UFO Conjectures

Saturday, May 15, 2021

Is it me or what?

 Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

That alleged 1945 San Antonio flying saucer crash has reached a curious crisis stage: The Vallee/Harris book about it has been pushed back several weeks, my pal John Greenewald's 2017/2020 presentation of the metallurgical analysis is being retrotted out, and my friend Kevin Randle is all over the incident, hoping to air an upcoming interview with Vallee (and Harris too, I think) about the book and the event.

Here's the extensive link to John's Black Vault piece on the metals:

https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/analysis-two-metallic-parts-purportedly-crashed-unidentified-aerial-object-san-antonio-new-mexico-august-16-1945/?fbclid=IwAR3uQfLYFXwWRPDoUPB3zYpTnBqvcuueE1sDJ5emxu-fYtmRJuKS9CooO3Q

And you can scoot over to Kevin's blog for his erudite comments on the matter:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com

This odd account seems to have resurfaced because of the Vallee interest and book, but it's not a very good flying saucer story, as I see it.

The supposed "debris" picked up by the boy witnesses looks mundane and is analytically mundane, one suggestion being that the debris is not alien or extraterrestrial but from Earth's future, which explains why it is common and Earth-like. (Interesting, but a stretch)

The story was so incongruous that it became conflated, it seems, a while back into the so-called 1947 San Agustin episode. (Kevin deals with this at length.)

The 1945 account is cute -- a fictional floozy thing. So why is it getting all the attention, including mine, here? 

I have no conjecture....none. It baffles me that the story is being ballyhooed all over the place and that Jacques Vallee is interested in it. (Has Jacques become senile? He is, after all, in his really senior years.)

Help me out here, won't you? I'm puzzled -- not that being puzzled isn't usually my demeanor but in this instance I'm hoping someone in my circle can unpuzzle me.

RR

13 Comments:

  • "So why is it getting all the attention, including mine, here?"
    You and others are moths wandering around in the night looking for a light ?

    By Blogger Claude Falkstrom, at Saturday, May 15, 2021  

  • Who was that philosopher, Claude, that walked in the dark with a candle looking for something?

    Remind me.....That's us, all of us who are addicted to UFOs.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 15, 2021  

  • Some folks just need to retire. Like most of the ufological researcher/reporter community. Harsh? Yup.

    BTW, speaking of someone who shouldn't, Billy Cox is back: https://lifeinjonestown.substack.com/p/into-the-great-wide-open?fbclid=IwAR2I2Jy3dIZFa7-UCGBkverMF74Nc8Tp57VQG_CjgsIG2Zg15jDaomt0rtU

    (Diogenes, in response to your question.)

    By Blogger Ron, at Saturday, May 15, 2021  

  • It's also different for the witnesses than others who gained their interest from media of all kinds much of which is certainly intriguing.

    We're addicted to hope for an explanation of what we saw -and even what we saw is different among witnessed -at least that's my hope. I could also be somewhat satisfied with just seeing one again. It's a thirst.

    I'd love to know how many have had just one inexplicable sighting and now the thirst for an answer in a reasonable mode without projection beyond of just what we saw.

    BD

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Saturday, May 15, 2021  

  • Ron, you are the best:

    A Billy Cox link and Diogenes. You're on top of the game...whatever that game is.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 15, 2021  

  • Bryan, when I had a few sightings, I was just happy to have had the observations.

    It was only later that I began to wonder what it was I saw; that is, not that I saw a strange thing in the sky but what that strange thing might be.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 15, 2021  

  • I've had three: one was a repeat of the same object, which likely was an aircraft of unusual properties, though seeing it twice was odd in itself. The other was just plain weird and which I have no explanation for at all, and was so long ago my memory can't be trusted. But I can't say it kick-started or has sustained my interest since I was already indoctrinated into the madness.

    As for the motivation behind Vallee's latest, I'm afraid all we can do is let him wallow in Watergate.

    By Blogger Ron, at Saturday, May 15, 2021  

  • Hahaha!...You see?...This is the result,of not getting Disclosure, on the UFO subject.

    I like Claude Falkstrom expression,of a moth looking for light to go nuts over:) It's like that Claude, nice one!:).........

    By Blogger Daniel, at Sunday, May 16, 2021  

  • From a post by Jason Colavito (linked via The Anomalist): Chris Mellon, Luis Elizondo and the Bigelow group are not pushing the idea that ET is behind the enigma, rather they're considering a "multiverse" theory. According to Colavito, they got that idea from Jacques Vallee, who got the idea from French author Jacques Bergier, who got the idea from H.P. Lovecraft(!) Here's Colavito's last paragraph: "It is disturbing that Lovecraft’s shadow hovers over our current UFO believers, even after all this time."

    I can't speak to Colavito's take on all this; he's a skeptic who's drawn skepticism himself. But his point is salient to the current situation: As long as the shadow of "weird" and "carny" hangs over the UFO debate and those who push the most radical theories, this all goes nowhere. We really need a new generation of researchers, free of the old baggage.

    By Blogger Ron, at Monday, May 17, 2021  

  • Ron:

    The multi-verse or, even time-travel has to be considered in the UFO matter but, more importantly, for me, I'd hope for a hands-on approach...no matter how we do it....grab one, shoot it down, trick it into landing or something else.

    Still, the ET proposition isn't outrageous, just a stretch, for all the reasons recounted here and those you're familiar with.

    And is there another possibility, besides from inside the Earth or from the sea beds, that we might suggest or think of?

    Let's try to come up with one -- not Jose Caravaca's ephemeral theory that explains some UFO episodes -- but a new, creative hypothesis.

    Or let's get a UFO or craft in our hands -- like they did in that movie "Earth vs Flying Saucers."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 17, 2021  

  • Rich, we've covered this from every angle already. I don't know what's 90 degrees from everything else. Even so, I'd rather we continue to mull on this larger issue rather than waste time dissecting every pixel in every video or photo that drops from the Pentagon or Joe Average's cellphone camera.

    Here are some possibilities we can mull over. Of course this hinges on not being misled by the bogus info that's been dumped into our laps:

    1. The seabed connection. I conjecture it's more of a way station or semi-permanent settlement rather than point of origin. Oceans, not caves. Flight indicates an awareness of the air, so ocean visitation rather than origin makes more sense.

    2. Do we know if these objects fly in space? The reports indicate hypersonic speeds, but only here on Earth. If there's no credible reporting that these things are flitting around in outer space at interstellar speeds, that leads to the idea they might originate closer to home. That narrows down the theories.

    3. Reports are these things pop into and out of view seemingly instantaneously. Does that really indicate a dimensional or time jump, or just the high end of the hypersonic speeds mentioned earlier?

    We can discuss wormholes without descending down a rabbit hole, with not a pixel in sight.

    By Blogger Ron, at Monday, May 17, 2021  

  • You present some interesting mulling points, Ron. (I wouldn't expect anything less.)

    Let me throw them into a posting here with some suggestions from others here if I can stir them up.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 17, 2021  

  • Here's another: Close-encounters. Most accounts of "saucermen" report a head, two arms, two legs. Where are the bizarre shapes from a universal menagerie of possibility? Are they projections of the human psyche, or does universal natural selection (I know you love this one, Rich. Not.) reproduce again and again the most efficient morphology?

    By Blogger Ron, at Monday, May 17, 2021  

Post a Comment

<< Home