posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Perhaps people were more visually expressive and more prone to incorporate what was read, or seen in cinemas.One cannot exclude the possibility for some that the story's intent was to cover-up another event that would have proven embarrassing, if not even more bizarre than the "encounter" itself.
By Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Or the instigators of those sightings have decided to leave us alone (for a while).Or maybe, people aren't as nutty as they were during the past few decades, although one would think they'd be even nuttier nowadays the way the world is.RR
By RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 28, 2015
These drawings are what is called 'artistic licence'. They need not, and did not, bear any resemblance to what was really seen. They were for the purposes of attracting readers & viewers to books, magazines, films and TV shows. Alas, they have outlived their usefulness. Yes, people are just as 'nutty' as they ever were. This would still be true if UFOs had never entered the scene. But take comfort that most of us are reasonably sane and sensible (or so I believe).
By cda, at Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Maybe now with social media and viral videos people that do experience very bizarre events (mental or otherwise) are afraid to share said experiences with the world. However, I'm fairly certain that most of those unusual cases from the past were hoaxes.
By Daniel Hurd, at Tuesday, April 28, 2015
CDA:The "representations" give an indication of what was perceived, but have an artistic flair, for sure.The drawings are often better than any photograph that is supplied, but I grant you they were or are meant to hype, and thus intrigue, something that is lost in the UFO milieu today.RR
Daniel:I'm a proponent of hallucinatory explanations for some of these reports, but that is different than a hoax.Some of these sighters (witnesses) had no intention of hoaxing or deceiving, although they may have been deceived themselves as Jose Caravaca has intoned in his Distortion Theory, here and his personal blog.And Nick Redfern finds some government "experimentation" that was over the top and egregious in some cases.I don't see a lot of hoaxing or cons, on the part of those providing their accounts.Yes, some perhaps but overall I think the general UFO sightings or reports are as they were observed.RR
@RRThe last picture is nice...the black/white picture from the Valensole Case. Do have a web-link with a higher resolution?
By Michael Mu, at Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Michael:Google Valensole and you'll find a number of representations.RR
Rich, well said. I guess I spoke a little hasty. I just meant that most if not all were not actual ET events. Not necessarily people that were outright hoaxers. I believe that many of the folks who had these experiences were being fairly honest. However, I do not rule out the possibility that one or more of these events actually did happen as it was told. I just err on the side of caution and reason. Maybe in modern times everyone's eyeballs are staring down at their phones and computers instead of up. :)
Daniel....We're pretty much on the same page.RR
I have reached the conclusion that most of these 3rd kind encounters from fifties and sixties were the real stuff. I have analized them and have found some consistent patterns for compilations of different investigators in different countries. Not everything is chaotic regarding those encounters.
By Don Maor, at Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Those who accept necessarily extraordinary "UFO" reports at face value would benefit from a dose of skepticism.Just because one tells a "UFO" story doesn't mean they've seen anything at all; not all "UFO" stories are of misidentifications of ambiguous visual stimuli.Over the last century, hundreds of "UFO" stories tell of landings of unambiguous airships, balloons, mystery airplanes, flying saucers, other imaginary spacecraft, and of their human-like or otherworldly pilots and crews interacting with human beings.The details of these stories are variously so bizarre and having known fictional antecedents, mundane and of purely human concerns, or some combination of elements and situations so that they reveal them to be wholly implausible and complete fantasies. They are all utterly inconsequential fabrications for which there is most often not one bit of evidence.The motives for concocting these stories is another topic, but the fact is that people do tell fantastic "UFO" stories when no real event has occurred.Over a century of utterly inconsequential "UFO" stories is more than adequate reason for extreme skepticism about the truth of even the best "UFO" story.
By zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Don Maor:Please give three of these close encounters of the 50s and 60s that you consider to be "the real stuff".Choose your best cases, but beware...
By cda, at Wednesday, April 29, 2015
In fact, conventional explanations have been proposed for a number of the cases presented here:1. Flatwoods: Fireball and owl on a tree.2. Hopkinsville: Fireball and Owls.3. Valensole , France: Embellished story based on the sighting of a US helicopter in spying mission4. Cussac, France: Helicopter carrying military personnel in diving suits. The glass sphere was the cockpit.5. The South American abduction case: psychopathological causes.Unfortunately, all UFO reports can be questioned in one way or another, mainly because they are purely anecdotal events.Only instrumental observation will allow getting quantitative evidence. The era of just collecting reports and claiming they prove the existence of whatever phenomenon is over.Best regards
By Rare phenomena lover, at Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Don,CDA beat me to it, but basically the same questions that he asks of you mimics mine.Your analysis of "consistent patterns" intrigues and wonder if you would provide examples.Thanks.
By Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, April 29, 2015
This is my guess.I suspect that in the early days, reports varied widely in detail because there was no set dogma on what UFOs and aliens were supposed to be like. That is, UFO reports were as different as UFO reporters. So we had aliens that were identical to humans (airships, contactees, Schirmer), very close to humans (Hills: no, they didn't meet greys), and monsters (Hopkinsville).I cannot give a precise point in time, but human aliens and monsters pretty much disappeared by the mid-seventies, replaced by aliens that resembled humans but retained a distinct otherness. I have to think that the (relative) esteem and broad publicity of the Hill case made it the template. (Certainly, Hopkins treated it as such.) The nearly human Hill aliens became stylised into the black-eyed insectoid greys best known from Strieber's book covers. All this was cemented by the proliferation of grey images and the case shaping of Hopkins-Jacobs (Jacobs acknowledged to Jim Schnabel early on that he rejected data that didn't fit his model of a "real" abduction). I don't know the role of UFO groups and their journals in defining and shaping reports. I don't know when reptoids came on the scene and how they became the enemy of the greys -- or whatever the trend is now.My thesis is that partisan UFO research goals standardised aliens to make the whole idea seem more credible. Media represenations reflected the most prominent research images, thereby reinforcing them.Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe after decades of litigation, the greys' exclusive right to monitor our planet, as negotiated in 1955 with Eisenhower, was eventually recognised by all the other alien civilisations (and their lawfirms).
By Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Terry:You create a more complex hypothesis than I was proposing.People saw or reported odd things and no one is doing so today.Why not?(It has nothing to do with the grey meme. People aren't seeing them nowadays either.)RR
By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 29, 2015
> the grey meme. People aren't seeing them nowadays eitherReally? Then how are the Roswell sliders able to promote their image as that of an alien?
Terry...Again you confuse the topic.The slides have nothing to do with current UFO reports which do not sparkle like those cited.That's my point.RR
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile