UFO Conjectures

Thursday, May 06, 2021

How stupid can we continue to be?

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

This long-used photo for introductions to the UFO phenomenon is an obvious fake:

It appears as an opening to the current New Yorker piece about UFOs.

That no professional photographer has outed the transparent falsity of the photo, lo these many years, is appalling. 

And that The New Yorker would headline their UFO article with it even more so.

(I'll be getting my copy of the magazine in the mail today, but I've downloaded the UFO pages and I'll give a precis of what's wrong with the piece upcoming.)

But back to the photo: there has never been, as far as I know, any analysis of the above snapshot by anyone who has the qualifica- tions to show how and why the photo is a fake.

It's not even a good fake.

I'll have more to say on this, as I'm scrounging around for some- one -- Bruce Maccabee? -- to offer an analytic account of the photograph. It has to be expunged from the UFO record, once and for all.

RR

16 Comments:

  • The answer is, as stupid as it takes. Mainstream publications still tiptoe around the subject, and for the most part use writers and editors with little or no knowledge of the subject. That's why you always get perfect stories.

    Re: Maccabee. Didn't he proclaim the Gulf Breeze photos legit? I know he's got a reputation in the community, but those photos always looked faker than fake to me. There has to be another photo expert to use.

    By Blogger Ron, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • Yah, Ron, Bruce has made some gaffes, Gulf Breeze among them.

    But it would be interesting to see how he defines the Coast Guard photo.

    As you're seeing on Facebook, everyone sees the photo as a fake so I'm wondering why no one calls out media that keeps using the photo in their supposed journalist offerings.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • I saw it. I haven't read the article's letters to the editor yet, but wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a single letter decrying the inaccuracy. By their silence, the community is complicit in letting fake news/photos circulate. As you suggest, it makes everyone look stupid.

    By Blogger Ron, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • So, rather than just complain as per usual, I sent a letter to the editor of The New Yorker, pointing out the error of their ways.

    What are the chances it gets published? I'm not holding my breath and counting abductions.

    By Blogger Ron, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • The New Yorker gets a ton of letters about articles. (I have a buddy who works there.)

    But since your missive is about the UFO piece, it might get a notice as UFOs are not, as you know, part of The mag's readership.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • I believe that the photo was outed decades ago as reflections of three overhead lights inside. And as to the New Yorker piece, although there is much to regret, let's keep in mind that WE are not the intended audience. The average NY reader is a reasonably intelligent upper-middle class male with a literary rather than a scientific bent and, importantly, with no historical perspective on this phenomenon at all. My judgment is that 70% is useful from that perspective and 30% is junk. Better than most.....

    By Blogger Dominick, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • Dom:

    I hope my mag comes today. I downloaded the article last night, and was surprised to see the bogus photo heading up the article.

    I expect better from the mag -- one of my favorite reads.

    I placed my blog post on Facebook and got all the references to the past revelations about the lights explanation.

    Still, as a MediaWatch guy, I deplore media not getting details exactly right. After all journalism is more than an art, or should be.

    As you note, most readers will skim or pass over the piece. It's about UFOs. What cultured person cares about UFOs?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • From an Anomalist link: An MIT researcher says "the 'profound lack of curiosity' in UFOs resulted in a mess of taboos and biases amongst the ranks of academia."

    Profound lack of curiosity? What nonsense. There was the original estimate of the situation, and then everything went black. What took its place was an active, dedicated, and well executed program of ridicule and denial to dissuade academia, the public, and mass media from poking their noses into the subject. The military never suffered from "lack of curiosity."

    Here, Rich, is one of those cultured persons who hasn't a clue as to what's been going on all these decades.

    By Blogger Ron, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • And Ronald, I'm just reading the New Yorker piece...interesting.

    It's interspersed with stupid UFO stuff and some of the more interesting items from the lore.

    I'm only into the first few pages and was surprised to read that Greer is an emergency room physician. (I've had my encounters with such guys and they are the creme de la creme of medicine. I'll have to reevaluate my feelings about him.)

    The article, so far, seems inclined, as I read it, to believe that there will be some kind of "disclosure" in June.

    That won't tell us what UFOs are perhaps, but it might be something to gnaw on.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • Maybe something to gnaw on, but it'll likely result in empty calories.

    I thought the article did a fair job of putting Greer in his place, but maybe I'm thinking of another article.

    To clear up my earlier point: The lack of curiosity in UFOs didn't result in a mess of taboos and biases -- academia had been warned-off of UFOs by the government, which created the taboo and bias, which then was endorsed by the media. Academics feared bucking that edict, especially since it risked tenure and grants. It had nothing to do with a lack of curiosity, which wrongly suggests it was their own decision, made in a vacuum.

    By Blogger Ron, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • The article goes in several directions, Ron, as you saw when you read it.

    It's giving me a clearer conception of Kean and there are some insights that non-UFOers may find interesting.

    But then there are such notices for a few in the community such as Strieber who needn't be touted.

    But overall I see the piece as an almost positive, but nothing for the serious UFO fanatic.

    It's for the casual interests of a few, and yet not even for a UFO newbie, who'll get confused.

    As for academia, I found, long ao, and keep confirming, there is always much to contest, making topics so complex that one loses their way around an issue.

    Truth and veracity are tough to present; there's always something missing, and with UFOs that missing material has always stood out by its absence.

    The article is fraught with missing material. But it's a magazine piece, not a book, so one has to accept the inherent limitation of the presentation.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 06, 2021  

  • Looks like Jacques Vallee is getting blasted on FB, for co-authoring a book with a UFO researcher with questionable credibility. Just now folks are starting to question whether he's gone too far into the Woo, or has always been there.

    By Blogger Ron, at Friday, May 07, 2021  

  • That Vallee would align himself with the flaky side of ufology saddens me.

    This has happened to a few pals of mine (and you've seen it a few times also, Ron).

    But then I'm bitching abouit the New Yorker giving type to UFO flakes withiout identifying them as such. That also is a sad commentary on where journalistic refinement has gone.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 07, 2021  

  • I am not sure why Paola Harris is considered a questionable UFO investigator. I strongly believe that Jacques must have his reasons to co-author the last book with her. The problem is that he is touching upon UFO crashes in 1945.. Interdimensionality and UFO crashes is a rather charged argument.

    Ron this is the message I got from him this afternoon regarding the "Best kept secret".

    Breakthrough Research Reveals the Earliest Evidence of US Government’s UFO Recovery
    SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., May 6, 2021 — Hard evidence has existed since 1945 for the actual recovery of unidentified flying craft in the United States, according to a new research book, TRINITY: The Best-Kept Secret (June 1, 2021, available at Amazon) written by two seasoned analysts of the global patterns behind the UFO phenomenon. Italian investigative journalist Paola Leopizzi Harris and French-born information scientist Dr. Jacques F. Vallée have teamed up to uncover the details of a New Mexico crash in 1945, fully two years before the well-known incident at Roswell and the famous sighting by pilot Kenneth Arnold in 1947.
    Over several site investigation surveys Harris and Vallée reconstructed the historic observations by three witnesses, two of whom are still living, who described to them the circumstances of the crash, with details of the recovery of a nearly-intact flying vehicle and its occupants by an Army detachment. Combining their long experience in field research around the world, the authors have documented the step-by-step efforts by the military to remove the object, an avocado-shaped craft weighting several tons, from the property where it crash-landed during a storm.
    Surprisingly, the literature of the field only includes a few passing mentions about the case, and only one (foreign) TV documentary has mentioned it, but the correlation between the crash of the extraordinary object and the explosion of the first atom bomb at White Sands, less than 20 miles away, has been missed. Harris and Vallée suggest that the correlation is significant for physical, geographic and biological reasons, quite apart from the obvious strategic implications.
    The witnesses were able to observe not only the actual crash of the object on their property but every step of the military efforts to lift it and take it away. Fearing retaliation, they remained silent for some 60 years about what they had seen and done over those nine days at the site while the recovery was proceeding. When placed in the context of the history of chemical and physical analysis of retrieved UFO debris--an area where Harris and Vallée have long collaborated—the devices observed by the witnesses raise a number of important scientific questions.
    The Honorable Paul Hellyer, former Minister of National Defence of Canada, has stated: “Paola Harris and Jacques Vallée have spent much effort doing field research on location (…) It is now time that their discovery be revealed to the world.” Christopher Mellon, former deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, called the data “fresh reason to believe that our government is concealing physical proof of alien technology. Read the book, and if persuaded, join the millions of other Americans seeking a straight answer.” And Professor Paul Hynek added that the research “reveals a new UFO history.”
    Given the most recent discovery of the third witness this book, initially planned and pre-announced as an e-book, has now been re-edited. It is issued in three formats, all of them available through Amazon: the e-book, a trade paperback and a hard-cover version.
    ISBN: 979-8-7459-0256-7 | June, 2021 | 335 pages | 6×9 inches | 30 figures, maps and graphs.

    By Blogger Stavrosh, at Friday, May 07, 2021  

  • Ron:

    It would seem Vallee's problem is now too little "woo!" That he's thrown his weight behind "crashed saucer" nonsense (the crème de la crème of UFO disinformation) seems to indicate a departure from his earlier paraphysical hypothesis. Or maybe he tries to square them somehow. The two blurbs on the back of his renamed book (before _The Best Kept Secret_ and now _Trinity: The Best-Kept Secret_) are from military/defense men: https://i.redd.it/8z1adbuszlx61.jpg. What the hell happened? Vallee has made it to the end of his life just to become a pawn of disinfo spooks?

    "I thought the article did a fair job of putting Greer in his place"

    I don't think the New Yorker piece was too successful there at all. The last mention of him is almost sympathetic: "'It’s not necessarily that what Greer was saying was wrong—maybe there have been visits by extraterrestrials since 1947,' [Kean] said. 'It’s that you have to be strategic about what you say to be taken seriously.'" In any case to put such a nut as Greer "front and center" in the piece serves little purpose other than to mislead people.

    "Profound lack of curiosity? What nonsense."

    I would actually agree with what the researcher says if it's taken to concern ACADEMICS in particular. Most academics are astoundingly boring people who are hopelessly bound to conventional thinking. They have no patience at all for anyone who takes "out there" claims seriously and they cannot even imagine why anybody "wastes time" on such ideas. Here's an informative case study--this guy's Nobel Prize in physics wasn't enough to save him from the conventionalist dogmatists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson.

    Martin

    By Blogger Martin Black, at Friday, May 07, 2021  

  • Stavrosh & Martin: Thanks for clarifying the provenance of the Vallee book.

    I see the name "Greer" and immediately close shop, so I just glided over him being referenced in the article. Leave it to mainstream media to love the carny element and think it relevant.

    I agree that some in academia might consider the UFO subject beneath them or science. In the back of my mind I kept thinking "Condon," who was both close-minded and doing the government's work, intentional or not.

    By Blogger Ron, at Friday, May 07, 2021  

Post a Comment

<< Home