UFO Conjectures

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

The Venus Meme

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Our friend Jean [Rare phenomena lover] left a comment for my February 27, 2017 item here about a UFO sighting in which two young boys described the thing as having lots of legs:
Jean makes a good case for the sighting as an optical event whereby Venus was the “object” seen and misinterpreted as a UFO.

Jean offered this link to explain the visual (optical) refraction that occurs when someone observes a point of light, such as a star (or planet):

However, in the PDF that Jean provided via his link is this:

“Although related phenomena are commonly experienced during imaging of bright point sources with telescopes or photographic lenses, to our knowledge no objective recordings of retinal PSF’s showing the distinctive pattern of star images had yet been reported.”

That offsets the conclusion that what the two young witnesses saw was Venus, refracted by their visual input.

The idea that Venus is, often, misinterpreted by persons for a UFO is a skeptical meme.

My pal, Gilles Fernandez, has offered that some of the 1896 airship sightings were mistaken observations of Venus.

And UFO skeptics, along with the United States Air Force, in its Blue Book dossier(s), have tried to regularly foist the Venus meme on UFO witnesses, the public, and news media.

[When I entered college, I was an astronomy fanatic and my first major was Astrophysics, from which I separated myself (and went to the psychology department) after a first semester brouhaha about The Big Bang Theory and my disdain for the cryptic emphasis on mathematics as the lingua franca of astronomy/physics.]

In all my experiences with the observations of Venus, at night and during the daylight hours, I never heard anyone, nor did I see the planet, as a viable option for a flying saucer or UFO. Never. (Skeptic Tim Printy will surely disagree, as would deceased Harvard professor and one-time CIA member, Donald Menzel.)

The idea that persons with normal vision – even astigmatism (help me out here Dr. Rudiak) – would mistake the stationary point of light, seen as the planet Venus, and accrue as a flying saucer or UFO sighting, as was also proffered in the Mantell incident, is sheer lunacy, an explanation pleading for dismissal by sane, logical ufologists.

I thank Jean for his astute offering, but I have to shirk it, based upon how the planet Venus is seen by people, without a telescope, just using their normal, biological visual apparatuses.


The Blue Book Meme

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The Air Force’s Project Blue Book has been and continues to be excoriated by UFO buffs, both pro UFOers and con UFOers, the latter not as much as the former.

But I only see UFO skeptics and one UFO ETH proponent and one UFO advocate doing anything that is akin to the effort that Blue Book personnel exerted when it came time to investigate a UFO sighting or event.

Bob Sheaffer, Tim Printy, and French skeptic Gilles Fernandez (and his compatriots) have done and do yeoman’s work when it comes to UFO accounts.

They dig deep into UFO cases, ending up dismissing them, often wrongly (like BB), but offering rational, thorough rebuttals.

David Rudiak and Bruce Maccabee have provided and still provide energized evaluations of UFO cases, old and new, Mr. Rudiak a bit heavy on the extraterrestrial side, but at least providing meaty substance for his views. Bruce has always applied judicious renderings for his views.

As for the rest of the ufological crowd, the work has been slack and cavalier. UFO buffs, of the believing kind, are anxious to leave a mark on UFO topic, usually resorting to half-ass assessments and opinions, as one can see in the commentary at such blogs as Kevin Randle’s and many others.

My pal, Kevin Randle has become a little disengaged lately when it comes to UFOs but his UFO oeuvre is extensive, and a legacy.

Nick Redfern is a UFO/paranormal journalist. He approaches the topic(s) as a reporter, not as an investigator or researcher.

UFO researchers have all but disappeared, “investigators” having become data collectors or UFO folklorists.

That UFO buffs keep dismissing Blue Book, when they, themselves, exert little or no energy to finding or really studying the UFO enigma (phenomenon) is hypocrisy of the blatant kind.

The puddles of commentary, found all over the UFO community, are a testament to sloth or ego-maniacal self-indulgence, both of which have nothing to do with UFO research or investigation.

Those slovenly approaches are what have made the term “ufology” a laughing stock among cognoscenti.