UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, January 24, 2015

The Blue Book Debacle (and the Condon Committee too)

The current New Yorker magazine [1/26/15] has a piece about the NSA and terrorism, which has nothing to do with UFOs, but is insightful about the Air Force’s Blue Book operation and that of its predecessors, Sign and Grudge.

The piece [The Whole Haystack by Mattathias Schwartz, page 54 ff.] opens with this:

“Almost every major attack on Western soil in the past fifteen years has been committed by people known to law enforcement.”

Then follows a litany of those who’ve committed acts of terrorism, followed by this:

“In each of these cases, the authorities were not wanting for data. What they failed to do was appreciate the significance of the data they already had.”

Isn’t this what occurred with those early flying saucer/UFO projects? And that of the nefarious Condon Committee?

Those in charge of ferreting out data did so, but in a haphazard way, missing the significance of the data they had collected.

In the current brouhaha about who disclosed the Blue Book files first, UFO researchers are arguing about who should get credit or not for when they provided the Blue Book material(s) to the UFO community and the public.

Even now, no one is sifting through the data to see what patterns emerge or what may be significant.

UFO blokes still want to lay blame at the feet of those mentioned by media in the current ramp up of UFO news.

No one wants to tackle the data.

This has always been the case with UFO “researchers” and I use the term very loosely as you know.

UFO researchers like the idea of being first with some UFO material or being the one(s) to present an obscure UFO story or fact.

No one wants to test the data, and no one has done so, in a methodical way, ever, although they would have the rest of us think they’ve done so: Jerry Clark, Kevin Randle, MUFON, Stanton Friedman, et al.

Just as the NSA botched and still botches what the organization has collected, and it’s a mighty amount of data as Edward Snowden let us know, Blue Book personnel and the Condon boys botched their chance(s) to explain what UFOs may be.

They didn’t do so out of a conspiracy to hide facts and data. They did so by being lax and inept, just as the NSA and authorities have been lax and inept about terrorist activity, as outlined by Mr. Schwartz’ article in his magazine reports.

RR

Thomas Cole: Painter of UFOs?

Thomas Cole  [February 1, 1801 – February 11, 1848], the noted founder of the Hudson River School of painters, was obsessed with allegory -- allegory that he turned into paintings of angels and what might be considered phenomena that would likely be called UFOs today.

His angel-paintings are often overlooked or ignored by art aficionados as they bespeak a psychological quirk that art historians and lovers of art would prefer to dismiss.

But the Romantic "visions" that Thomas Cole produced indicate, to me, a mind-set that sees things not real to others but very real to them.

This is a mind-set that has "hallucinated" UFOs in our time but provided less technological hallucinations in earlier times.

Some flying saucer and UFO accounts that have ended up in the lore can be attributed to this mind-set or quirk, and seems to be neurological in nature.

Thomas Cole died relatively young (48 years) and had no outward signs of dementia or mental illness but art historians play down or eschew his angel paintings as they indicate an obsession they'd prefer to submerge.

Joseph Smith [December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844], the founder of Mormonism lived in the same time frame and also said he saw angels (Moroni) who helped him establish the Church of Latter Day Saints.

For some reason, the age that begot these two men was ripe for such visions, hallucinations, or hoax-dreams.

Here are some of the allegorical paintings of Thomas Cole, with angels or bright splotches one might call UFOs:
RR