UFO Conjectures

Friday, September 05, 2014

Singular UFO sightings/events

One of the problems with UFO “research” or scrutiny is that significant UFO episodes happen once and are rarely or never repeated, causing absence of the repeatability intrinsic to scientific methodology.

For instance, the World War II phenomenon of “foo fighters” never occurred again, nor the ghost rockets over Scandinavia.

Kenneth Arnold’s chain of “saucers” has not been seen outside the 1947 time-frame.

A Roswell incident has not recurred, Aztec being a misguided extrapolation of the Roswell tale.

The green fireballs over the American southwest in the late 40s and early 50s, despite a spate of later sightings, have not been seen in the sighting numbers that took place originally.

The McMinnville (Trent) object, while duplicated in hoaxes, never appeared again in legitimate photographs.

The odd entities allegedly seen alongside landed aerial craft in the 1950s, mostly in Europe, have not recurred.

While the 1959 Reverend Gill (Papua. New Guinea) sighting provided elements seen in similar sightings (noted here recently), archetypal sightings are missing in UFO reportage.

The giants of Voronezh (Russia), 1989, never showed up again.

The Betty/Barney Hill abduction, the Travis Walton kidnapping, the Pascagoula experience, and Rendlesham kinds of events were one of a kind, not duplicated or even approximated in later or recent UFO reports.

The raft of alien abduction accounts can be placed in a neurological setting, not an actual physical setting.

And yes, UFO sightings over military installations, can be said to have been duplicated and still occurring but no related sighting has the cachet of the sightings noted above.

(There are other singular UFO sightings or episodes that you can, also, cite certainly.)

That such UFO sightings, as those noted, are virtually unique goes to the problem of investigation or scientific scrutiny; one time, singular events lie outside methodologies to explain them.

Why is this so when it comes to UFOs?

That’s the matter “ufology” can’t deal with, and hasn’t.



  • Actually the fact that fairly unique UFO events are NOT repeated implies that they are not "natural" unexplained events or phenomenoa. Natural events tend to repeat and, therefore, can be studied employing the scientific method. UFO events, especially those associated with mechanical interference (the Leveland Texas case)never quite repeat in exactly the same way...even after a considerable time lapse. Why this is so or what it implies about the nature of the phenomenon, is not clear.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • Rich,

    If we look at the so-called incursions over military installations, even those cases where weak to begin with.

    I wrote a piece on my blog a couple of years ago looking into the so-called UFO/Nuke connections. Its a farce on the face of it. There is no credible evidence that UFOs have degraded our capabilities. To be sure, human error has contributed handily to malfunctions and out-right destruction of ICBM sites dating back to 1964 and back...liquid oxygen and monomethylhydrazine have ruined many a launch party...but no UFOs.

    The list goes on and on...

    As psychologist and psychiatrist look quietly into the contactee and abduction phenomena, we find other little mental jewels that account for the experiences...could this account for the lessening (outright disappearance) of the abduction cases?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • Excellent point, Dominick. But here's a weird thing: when repeat events are reported, they are often treated with suspicion, especially so if the repeat events have been reported by the same witness.

    By Blogger Mark OC, at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • Probably, many are "staged" for the benefit of the witnesses...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • How about a post that ignores Roswell altogether and instead adresses the "little mental jewels that account for the [abduction] experiences", as Tim Hebert puts it ?

    By Blogger Yvan D., at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • Rich

    How do you account for Prof Jacobs account of a ufo knocking out an interballistic missile with a dummy warhead in it?

    Please dont say he made it up

    Or Capt Rob Salas account with ufos deactivated nukes, you or Tim here are not nuclear experts, i can appreciate human error has accounted for alot but these men saw an object only a few meters away which then deactivated nukes.

    What is the connection? What did thoses men see and report? What exactly caused the nukes including the back up generators to shut down?

    What flew at a nuke midflight and knocked it out of space travelling at thousands miles per hour? i suppose that was somehow human error too.

    I do not believe these people are lying and as such unless you, Tim or other debunkers can come up with something better than human error or a psychological issue then am believing them, my opinion.

    By Blogger Al12, at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • AI12:

    I find David Jacobs, Leslie Kean, Bob Hastings to be real UFO researchers, generally above reproach....generally.

    That UFOs have been seen over U.S. military installations is a given by me.

    That some people think/believe that they have been abducted by alien creatures is also a given.

    But while UFOs have interacted, it seems, with military constructs, alien abductions are, for me, the result of neurological glitches and I've written much about what may cause such mental aberrations.

    The purpose of this posting is to wonder why UFOs of a unique kind no longer happen and disappeared after their initial sightings, outside the so-called "flaps" that ufologists trot out every now and then.

    Reality is weird, and some are smitten by things that the rest of us are not.

    No one knows anything for sure, about UFOs or life itself.

    Consciousness is questioned, and everything else.

    I'm agnostic about everything, including my own existence.

    Tim Hebert and I, involved with the mentally stricken, know that people see and hear things that are not there -- for the rest of us.

    But does that mean they are actually creating a warped reality that doesn't exist or that they have tapped into a reality that Plato told us exists outside our realm, outside the "cave" in which we find ourselves.

    No one is calling anyone a liar or a con-man.

    But when someone says they have the truth of something, I take a step back (as does Tim I think) to see if they really have something worthwhile to tell us.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • Al12,

    Just to clarify, I was a launch officer, Minuteman IIs, Malmstrom AFB, and inputed the launch codes and flight data for the MM IIIs at Grand Forks, AFB.

    That was all back in the 1980s, so I would hope that I could have some degree of authority on the nuclear issues involvling UFOs.

    That puts me on par with Salas as far as I'm concerned.

    But of course, feel free to disagree...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, September 05, 2014  

  • There are plenty of unique occurrences, the resurrection being the most famous of all. The Fatima experience was also.

    Here is another: the earth itself. So far as we know, no other planet anywhere is inhabited by human beings, or indeed any animal life. So far as we know.

    But maybe we don't really know all that much...

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, September 06, 2014  

  • Just a follow up to further clarify my views.

    The so-called ufo researcher either out right refuses to take into consideration the potential psychological factors of any given case. Or, he/she is uncomfortable with the possibility that witness may have had a psychotic break, even for a small fraction of time that has clouded the value of observation.

    Often it is the subjective description of events that do not parallel the objective facts of a given case. The so-called Nuke/UFO connection is rife with this particular disconnect.

    Failure to consider the psychological potential in any given case is tantamount to "malpractice" on the researcher's part. It only further demonstrates how researchers attempt to pound a square peg into a round hole to show that it fits.

    BTW, I do find most UFO cases fascinating, but unfortunately most, if not all, fall short of anything extraordinary.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Saturday, September 06, 2014  

  • We have to ask how many phenomenon in the past have been mysteries and consequently mislabeled as to their root cause(s) simply based on surface appearances that are indexed to the state of current knowledge?

    The simple answer is many.

    The simple matter is that there is no testable theory as to the origins of UAP based on the surface of it's appearances. This situation has created a open ended subjectivity that relies upon the selective editing of the aggregate sum of evidence that is largely self referential. The basis of this is also mostly the purview of archivists, not researchers.
    The phenomenon is energetic, atmospheric and it's appearance is based on the context of the observer.
    The closest match are found in other categories of "ghost phenomenon" that are lodged between the material and immaterial that wax and wane accordingly.

    Alongside of this are the paradoxes inherent in things seen that "are not there" in terms of space, materiality and causation and yet they can be observed for a brief duration.

    They also are based on what is seen deriving in part from their context. Ghost images of human beings in a home versus airships in the sky. Locality makes a difference as a context for what is seen.

    Until some determine the categorization of this phenomenon is not isolated by it's characteristics to other categories ( based solely on appearances) the answer(s) will entirely be self referential by a skewed classification of it.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • It is not the context or perceptive vicissitudes that define the UFO phenomenon, Bruce, but the essence of the phenomenon. And the difference between ghosts and UFOs is profound, not superficially connected.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • What I assume you are calling the essence of the phenomenon needs to be clarified further.
    I think the connection is not superficial but rather how the phenomenon is classified is based solely on appearances is

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • Appearance or perception is too variable. It is the essence that needs to be clarified as you note.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • The characteristics between the two are similar:

    1. Energetic. Luminous at it's core.
    2. Electronic and or radiant effects such as decreased health or burns.
    3. The physicality of the environment being effected and altered.
    4. Simulations of living creatures that do not exist in a material state.
    5.The ability to pass through solid objects. Vallee was the first to determine this applies to UFOs as well.
    6.A lack of purposeful behavior.
    7. A plasma like or amorphous appearance in a undifferentiated state.
    8. Tracings of movement without a verifiable source.

    There are others as well shared by UFO and similar phenomenon whilst by both are currently characterized by simple locality as well as being seen in a micro ( hauntings) and macro state ( ufo) that differentiates them by appearances in terms of their spacial area.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • Your categories, Bruce, are not essence categories, in the philosophical or scientific sense as I see them.

    To try and lump ghosts (or Nessie and Bigfoot) into the UFO topic merely makes a complicated matter even more so.

    Ghosts are one thing; UFOs another, at least here.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • Your theology simply differs from my dissent which is a essentially just another theory among many, although I think it's premature to selectively edit out an alternative, at least, as far as I can see.

    That's the essence of the issue, that is, opinion based suspicions.

    I think it's probably not ET, time travelers, a bit of undigested beef, strictly neurological,skewed identifications or psychiatric..its much more deeply buried. Otherwise we would have a simple and elegant explanation at hand by now or at least one that was consistent across the board, at minimum.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • You may be on to something, Bruce but it seems tangential to me.

    Ghosts have, to my mind another reality, one that differs from UFOs.

    The ghost link muddies the topic for me.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • If I were at my usual blog spot. I'd delete the ghost comments, mine included. They stray from the point of the posting, which is the uniqueness of some UFO reports and sightings.

    The topic has nothing to do with ghosts, a matter that bores the hell out of.me and has nothing....absolutely nothing...to do with ghosts.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 07, 2014  

  • @Dominick
    > that fairly unique UFO events are NOT repeated implies that they are not "natural" unexplained events or phenomenoa. Natural events tend to repeat

    I have to challenge your assumptions.

    "Not natural" events such as muggings look unique when viewed one at a time, but their characterists ARE repeated. That is why police are able to set up successful undercover sting operations -- by predicting the most likely setting and the most common time of day.

    No two traffic accidents are the same, and they can happen anywhere at anytime, yet their general characteristics ARE repeated, which is why we have red-green lights at intersections and nowhere else (even though roads have exits for businesses and at residences all along their length).

    Events such as muggings and traffic accidents seem unique but when analysed in the aggregate, they show patterns, and they yield predictions so we may influence them.

    If UFOs are intelligently controlled, as are muggings and automobiles, why can't we make ANY predictions about UFO events? Why can't we influence them in ANY way?

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Monday, September 15, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home