UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, February 10, 2014

Nick Redfern on Howard Hughes and UFOs

Author Nick Redfern has a Mysterious Universe piece addressing a (possible) Howard Hughes/UFO connection, which we have contended in the Socorro incident of 1964. [See previous posting below this one.]

Click HERE for Nick's MU article.

14 Comments:

  • All very interesting but I see nothing whatever in what Nick reports that ties HH into the world-wide UFO phenomenon. He was a super smart and strange but the UFO phenomenon is stranger by many orders of magnitude.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • RR-

    ...Redfern's post is actually very thought-provoking; this may be the first time I was influenced by his writings.... (my clumsy attempt at using Allen Hynek's classic 'praising with faint damns' pun...)

    ...and as I am not a writer/media communicator, but a mere technonerd, let me just throw out here that Stan Lee's inspiration for the 1963 comic book hero 'Iron Man' was Howard Hughes... the original Tony Stark even sported THE Hughes pencil thin mustache...

    ...and playing off the 'pencil thin mustache' theme, may I also mention that Jimmy Buffett, of 'Pencil Thin Mustache' songwriting fame was born on Christmas Day...pretty close in calendar terms to Hughes' Christmas Eve...

    (the proceeding was an example of what happens when one applies the Rudiak 'Occulist's Razor' approach to popular culture...)

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • Dominick:

    I think the point is that Hughes and his ToolCo and Aircraft enterprises were creating or working on prototypical aircraft that may have been mistaken for UFOs during testings, that's all.

    No one is taking away your UFO phenomenon.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • Dominick

    WTF?????

    I am getting more and more sick and tired every day of having to explain shit to people who don't read what I write.

    You say: "All very interesting but I see nothing whatever in what Nick reports that ties HH into the world-wide UFO phenomenon."

    So fucking what? I don't make any claims (at all) in the article (or even any suggestions) that Hughes WAS tied into the world-wide UFO phenomenon. So why make such a comment?

    Did you simply misread what I wrote?

    What I said is that we have a letter sent to the FBI, we have a friendship with George van Tassel, and the lunar module link. That's it.

    And look at how I close the article (last paragraph): "Right now, we have a few strands, a couple of thought-provoking leads, a few pieces of documentation, and that’s it."

    How all of that can lead you to make a comment that "...I see nothing whatever in what Nick reports that ties HH into the world-wide UFO phenomenon..." I really don't know, since I never made any such suggestion in the first place!

    Instead, I actually pointed out how - right now - we have barely a few strands, and it will take a deeper investigation to take it any further.

    That's 10 minutes of the working day I have had to waste replying to a comment that is meaningless in terms of its relationship to the article.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • KP: You can keep your "faint damns."

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • For exemple:
    http://www.isnare.com/?aid=270655&ca=World+Affairs

    By Blogger Unknown, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • NicK, Nick, get a grip and cool it down a notch. I generally find your work intelligent and interesting. But given the title that RR put on that post, and given your title ("Howard Hughes and UFOs") I was lead to believe that that I would find some material information linking HH to the UFO mystery. I read the piece, twice. Where is it, pray tell? I didn't find any material linkage, none whatsoever, and I don't think that's my fault!

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • It is your fault because I SPECIFICALLY state in the article (and I quote): "Right now, we have a few strands, a couple of thought-provoking leads, a few pieces of documentation, and that’s it."

    As that paragraph above shows,I stress the lack of data! And I stress the fragmentary nature of the HH/UFO link.

    Yes, there IS an HH/UFO link, but nowhere do I claim or imply in the article it's a solid link or even a large link.

    My point - as the article makes clear - is that the available data on HH and UFOs is (right now) slim, but where there is smoke there is sometimes fire, and that it will require investigative digging to figure out the truth.

    I did not try to make a case for HH being plugged into the "world-wide UFO phenomenon."

    Now, maybe a deep investigation will show he WAS plugged in - or that he wasn't. But I clearly show the evidence is thin until someone takes up the challenge.

    I don't see how you can view my article than anything other than something which is designed to encourage someone to follow up on these small snippets.

    It's not a case of me trying to suggest we have proof of some huge HH/UFO conspiracy or connection.

    That's the very last thing the article is.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • I doubt Howard Hughes was interested in UFOs at all.

    That his prototype aircraft and/or lunar modules (which he worked on with the Soviets) were mistaken for UFOs seems probable, and I contend is the cause of the Socorro event.

    But let's not go there again. It's too germane for some.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • Well, whether HH was interested in UFOs or not is moot. But that he was friends with Van Tassel is a fact.

    My issue here, in this thread, is that because I write an article on the HH link to UFOs, Dominick seems to think I am implying a large or definitive link.

    Why, I have no idea, since my article clearly demonstrates the exact opposite.

    The article makes it very clear that (A) the links are small but interesting nevertheless; and (B) that I recommend someone digs deep into all this to see if it leads anywhere.

    I make a case for someone looking into all this. I do not even attempt to suggest some vast HH/UFO link for some simple reason: I have not seen any evidence of such.

    But do I think it's worth bringing the scant HH-UFO links to peoples attention, in case someone is up for the investigative challenge?

    Yes, I do and that is ALL I did in my article.

    But Dominick seems to think if I write about the link I must be preparing the reader for masses of data, when I accurately pointed out it's a small amount...so far.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • Our friend Dominick always gets a little antsy if someone suggests that UFOs might have a mundane or prosaic connection, even if that connection has no impact on UFOs per se.

    I've made a study of Howard Hughes over the years and while he was heavily involved with space exploration and satellites, I found no mention of UFOs anywhere which would indicate he had an interest in the things.

    But being an aeronaut of the highest order, one can, rightfully, assume that UFOs entered his mind-set at some time or another.

    But his primary interest was airplanes of the Earthian kind.

    That he may have been a consultant to the CIA or other government agencies about UFOs is a possibility, but I've found no evidence for that, and I've looked.

    But what if Howard Hughes was part of a psychological operation (psy-op) for the CIA or military involving UFOs?

    After all, Hughes' medical facilities were engaged in various kinds of work, biological and psychological.

    Such activity on Hughes part would be deeply hidden.

    Nick's obscure find may be a "footprint" that leads somewhere interesting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • No, Rich, I get "antsy" when someone writes an article with the title "Howard Hughes: The UFO Link" and the article, in fact, contains no link whatsoever. Nick, I can understand if someone else titled your piece. I've been writing articles and op/eds since 1969 and have frequently been the victim of editors who mis-title articles. If that's the case, I understand and sympathize. But if you titled it, you must at least agree that there should have least been a question mark after "link." In short, I get antsy when titles suggest something that is simply not confirmed in the body of the article.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Thursday, February 13, 2014  

  • Dominick:

    My title is the "Nick Redfern on UFOs..."

    Nick's title appears on his Mysterious Universe "article."

    I don't have a problem with Nick's title, as his use of the word "link" comes from Nick's finding of the Van Tassel connection ("link")and is interesting as it leads me to believe that there is more than smoke in the Hughes UFO connection.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 13, 2014  

  • Dominick

    Jesus Christ. There IS a Hughes link in the article: (a) the FBI was the recipient of a letter concerning an alleged new aircraft connected to Hughes and connected to the UFO phenomenon; (b) he regularly hung out with a famous 1950s contactee; and (c)there is the possible Socorro issue.

    They are links and they are scant links, but the whole point (AGAIN!) is that I make it very clear the links are scant when I state the following:

    "Right now, we have a few strands, a couple of thought-provoking leads, a few pieces of documentation, and that’s it."

    How many more times can I say that the article offers HH/UFO links, but right now they are slim and will require much digging to see if it leads anywhere?

    I make it abundantly clear in the article I'm not trying to suggest we have major links between HH and UFOs. We have slim links, fragments and nothing else. If I had tried to suggest otherwise you would have a point, but I'm very open and clear that the links are slim and that we need someone to study this deeper if we are going to take the story any further.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, February 13, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home