of the others, stopped in surprise when he reached the edge of the bank above the Dell. For standing near some bushes, at the foot of the opposite bank, about twenty yards away, was “a little blue man.”

For a moment or two, Alex stared at this curious stranger in amazement, before shouting to his friends to come and look. They too stopped in bewilderment.

The little blue man was about three feet tall, with a tall hat or helmet, which added to his height, and he glowed blue all over. He had two round eyes, a strange flat triangle instead of a nose, and his arms, which were short, were held at his side and did not appear to move.

His blue beard was forked, the two parts running down each side of his chest. The strange little man wore a one-piece suit, again of a glowing blue with a black belt; in front of the buckle was a black box, about six inches square.

As the boys got near to where he was standing, a strange whirring cloud of yellow-blue mist moved towards them and, in an instant, the strange little man vanished! As their eyes searched the Dell, they spotted him again. This time they also heard strange babbling voices. Were there more strange little blue men hidden in the undergrowth?

Twice more, as the boys tried to approach him, the little blue man disappeared into a puff of yellow-blue mist! Then the boys heard the sound of the school bell and rushed off in great excitement to tell their teacher, Mrs. Newcomb, everything they had seen and heard. After listening to their story, their teacher made them write it all down and made sure there was no copying.

On March 3rd, 1967, the Dunstable Gazette ran a short article on the little blue man and that led to a reporter, from the Flying Saucer Review, interviewing the boys and gathering all the details together.
Who or what was the little blue man?

Some people felt the boys had imagined it all. However, the boys' teacher felt sure they had been telling the truth and that the unusual incident had really happened. U.F.O. investigators suggested that the black box could have been a receiver and the forked beard some kind of breathing apparatus. However, no U.F.O. sightings were reported in the area at that time.

There was more at:

http://myths.e2bn.org/mythsandlegends/origins30-the-little-blue-man.html

What a weird, queer story.

Since it seems unlikely [sic] that a set of children would have a folie a cinq or group hallucination, or that a hoax was perpetuated, the story intrigues.

What is the significance of the lightning bolt, which seems to have precipitated the event?

Is this a Caravaca "Distortion" scenario? (I don't think so.)

What do you British blokes (Redfern, CDA) make of this?

RR

Our Resident Skeptics (and “believers”)

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.
Kevin Randle’s blog attracts, mostly, the same skeptics that “haunt” this blog: Lance Moody, Christopher Allan [aka CDA], Gilles Fernandez, and sometimes Zoam Chomsky [known in UFO circles as “The Iron Skeptic”].

You know the definition of “skeptic” or “skepticism” so I won’t enter it here, but I do want to point out how I see skepticism applied by these blokes….

Lance Moody is no so much a staunch skeptic as a guy who hates stupidity, illogical and/or ignorant conclusions and hypotheses by UFO buffs. (David Rudiak really irks Lance.)

CDA is, like me, I think – we’re about the same age – a fellow who was thrilled and excited in his youth by flying saucer reports and UFOs, believing them to be the vanguard of an extraterrestrial visitation. But as time went on and CDA matured, he saw no proof of extraterrestrial saucers and the elusive UFO phenomenon merely deepened as an odd mystery. Roswell became an obsession but the goofy research by such UFO dignitaries as Stan Friedman, Kevin Randel (yes), and others offput CDA and he finds the whole Roswell affair to be a bête noire of ineptitude, with the idea that science wouldn’t have kept an alien crash quiet for almost 70 years if one actually happened near Roswell.

Gilles Fernandez, a cognitive psychologist, is squeamish about anything in “ufology:” that smacks of extraterrestrialism. He’s the only skeptic with a serious effort and internet site that addresses, academically mostly, the hodge podge of UFO reports over the years that are flush with errors and errant conclusions. (He gets testy when someone inserts a definitive statement that, on the face of it, is just plain full of merde.)

Zoam Chomsky is anti-UFO all the way: UFOs do not exist, reports are bogus from the get-go and people who believe in UFOs are an ignorant lot who have made UFOs into their “religion.”

Then we have PurrlGurrl [PG] who, like me, has had a UFO sighting/experience. She isn’t anti-UFO but she is anti-Ufology, finding the whole field of UFO study to be replete with charlatans and phonies. (While Gilles finds ufology to be a joke, PG finds it to be a vast wasteland of bullshit.)

Paul Kimball has an open mind about UFOs, thinking the phenomenon is worthy of scant, occasional study and attention, but the phenomenon is a mystery that remains and may remain elusive to human beings.

Nick Redfern uses UFOs as a vehicle for writing books and making a living. He also, like Paul, sees the mystery as intriguing but also elusive to the point that we may never know what UFOs are or
have been, a feeling he also holds for Roswell – an event that is hidden from explanation by the botched investigations of UFO “researchers” over the years and even now.

Frank Stalter is fascinated by some UFO events such as Socorro, which he sees, definitely, as a hoax event in the same way that Anthony Bragalia does. (How he feels about UFOs in general is not clear to me.)

Frank Warren is a UFO addict, like me, collecting and studying UFO reports, past and present, as if they are worthy items for serious study. He is cautious about what UFOs are and what some UFO events have been seen as.)

Dominick is a UFO believer, a fellow who knows his UFO lore and finds most of it to be authentic.

Ross is a fellow who hates UFO persons pussy-footing around with UFO information. (His current aggravations lie with Kevin Randle’s Roswell Dream Team, which Ross thinks is holding back their “new finds.”)

Larry and Lawrence, two distinct personages, are UFO believers, both highly intelligent and well versed in UFO lore and the current status of “ufology.”  (They represent, for me, what UFO buffs should be: well versed in the apparent technologies of the phenomenon and the possibility that UFOs are more than a transient phenomenon.)

Kurt Peters ???????

While I am skeptical about some UFO events (Socorro as an ET incident), I do see Roswell containing the possibility – possibility! – of being an ET accident. Other UFO events I see as weird but bona fide experiences by witnesses are noted at this blog with the proviso that such experiences may be psycho-neurological in nature.

And UFOs are a real phenomenon, tangible in some instances and evanescent in others, but a mystery that is only worthy of hobby-study, the topic not one to get overworked about or stressed out over.

Skeptics who refute the possibility of UFOs altogether seem to me to be persons who have lost the ability to see the poetic-like manifestations of things odd but real which end up in our faces now and then.

Skeptics who eschew possibilities irk, they are closed-minded. They can eschew probabilities but when they say things are impossible, I write them off, even though I give them “air-time” here. (After all I’m not a censorial fascist.)

(Feel free to correct my impressions.)
RR