UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Gaines M Crook on the UFO "Dilemma" and its Solution

We've inserted an interesting (to us) observation from Gaines M Crook concerning what to do about the UFO "dilemma" -- written in 2001.

Mr. Crook was at the edge of ufology, but only because he was circumspect and heterodox in his views.

You can read his views at our blog, UFO Heterodoxy by clicking HERE



  • This was written while abduction was still a thing and it's interesting that Crook chose to address it. I doubt it would be mentioned if written today.

    One axiom that Crook overlooks is that UFO believers would ONLY accept a scientific report that confirmed Saucer Jesus.


    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, February 04, 2014  

  • I'm afraid that Lance hit the mark on this one. No matter how much documentation/data that one provides that discounts the reality of UFO involvement, it is ignored.

    I've been following your post high lighting Crooks' work and found it very fascinating and enlightening.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, February 04, 2014  

  • There is more from Crook to come, Tim, but I'm afraid it's too much too late.

    Mr. Crook's material should have been in the UFO pipeline years ago.

    (My new post will explain why.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 04, 2014  

  • Lance wrote: "This was written while abduction was still a thing and it's interesting that Crook chose to address it. I doubt it would be mentioned if written today." - - -

    I'd beg to differ. I think "abduction" is "still a thing". Those who don't realize it are ignorant of the complexity of the subject and aren't aware of the online forums (often closed to the general public) that address this rather troubling and occult part of Ufology.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Tuesday, February 04, 2014  

  • @Lance"

    My father wasn't the kind to turn away from saying things most "believers" find distasteful... even if he did believe that "something odd" was actually occurring.

    "Abductions" are a part of the phenomena but where many "believers" are sold on the idea. He thought something was occurring but-- not what the abductees actually thought was occurring.

    To quote one of the documents which I have [and will send to RR if he does not have it] :

    "But are we looking at the abduction situation in a truly realistic manner? The most astounding thing about the whole abduction matter is that both the abductee and the investigator ignore the modus operandi of the physically impossible factors described in the episode and they are sometimes not even mentioned in the reports. I am speaking of the impossible things like being levitated into a UFO by means of a light beam, traveling through closed windows and solid walls, telepathic communication, the "turn off" of people who are present but whom are not involved in the proceedings, so-called mind scans, the appearance and disappearance of objects from the abductee's home, poltergeist-like activity in the house including violent shaking of the whole house as in an earthquake and the tracking of an individual so that no matter where he or she is they can be found and the bizarre procedure repeated."

    He goes on to say that if the "Intelligence" behind these 'observed effects' can appear to do all of these things up to and including planting thoughts or ideas in the mind of the percipient then how can we trust it or our own "memories"?

    To quote from the same document again:

    "Whatever is the driving force behind the abduction phenomena is a very, very powerful intelligence with a mass of deceptive tricks at Its disposal. The prime reason for our failure to make any progress in discovering anything about the UFO phenomena has been that in attempts to study it, it has been treated as if it were a natural phenomena and scientific techniques have been applied accordingly in the attempt to extract its secrets, when all along it should have been treated as an intelligence quarry spouting misinformation. Whatever it does, it covers its real intent, nature and modus operandi and leaves us guessing at the nature of its identity. We have made human, anthropomorphic assumptions where they do not apply. "

    So yes you are probably right his ideas certainly flowed against current "belief".

    As for an Axiom of Belief? I think he would have held there is a similar Axiom at work in the "Skeptic" community which seems to be just as much a "belief" based.

    Certainly one can say: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." The problem here is that with that line of thinking, most of modern physics and mathematics are on shaky ground because they cannot "prove" the existence of the fundamental particles which most of modern science is predicated upon. Does it falsify science? No.

    Yet Science looks the other way when confronted with Godel's Proof concerning "axiomatic systems" which effectively states there is always a fundamental assumption in any axiomatic system that is unprovable.

    So why then does the observation of the "odd" or "impossible" drive skeptics crazy? Is it because it sounds absurd? or is it because it questions their chosen, unprovable beliefs in what they believe to be real? I tend to think in is for the second reason.

    I don't believe most of the conclusions of "true believers" are 'true' but I do not discount the possibility that their observations 'may' be accurate observation as far as that goes... which leaves the kinds of questions my father as a scientist and engineer was trying to answer rather than deny or make excuses.


    joel crook

    By Blogger JHC, at Tuesday, February 04, 2014  

  • Joel,

    I appreciate your response. No, the observation of the paranormal doesn't drive me crazy. I would love for some of this stuff to have a basis in reality.

    What drives me to fight against these kinds of claims is that the evidence used to support them is terrible.

    By misrepresenting or misunderstanding the actual evidence, the believers bring science down, bring education down, and bring knowledge down.

    I don't know how long your Dad was interested in the topic, but after many years of following the topic, I can honestly say that there is not one UFO case for which I think there is actionable evidence. There are some unknowns certainly and some of them are interesting but they don't tip the scales past prosaic possibilities.

    The idea that skeptics and believers stand on the same ground is bullshit. Those making the assertion have the responsibility of supporting the claim. Those standing behind known scientific understanding have NO requirement to do anything. Pointing out how crappy the UFO evidence is is just a courtesy extended to the believers. And it ought to be lauded instead of being greeted with suspicion.



    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, February 04, 2014  

  • @ Lance

    My father followed the subject for atleast 50 years. I sent RR copies of two documents wherein he recounted a "visitation" in 1954. At the time he worked at a Nuclear facility and he held a Q Security Clearance. It may have led him to want to understand what was observed.

    I suppose the first proof to me of his desire to know, measure, and understand was the discovery of an apparent landing site with a "burn spot" in Death Valley in 1966. It was a mile from the nearest road with no trail or other possible indication of human "poaching". In those days Death Valley was not well visited.

    He measured it, had soil samples analyzed, took photos with infrared film to enhance detail and his conclusion was the site was not the result of a "human cause". But like all apocryphal stories so far as I know the physical report was "lost".

    In the 70s and 80s he "chased lights" in the desert to the north of L.A. and there too observed anomalous events. [Some of these are recounted in documents I have forwarded to RR]

    I think the difference in his thinking from yours is that while it is obvious that the conclusions drawn by "believers" are highly questionable. he thought throwing out their observations because of their conclusions was unscientific.

    At what point does an anomalous event or collection of anomalous events become significant?

    If you really are doing Science, a single anomalous event should be enough to cause one to take a second look at the science and at the cause.

    Again this is where my father's writings differ than 99% of the believers. He was a) certain the anomalous events were real and b) the conclusions of "believers" in ETH and anthromorphic aliens most likely wrong.

    His thinking was that the observation of a phenomena was a doorway to understanding its cause.. but that jumping to conclusions as to the cause [as the ETH has done for ~70 years] leads no where except self deception.

    He was convinced that yes there are ways for UFOs to do what they do if [a big if] the "Intelligence" were able to bend or break what human science considers as "Laws".

    The ones that he settled on were if the "constants" of Vacuum Permissivity and Vacuum Permitivity were "variables" for the "Intelligence" then many of the 'unexplained observations' of UFOs become explainable. While he had begun to lay the ground work for investigating that hypothesis he was unable [due to declining health] to do so.


    Joel Crook

    By Blogger JHC, at Tuesday, February 04, 2014  

  • > drive skeptics crazy? Is it because it sounds absurd? or is it because it questions their chosen, unprovable beliefs in what they believe to be real?

    Mr. Crook, that rhetoric is so tiresome. Frequently one will read that skeptics (and some ufological iconoclasts) come to ufology because of their early interest in and HOPE FOR the possibility of alien visitors.

    Just yesterday, someone sent me "Think" by Guy Harrison, where he says exactly that (p 94).

    But after 65+ years of claims that don't pan out, it is reasonable that some people remain skeptical -- a natural and scientific posture toward unproven claims.

    The book I was reading yesterday had this to say about decades of entertaining the same old unprovable beliefs: "Where does one draw the line? Where is the borderline between open-mindedness and stupidity?" (Douglas Hofstadter, Metamagical Themas, p 114)

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Thursday, February 13, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home