UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Resurrecting everything (UFOs included)

A resurgence in things old is a current element of the social/scientific zeitgeist.

Neanderthals’ art, rituals, love life, family interaction, et cetera is hot among paleontologists, Freud’s theories of the unconscious and sexuality are rife among psychologists again, and Karl Marx, philosopher and writer of Capital and The Communist Manifesto is being revisited in a number of books (and discussed in TLS and The New Yorker currently).

Historians are looking anew at past events while Biblical scholars are trying to recapture the Hebrew past and Christian beginnings once more.

And some UFO aficionados, me among them, continue to revisit classic UFO events, Kevin Randle spurring some of us to re-examine the 1964 Socorro incident and the symbol that factored in that episode.

While many in the UFO community eschew (or wish to) the old sightings/cases, old flying saucer/UFO sightings (and sometimes encounters with odd “creatures” or “beings” could hold clues as to what UFOs may be, or from whence the originate as some UFO buffs would like to know.

As I mentioned to my pal Kevin Randle, such pursuits as farmer Trent’s son, who appears on a ladder in the LIFE magazine photos of the McMinnville family farm just after Mr. Trent allegedly took two camera shots of a flying disk, might be worthy of a search to see what he (the son, now an old man) might have to say about his father’s photos.

Also, I suggested that someone might seek out Ron Mannor, the son of Frank Mannor, who with Ron, saw a strange object on the Ann Arbor/Dexter farm in 1966; the sighting that brought opprobrium on Allen Hynek for calling the event a perception of “swamp gas.”

Then there is that tiresome 1947 Roswell incident. We are all sick to death of that miserably handled, late in the day (1978 onward) event.

But in that incident lies something mysterious, even now, after all the overly indulged “investigations” by UFO “researchers.”

Yet Roswell can be re-examined, much as the Neanderthals are being examined, anew by qualified scientists.

Back in 1947, no one was at the ready or geared to pursue UFOs or UFO stories like Roswell in any meaningful way. The sightings and reports of them were outside the mind-set of researchers, who were few then if they existed at all.

And when “ufologists” took on flying saucers and/or UFOs later on, they were so affixed by the extraterrestrial explanation for odd things seen in the air (or sometimes on the ground), they botched their own investigations, ignoring details, clues, and forensics that could have explained what was seen or reported.

This is what happened in Socorro with the Police Officer Zamora observation and account: UFO ET believers got their hands on the initial reportage and made it into an extraterrestrial incursion, sloughing off anything that might explain the event prosaically.

And then there are such accounts as the Betty/Barney Hill UFO “kidnapping” which was seen as an ET abduction from the outset of their psychiatric disclosure, which made a case for a folie à deux rather than an alien encounter.

UFOers with a bias toward space visitors grabbed hold of the Hill tale and cemented it in the ufological mind as a bona fide extraterrestrial kidnapping, which is still being flogged by those who can’t let the story go, encrusting it to the point with so much ET nonsense that no one wants to research the matter with a fresh approach.

But, again, resurrecting such cases as those mentioned above can’t do anything but wipe away the patina of foolishness that makes them (those cases) so anathema to persons who are serious about solving latent mysteries.

As moribund as ufology and UFOs are, amongst rational persons devoid of the ET madness, the curiosity that UFOs still bring to the fore can be addressed seriously and sensibly should anyone want to tackle the issue.

Me? I’m too sullied by the inherent ignorance of ufologists to exert any real energy to pursue the topic beyond this meager blog.

But you? Maybe you’d like to make the effort. After all, what’s to lose, except your sanity.

RR

5 Comments:

  • I would like it understood, that I'm only interested in the: "established sightings" the (IFOs) of UFOs seen & reported! My question of where they come from, is an important one, because this leads to the next question:.."Ours? or Theirs?"...Why not ours for what its worth? It is but a short time,since the "Wright Brothers" flew their small air craft,for the first time, to the, Huge Jumbo-jet of today, that we all take for granted. I ask you, what is the next piece of technology, to take us by surprise, that some of us, may have already seen as a: (IFO) Craft, but rejected by those whom have not seen, yet!

    If these craft, in other words new technology, that are experimentally being tested around the world, might in some way, explain some of the worlds sighting of UFO reported, but I don't think,all of them are! but that's another story for some other time............

    By Blogger Daniel Yang-Clark, at Wednesday, October 05, 2016  

  • Yah, Daniel...

    Some odd things seen in the sky or reported are ours.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 05, 2016  

  • I've come to the conclusion that most of what is seen in the sky is in fact human engineered technology which for whatever reasons governments simply don't want to reveal. There's ample evidence to more than suggest our government has spent billions of dollars attempting to create breakthrough technologies primarily for defense. With the help of corporate sponsors, both government and industry exploit this technology for their own ends - greed, power, security, wealth, etc. If they keep it secret they get the best of both worlds - revenue from conventional energy sources and revenue from government sources they don't have to acknowledge publically. Government gets the upper hand on its enemies and power over their citizens.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Friday, October 07, 2016  

  • But your scenario BB doesn't take into account those odd things seen for millennia and the flying disks "seen" on the ground accompanied by weird creatures or "quasi-beings."

    Sure, some people have spotted technical/aerial achievements by governments and thought them exotic.

    But that doesn't satisfy the whole panoply of things we call UFOs or UAP.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, October 07, 2016  

  • Brian; I've said repeatedly why I think the "secret technology" hypothesis is practically worthless in explaining why people make "UFO" reports:

    In 1896 newspaper airship hoaxes preceded sightings, but there never were any airships. The "secret technology" hypothesis is congruent with the generic "UFO" hypothesis (airship, flying saucer, glowing orb, black triangle and blimp) and its subject--if it can be distinguished--is every bit as elusive and mythical.

    So it doesn't explain anything. It's wishful thinking. In 1896 the wonderful world of aerospace was ahead of us, but it peaked in the 1960s, morphed into stealth by computer-aided design in the 1980s. And unless someone can show otherwise, it is all but over. We're back to flying the U-2, the FAS "mystery aircraft" page hasn't been updated in twenty years and all the exotic projects it described never materialized. Aurora was a myth. The Blimp was a myth. The B-2 was cancelled after only twenty were built because its a solid gold dinosaur that's incredibly expensive to maintain and its mission is insane. So much of this stuff is, and can be accomplished by more conventional means and other previously unimagined technology. If we have such secret aerospace prowess, why aren't we on the Moon and Mars? No, robotic spacecraft--orbiters and rovers--do the job much more easily.

    Where are the old airships, phantom zeppelins, old flying saucers? They never existed. Or they were simply rare sightings of things known to exist: real zeppelins; the U-2; SR-71, B-2 or in the case of Lonnie Zamora, the Lunar Lander prototype!

    Now what does any of this have to do with wild flying-saucer fairy tales of floating spacecraft with flashing colored lights, stories of missing time and dreams of alien abduction?

    Not much. The "secret technology" hypothesis has little or nothing to do with over a century of a wild variety of "UFO" reports, the "mystery aircraft" subject is only tangential to "UFOs." And like other conspiracy theories is non-falsifiable, cannot be shown true or untrue but is NOT TRUE by default.

    Always receptive to and appreciative of your thoughtful input though, sir.

    Best, zoam

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, October 08, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home