UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

UFOs and Roswell are myths? So what?

I have a plethora of books about mythology and I find the exegeses of Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, et al. to be intellectually stimulating.

Even the charge that Jesus/Christ was a mythical creation, I find fascinating.

And that there is no God is also provocative, as I see it.

So when French skeptic Gilles Fernandez insists that UFOs, and Roswell in particular, are modern myths, I scoff. So what?

Or when Zoam Chomsky rails on and on that UFOs have always been a hoax, and have never existed, I shrug and think, so what?

Myths and hoaxes are grist for intellectual rumination, as the vast literature corroborates.

The study of UFOs, Roswell, Jesus, or even Bigfoot is worthy in themselves for the underlying motives that spurred such phenomena.

If UFOs are delusional, is there not material in that worthy of scrutiny?

If Roswell came to fruition by way of Stanton Friedman’s coercive ET bias, isn’t that a topic for elucidation?

Sure, the topics of UFOs, generally, or Roswell, in particular, aren’t practical or economically relevant, but they are grist for those who are often fascinated by the strange and odd.

So, beleaguering UFO aficionados, as Gilles is wont to do, and Lance or CDA also, is futile and nonsensical.

The subject matter is fraught with intellectual innuendo, or something more, perhaps.

That we shouldn’t talk or write about UFOs, as incongruous as the topic may be, is a stab a censorship, a fascistic plea to shut up about something(s) that irk a few.

UFO, and its flaky offshoot, Ufology, may not make sense to some, but inside the UFO realm lie truths of various kinds.

And truth, or search for it, as convoluted as it is, intrinsically, is always worth a moment or two in one’s lifetime, is it not?



  • If UFOs are delusional, is there not material in that worthy of scrutiny?

    Well my friend, the UFO modern myth is an object of study for Human Sciences. And yes, it's a modern mass delusion!

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • If the term UFO simply implies an "unexplained aireal phenomenon" than, surely, some UFO reports are not "myths"...if "myths" implies something totally without physical substance. Some UFOs often appear as lights in the night sky that behave in ways which appear very peculiar, and where most explanations (flares, misidentification of planets, etc) can be ruled out. (The History Channel last night replayed a 2008 program of the Tinley Park, Ohio (1994) sightings by police officers and the triangular videos shot by 3 different sets of witnesses. One police cruiser's engine was killed as the UFO flew over and restarted as it moved away. Myths? Hardly.) The Leveland, TX multiple sightings of November, 1957 also fit this very strange category. Granted that most UFO reports are bogus but a very small residue of (multiple) sighting cases with video or radar confirmation are not mythical. Why can't we get agreement on that and deal only with these cases?

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • For example of this UFO modern myth circular arguments, see or read how "L'ami Tony Bragalia" (or any one other of the "dreamteam", and myth tellers, as the infamous Schmitt & Carey are reffering to.... THEMSELVES!

    That's pseudo-science: You have a question? You contest one more thing I have pointed? See ME you are asking for! Huhu!

    They have none SCIENTIFIC evidence from the first Roswell' Evangile: they only conjugue it.

    Roswell is a modern myth, as UFO.

    Regards true thinkers!


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • I highly recommend UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth by Benson Saler, Charles A. Ziegler, and Charles Moore. Folks might actually learn something.

    Or you could listen to Dr. Saler on my podcast at: http://youtu.be/TaaKOlK8IrM.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • Myths are an interesting topic for study, as you say. But some protagonists go too far, much too far, by insisting such-and-such an event (e.g. Roswell) is literally an ET event, and more important, that the authorities have covered it up for decade after decade.

    Of course, we could make a separate study of those myths that have, as their central thesis, the idea that some official body somewhere, e.g. the US government, has covered up a great event for, say, a century or more.

    I dare say there are such events, though I cannot think of one right now. But the idea that extra-terrestrial intelligent life could, or would, be covered up for umpteen decades is not really a myth. It is fantasy pure and simple.

    Yet we have supposedly intelligent people repeatedly telling us the above scenario is true, literally.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • Dominick said it best. UFOs that appear on radar, have multiple witnesses, and other corroborative evidence is not mass delusion or a modern myth. Any other sightings that are one offs or lack any real supportive evidence simply do not matter. Those are the cases that give the phenomenon such a bad reputation. They are also the ones that folks like Gilles love to point out.

    Now, I'm not saying cases where the UFO has a radar signature and has multiple witnesses is an alien space craft- just simply unidentified and requires further investigation.
    What is so hard to understand about it? Why must it be considered a fringe topic left for only weirdos and fools? Is it not a legitimate question?

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • One can believe in "Unicorns From Outer space" or any demonstrably false and known to be purely imaginary bunk he likes--just don't pretend that it's real. And certainly don't pretend that the mass of phony justifications for believing it's real constitutes some kind of specialized knowledge, a science. And finally and most emphatically, do not promote that pseudoscience as a legitimate alternative to an established science, because refusing to play by the rules is an act of Anti-science!

    So show where I tell anyone to stop anything. Showing how and why long-decided issues are simply that, and how and why conspiracy idiocy and saucer dumbassery is worthless even to those lost inside the "UFO" delusion--and certainly without it in the real world--are not only completely legitimate but essential contributions to these discussions of the myth because there is nothing beyond that myth but a worthless and dangerous delusion. Let's make belief in the "UFO" myth and delusion history.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • "UFOs that appear on radar, have multiple witnesses, and other corroborative evidence is not mass delusion or a modern myth."

    Only people make "UFO" reports, Dan, not radar or any other instrument, and not spooked farm animals. And social psychology has explained very well how multiple witnesses, together or apart, can misinterpret a mundane event in much the same fantastic way because they're conditioned to that misinterpretation: Just how many examples of reentering space junk reported as "spaceships" do you need to see?.

    "Other corroborative evidence" you know of should be produced for inspection....

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • Zoam, so are you saying that an unknown flying object that has a radar signature, photographic evidence, and multiple witnesses is pure fantasy?
    UFOs don't deserve their own branch of science- but some cases do beckon further investigation.
    I would think making blanket statements and treating science as if it were a strict religion would be "anti-science". Or maybe a better term- "anti-discovery".

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • I have lived long enough to recognize that in every truth theres some fiction and in every fiction there is truth. There are no winners or losers. The only qualifier is the use of perhaps or maybe instead of such and such is a fact when it comes to a question that remains open ended.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, July 01, 2014  

  • I woudn't even discuss a word with zoam. He has a robotic personality and a religious belief in what he thinks is science. Most probably not a scientist.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Rich,

    Once again our skeptical friends are trotting out their mythical version of "science" to claim [in bald face] that unexplained events have never happened or are mass delusion.

    Then perhaps they don't believe that there were a good number of events listed in the Condon Report which are described as unexplained. Taking those reports at face value, how do our skeptical friends explain those unexplained observations? They didn't happen? The government investigators could not reasonably explain them but even so they did not happen.

    While it is easy to say "they're all delusional!" one then can ask the same of their own belief in science. Prove there is a quark or a Higgs Boson. Our Skeptical friends will say everybody knows that... but point them at a government sponsored study that comes up with a number of unexplained events and they will still call the observers delusional. One might also wonder why the French government has funded UFO investigations and a large percentage of those reports are also unexplained.

    It seems that our skeptical friends have failed to be scientific. One unexplained event is enough to rock the world of science and scientific theory. Witness the grad student that published the paper recently that says if the Higgs exists according to theory then the Universe should not exist... which shows there is something wrong with the theory.

    So when you have a government report that lists numerous unexplained events and has no scientific explanation for them [other than to have ignored that data in its conclusions] then you have an *actual* *scientific* *mystery*... but our Skeptical friends say "there are no mysteries", "they are all delusional", "This is not scientific", "this is myth", etc, etc... I can only conclude that our friends are not Scientists at all but believe that if the facts don't fit their belief that throwing away the facts and making Ad Hominum attacks will make those unexplained events go away...

    As I've said before, in the scheme of things, Roswell is rather unimportant but there are a probably dozens of others which are much more important.

    The Condon Report had a list of unexplained observations and Condon & Co could not explain them. [And we all pretty much know how bad Condon was at doing actual "Science"] Our Skeptical friends say "believers" are obliged to prove those events were explicable and show proof...

    On the contrary, I don't need to explain any of those events -- a group of government people have already put the stamp of "unexplained" on them. So I don't need to prove they are unexplained and I make no claim at all as to what they were [unlike some who have a specific agenda like ETH or the Skeptics].

    It is our skeptical friends who need to "put up or shut up" by proving *all* of those events were unexplained. Also note that the scientific method requires proof and even one unexplained event nullifies their claim that there is no such thing as UFO or unexplained events.

    Bullying people, calling them liars, or otherwise avoiding showing your proof that those unexplained events did not occur will reveal your lack of standing to either "do science" or represent yourself as a "scientific skeptic".

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Don
    Until conclusive proof is provided to us otherwise I strongly suspect Zoam Chompsky does not exist.
    If you look carefully at his photographic identity it's actually the late Patrick McGoohan.
    Circumstantial evidence suggests and infers it's actually a DARPA software program designed to be contrary to ordinary.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • There is really no hard evidence that Zoam exists. After all, do we have any multiple witnesses? Is there any photographic evidence or any radar signatures or any police reports that their cruisers failed when someone who calls himself Zoamchomsky was in the area? Any physical trace evidence that we can submit to a reputable lab? No, none, zero. I submit, therefore, in accordance with the rules of science, that we have no reliable evidence whatever for the so-called Zoamchomsky phenomenoa and that it is all "imaginary bunk", a myth not to be taken seriously. Case closed.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Rich, your article did not refer to ET except in an aside, the example of "Stanton Friedman’s coercive ET bias".

    Yet, look at the responses. ET advocates and skeptics demonstrating their death-grips on each others butts.

    Best Regards,


    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Social psychology has explained very well how multiple witnesses, together or apart, can misinterpret a mundane event in much the same fantastic way because they're conditioned to that misinterpretation: Just how many examples of reentering space junk reported as "spaceships" do you need to see?

    Dan asks, "are you saying that an unknown flying object that has a radar signature, photographic evidence, and multiple witnesses is pure fantasy?"

    How did the "misinterpretation" of a real space junk become "pure fantasy?"

    And can you reference a real-world "UFO" case like you're describing or do they subsist only in the hypothetical and never-neverland of flying-saucer fairy tales?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Joel:

    You ask for us to explain all the unexplained cases in the Condon Report.

    I seriously doubt that any of them would now constitute a true 'unknown'. Menzel and Taves dealt with most, if not all, of them in THE UFO ENIGMA. You may dismiss Menzel if you wish, but at least he made some attempt at explaining these cases. So have various others.

    Not that it matters much. No body, official or unofficial, can explain each and every UFO sighting. There will always be the 'hard cases'. One example is the much discussed Trent photos, listed as unexplained in the Condon report but hotly disputed on this blog, and elsewhere, ever since. Even a pro-ETHer like Anthony Bragalia, tells us the Trent pics are fakes!

    Ufology is a highly contentious subject. A case that is an 'unknown' to A is a 'known' to B.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • CDA: "Even a pro-ETHer like Anthony Bragalia, tells us the Trent pics are fakes!"

    Afaict, Tony believes every significant case he's written about that I know of, except Roswell, is a hoax...Rhodes, Heflin, Trent, Socorro...

    Roswell is the one UFO "to rule them all".

    "Reports that say there's -- that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." Rumsfeld

    This should replace Friedman's "absence of evidence" trope.



    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • @CDA:

    What about the RB47 case? Radar and visual observation as well as the phenomena sending radar signals which mirrored the radar that the RB-47 was carrying.

    I don't much trust photos but unfortunately I disagree with the skeptical view that no witness is to be trusted. If that is the case then there is no such thing as Science all we have is hearsay. We are, after all, a sensory based species. Reality is a shared, agreed upon understanding but you cannot pick and choose what you call "valid observation".

    If I report I saw a light in the desert a twiglight travelling close to the ground on the south face of a mountain and travelling where there were no roads and later surveyed the area where the light had been observed and found the light left no evidence like tire tracks or broken foliage then you have the choice to believe my observation or not. Just like I can choose to accept or not a skeptics assertion that they have never seen any kind of inexplicable phenomena. But that does not give the Skeptic the right to say that I did not see that light. They were not a witness. Therefore their conclusion that I could not possibly have seen such a thing because it is impossible is not "science" it is their "mythical interpretation of science".

    If skeptics cannot disprove all of the "unexplained" then they have a problem. Why? because they cannot prove without a doubt their assertions are correct... especially when so many of the so called skeptics have no better training or credentials than the people they routinely abuse as being "wackos" and "crazy".

    None of the skeptics I have read [or "believers" for that matter] are actually credible or qualified to act as "authorities" on science and the various fields related to the phenomena observed.

    The "Skeptical blogger" for LiveScience.com is a classic example of this kind of thing. He opens his mouth at the drop of a hat on subjects he is unqualified to make actual scientific pronouncements on while blogging for a "science web site" that thinks that Jesus is scientific.

    I would classify the most rabid of the Skeptics as no more reasonable than the most rabid of the "believers". Common sense indicates there is more to this world than what we currently know.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Paul Kimball wrote:
    "I highly recommend UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth by Benson Saler, Charles A. Ziegler, and Charles Moore. Folks might actually learn something."

    Yes, I would recommend reading it too, including the reiteration of the Air Force counterintelligence myth that a nonexistent Mogul balloon flight was responsible for Roswell. The real official documentation of Mogul and subsequent official histories of flight all indicate no such flight ever existed.

    Charles Moore tried to reinforce the myth in the book by hoaxing a flight trajectory of his nonexistent Mogul balloon--pure scientific fraud.

    Do the math and read the official documentation and you might actually learn something--nonexistent balloon flights cannot explain anything.

    Pseudoskeptics continue to reiterate the Mogul Myth by refusing to acknowledge the documentation that no such balloon flight ever existed and Air Force counterintelligence and Moore are both guilty of hoaxes.

    The book would be more appropriately titled "Mogul as an Explanation for Roswell: the Genesis of a Modern Myth."

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Oh no...

    Don't anyone take the bait!

    I won't allow commentary about the Mogul controversy to intrude here.

    It's a Roswell side-issue.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • DR:

    Moore wrote about 25% of that book. There is still the other 75% (which I presume is mainly what Paul Kimball is referring to).

    It is this other 75% that constitutes what PK means by "folks might actually learn something".

    But for certain determined hard-line ET & conspiracy people, maybe even this 75% will have zero effect.

    [RR: please note that I avoided Mogul].

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • Thank you Christopher...

    I appreciate your restraint.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • I think everybody is missing the point. The pejorative "myth" (as in fictional, imaginary, etc.) is only applied to the "pro" side, despite many “anti” explanations being utter nonsense.

    Benson Saler also plays this game in his book and in Kimball's interview. A self-admitted skeptic but also claiming to apply "myth" neutrally to both sides and using the term non-pejoratively, he only applies "myth" to the "pro" side. Those advocating the crashed saucer theory, such as Friedman, Randle, etc., are referred to as "mythmakers" who have created the "myth", while debunkers like Karl Pflock instead tell "inconvenient truths" that the "mythmakers" don't want to hear. Also, according to Saler, Pflock uses primarily "documentation", while the "mythmakers" rely almost exclusively on witness testimony (ignoring that they use the same "documentation" like affidavits or FOIA docs, only interpret them differently). Saler then pulls the usual psycho-social argument that human memory and resulting testimony is totally unreliable (but, as usual, somehow doesn’t apply this logic to the skeptical side).

    One problem with such arguments is that they are subject to the same criticisms that Saler only applies to the Roswell and UFO "myths", claiming they are unfalsifiable, ignoring that his own psycho-social explanations are unfalsifiable academic theories.

    E.g., Saler claims Roswell is nothing more than a modern example of the “hoarded object” myth, something of great value to humanity being held captive by a powerful force or enemy that is eventually released by the hero for all (e.g., Prometheus freeing fire from the Gods). Thus Saler says the “myth” is the government holding the evidence from the public of the crashed saucer and UFO reality and the "mythmakers" are playing the hero (but mainly for self-glorification) of getting the truth out to the public.

    Well, yes, you could arbitrarily pidgeon-hole Roswell this way, but it could also be framed as a possible real historical physical event, complete with saucer debris and bodies, not a manufactured “myth” and, in principle, even provable if true. Saler never once considers this as even a possibility.

    The same spin of “hoarded object myth” could also be applied to the skeptical side of things, which Saler also fails to do. Here Mogul is the big secret of Roswell hoarded by the powerful government, with heroes like Todd, Pflock, Klass, etc. trying to get the truth out to the public. Arbitrarily labeling things as “myths” one way or the other does not get us any closer to the truth.

    Saler also conveniently ignores the FACT that governments DO classify highly sensitive things and keep them from the public, including captured foreign aircraft, retrieved foreign space debris, nuclear broken arrow incidents, massacres during war (like Mai Lai), political crimes (Watergate), covert ops (assassinations, government overthrows), etc.

    In the real world, not the ivory tower, very important things being “hoarded” and kept from the public does not somehow turn them into “myths”. However, using Saler academic BS cultural anthropology theories, all could be spun into conspiracy theories and myths, anyone thinking there might be important hidden truths are not to be taken seriously as researchers, historians, investigative journalists, etc., instead all are “mythmakers” looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

    See how easy it is to dismiss anything? Using these tactics, you could also frame NSA spying on everyone as a “modern myth”, with Edward Snowden playing the part of the “mythological” hero trying to free the important secret from the grips of the powerful enemy for the benefit of humanity. Obviously, it is just another “hoarded object myth,” perhaps entertaining as a good story but not to be taken very seriously, just like Saler treats Roswell. This sort of approach to history has nihilistic and Orwellian aspects to it.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, July 02, 2014  

  • In response, yes there are highly sensitive things which the US government keeps classified. There are highly sensitive things which the UK and other governments keep classified. Edward Snowden may well be exaggerating the extent of his, and the NSA's, knowledge of what we are all up to. I do not believe for a moment that the NSA has secret knowledge of all our daily activities, but I do believe they focus on certain people, perhaps a largish number, who they consider a threat to the US security.

    Were Mr Snowden to return to the US he would face a very long, maybe life, prison term, as have plenty of other spies since WW2.

    But if any of the multitude of writers about the so-called Roswell cover-up were to reveal the 'truth' (as many have done over the last 35 years) they face no punishment at all. Absolutely none.

    Why is David Rudiak still a free man? Why are Kevin, Stan Friedman, Tony Bragalia, Tim Good and countless others?

    It is they who have told the world about this monumental Roswell cover-up that has gone on for decade after decade, and labelled various officials as liars and frauds.

    The myth of the Roswell cover-up arises out of one thing only: namely that certain ET promoters going back to the days of Keyhoe have ASSUMED that discovery of ETs visiting our planet would cause mass panic and hence necessitate an official cover-up, and that this would need to continue more or less forever. Another, later, reason was the idea that we (i.e. the USA) could 'back-engineer' the gathered ET technology. This also would, so we are told, need to be highly classified.

    Is this how science advances or not? The greatest scientific discovery of all time is still, allegedly, top secret, known only to a select few, when there are scientists the world over who would give five years of their lives to see a genuine ET craft and/or ET bodies.

    Perhaps I should throw the gauntlet down and ask DR this:

    In the event that genuine evidence of intelligent life visiting earth is obtained by, say, the US authorities, how do think they should go about informing the world? When, for example. should interested scientists be told about it? Better still, would any country even TRY to withhold such a secret for the length of time the Roswell 'secret' has been withheld?

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • All

    Would an ET discovery at Roswell be kept from us? highly likely yes, everytime any government has something unknown to them, it is kept from us to determine its safety etc

    Back in 1947 this odd craft crashes an they likely being in 1947 assume its an enemy aircraft namely Russian an so its kept from us.

    Just how do you announce to the world and scientists that we have something that we think maybe ET an not earthly and we do not know much about them, ther motives, technology etc, this is not about world panic, if true, with the state the world is in at the moment this is probably the last thing they would want to be releasd

    And so yes if true it would be compartmented in my opinion.

    By Blogger Al12, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • Al 12:

    So you are in effect saying that the discovery of ET intelligent life would be kept secret forever, compartmented and secret to the 'chosen few'.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • I think David's point is skeptics aren't skeptical of their own beliefs.

    They don't think they have 'beliefs'. It is their juvenile charm.



    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • CDA

    I am not saying forever, i am not saying any time, what am suggesting is if its true, that the mindset back in 1947 would have assumed what crashed was likely Russian

    And thus would have been kept from us, upon further analysis discover it isnt Russian but something else entirely, for pretty obvious reasons that would of been kept from us too

    The question arises ( which you keep putting forth ) would this knowledge still be kept secret to this day and why, in a simple answer yes it would ( in my opinion )

    You have too much faith in our governments to think they would release this to benefit mankind or science as they have kept far less important things secret

    Ther has been nothing but trouble in the world for the past few decades for this type of information to just "come out" to benefit anyone including our enemys

    So please do not assume just because nothings been released over Roswell officially ( other than the mogul rubbish ) that means nothing happened, for the reasons ive said that is plain naive, also anyone who knows anything about unacknowledged access programs knows it CAN be hidden from us.

    By Blogger Al12, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • cda cluelessly wrote:

    But if any of the multitude of writers about the so-called Roswell cover-up were to reveal the 'truth' (as many have done over the last 35 years) they face no punishment at all. Absolutely none.

    Why is David Rudiak still a free man? Why are Kevin, Stan Friedman, Tony Bragalia, Tim Good and countless others?

    Duhhh, maybe because we've broken no laws?

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • You could say that by arresting and charging anyone who revealed the Roswell secrets the US authorities would immediately give away the fact that there was a secret being kept after all.

    Hence their reluctance to act against the numerous ETH 'revealers'.

    So relax all you guys; you are completely safe.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • So relax all you guys; you are completely safe.

    Exactly Chris: people like Rudiak and others Roswell pure mythmakers concerning Roswell then, are revealing us how the USAF is protecting the thing concerning Roswell, perpeting things agains witnesses, etc.

    Curiously, the mythmakers, Schmitt, Carey, Rudiak, Bragalia, and others mythmakers, have received no menaces by the omnipotent power (USAF) they have imagined ! They can blog, have a site, etc !

    I like our Roswell team! Immune themselves, to the things they are mythtelling!


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • "I like our Roswell team! Immune themselves, to the things they are mythtelling!"

    If only they would inoculate themselves against the "UFO" delusion.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • Zoam,
    My apologies for the delayed response, I have been on vacation. Trying to subdue my dementia induced obsession with UFOs.

    But here is my example of a case where there are visual witnesses, radar confirmation, and audio recordings-

    In 1994 an American West 757 witnessed a UFO while flying over Texas. It was later confirmed by Norad that they were tracking the object as well.
    That is just one case. There are a handful of them. I'm sure some of them could be explained by space junk or Covert man-made aircraft. Still the idea is that these are unidentified- UFOs. Plain and simple.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Thursday, July 03, 2014  

  • Dan; I am shocked, shocked I tell you to discover that ambiguous strobing lights were seen over restricted military airspace used for testing. I mean just what are the chances of that happening? It won't surprize you if I say they're very high if not one-hundred percent that on any night at random a layman--including airline pilots--would see something he could not identify. This is just another typically phony "UFO" yarn cobbled together and related by a self-styled "UFO" investigator. Geesh, the radar operators were even laughing about it. Need I say more?

    And Dan, I thought you had something, some really good "UFO" story that I hadn't heard. You said multiple witnesses, radar and photographic evidence, so I'm thinking of dozens of people in various locations, unambiguous radar events and records, multiple videos and photographs showing a real unknown flying object of some kind in the sky. But no. People believe in "UFOs" but nothing like what I've described never happens. Why is that, Dan? Is it any wonder that I'm not a believer?

    "Still the idea is that these are unidentified- UFOs. Plain and simple."

    That's called a "UFO" REPORT, Dan, and not much of one at that. A sketchy story about seeing lights over an AFB is about the crummiest type in the catalogue. Dan, it's a STORY, a story about the subjective perceptual failure to identify an ambiguous visual stimulus, and a subjective perceptual failure to identify cannot create a thing. Unidentified cannot be an identity. That's why the myth is absurd.

    Are you getting this? Think about it. I hate to see minds enslaved by irrational, plainly illogical, false beliefs--especially one so patently simple-minded, darkly paranoid and blinkered.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, July 04, 2014  

  • Kimball: "I highly recommend UFO Crash at Roswell"
    Rudiak: "Yes, I would recommend reading it too, including the reiteration of the Air Force counterintelligence myth that a nonexistent Mogul balloon flight"

    I believe the main thrust of the book, David, is the ever-changing versions of the Roswell event put forward by proponents. That protean quality qualifies Roswell as an historical event utterly swamped by tall tales -- most certainly Roswell is a modern myth.

    Remove government and skeptical explanations and what I have written above stands.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, July 08, 2014  

  • The idea that UFOs (and alien abductions)are worth pursuing, even if they are not actual evidence of ET visitations, is certainly agreeable. There aren't that many books to begin with that employ the mythological, sociological, anthropological, psychological, and philosophical methods of understanding what I call as the internal projections relative to its socio-historical backdrops.

    Jung, as mentioned above, was the first. Yet, I found his approach rather unsatisfying. There are others who have used the sociological and psychological methods. But it is important to understand the nuts-and-bolts skeptic's position, in order to realize what is alleged as earth-visiting ETs, in my position, as a skeptic.

    I employ both aspects in my latest book, though I devote more attention on the sociological, psychological, and the historical need to believe in not only UFOs but also believe in alien abductions. At the heart of these "experiences" are religious in nature, specifically expressed during a crisis of post-modernism, i.e. the cold war, in relation to technological godship replacing the traditional God.

    I'll leave a link to my book.

    Albert Ramos


    By Blogger Modern Society, at Thursday, May 12, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home