UFO Conjectures

Monday, April 12, 2021

UFO Skeptics!


Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc. 

I keep running into UFO skeptics, mostly at Facebook nowadays. 

Some are a nasty lot, a few not so much.

My current run-in is with French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, a resolute anti-UFO blogger and defensive bugger.

Gilles goal is to apply every argument he can assess against the UFO reality, an ignorant and mad position, unacademic and just stupid in the face of the evidence for a UFO reality, UFO meaning an unidentified flying object, nothing more and nothing less.

If someone questions Gilles’ conclusions, he becomes like a distempered dog, frothing at the mouth and prepared to fight in justification of his absurd rebuttals to any UFO claim, no matter by whom, a credible, qualified witness or just a dummkopf  trying to assert a UFO claim that is weak on its face.

Following Gilles is Tim Printy, an amateur astronomer, unknown across the UFO community pretty much, but inserting non-astute rejoinders about UFO cases offered by anyone, no matter how much reliability that witness has.

These guys fall into the category that nasty Phil Klass once headed: vitriolic when challenged and incompetent when it comes to examining the evidence for UFOs as a real phenomenon.

Then there is Robert Sheaffer, a real gentleman, open to civil debate and examination of UFO cases with a fair assessment.

Zoam Chomsky, now known as Dwaine Sharpe, is a skeptic with a hoodie of humor cloaking his anti-UFO spiels. He sees UFOs as a challenge to logic and thought.

Lance Moody is today a quiet voice in ufology circles. He’s always been somewhat muted and sensible, a skeptic with class and decorum.

So, although UFO reports may be scrutinized for credulity, the recent Navy pilot videos offer evidence for a UFO reality and skeptics are today voices crying in the wilderness.

And the rabid skeptics like Gilles Fernandez have few ears or eyes paying attention to them.

Thus, we UFO enthusiasts can ruminate without sensible antithesis by the few who still can’t see the light of reason and support for a phenomenon that just won’t disappear, no matter what those who try to debunk them try to provide for its demise.

Skeptics are the gnats that intellectual fumigation destroys….

RR

I found this picture intriguing, until .......

 

https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/laputa.htm

Sunday, April 11, 2021

Ripples of Reality

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

Most of you visiting here and reading this know that realities of various kinds are spiking all around us.

The UFO reality is what we deal with here, but is a UFO-reality like our everyday-reality or like Quantum Reality, which is as abstruse and odd as anything we might imagine?

If  UFOs are substantively quantum in nature or just similar to quantum by being queer compared to Newtonian physics or reality, which itself has its own quirks, are they [UFOs] a real key or clue to our understanding of existence, or just one more insertion into the confusing mix we call life?

Yes, I know some of you don’t want to intermix quasi-philosophical or metaphysical questioning into the UFO conversation, but UFOs are a persistent ingredient of our lives, especially those of us hooked on the phenomenon.

In an evaluation of the film Midnight Cowboy by Louis Menand in the 4/12/21 New Yorker [Page 62 ff.], Menand quotes James Leo Herlihy, author of the novel the movie was based on:

“It seems to me that the fundamental experience of being alive on this planet is a gothic and grotesque experience … It’s really a frightening place …”  [Page 64]

When one reads or comes across the paranormal experiences of humanity, from day one, and the historical record of human beings and society, one can only agree with Herlihy.

UFOs, in that context, seems to be a relatively passive element, an unusual but impotent phenomenon, grist for conversation or hobbying but little more, even though some would like to make it otherwise.

Fascinating incursions of many kinds assault us, but, for this blog, it’s the spectacle of things seen in the sky or encountered on the ground,scaring the bejeesus out of some people and entrancing others, that pertains.

It’s one of many intrusions of reality, and while I try to keep it within the bounds of ufology, I’m forced by curiosity to tag it, sometimes, with extracurricular adornments for which I half-heartedly apologize.

You see, everything is connected, even though one visitor here thinks otherwise.

With UFOs we have to take everything into consideration, if only to get at the essence of the phenomenon (which may lead us, I think and hope, to an awareness of the real reality that encompasses us).

So, bear with me, if you will. I’ll keep extraneous materials to a minimum but I can’t help but bring in a few, seemingly irrelevant items now and then, one of which is the transcendental aspects, perhaps, inherent in the UFO phenomenon (that only visitor Martin here appreciates I think).

N.B. Pics, above, from abc.net.au, newatlas.com, science news, and psypost.org

RR

The latest push to make UFOs an ET device


https://www.ibtimes.sg/us-developing-physics-defying-weapon-fight-against-advanced-ufos-56755

Saturday, April 10, 2021

Some reports, scanned from Albert Rosales' Humanoid Encounters series 1950-1954

Excuse my scanning technique; I used a hand scanner so as not to ruin the book. These excerpts will give you the flavor of Albert's vast collection. up and into the present day. Grab the book. You'll love it.

(You'll notice some additional material in a few incidents that haven't been played up in their retellings by UFO writers: The Sonny Desvergers Florida case is one.)







RR

That "Pyramid" UFO in the news

https://comicbook.com/irl/news/ufo-footage-pyramid-spaceship-release-united-states-military/

An example of Madness in the UFO community

This is part of a colloquy on Facebook, between Tiko Okit and Gilles Fernandez (mostly), the administrator of the UFO group, on Facebook, in which it appears.

The "discussion" is about objects that apparently look like UFOs, in the photos shown here.

I'm not showing you this back-and-forth for any substantive reason. It is sheer blather.

I'm showing you how silly some UFO discussions are, almost pathologically insane.

I also did not capture all of the inane and totally useless copy. 

That Gilles Fernandez, a Cognitive Psychologist, would engage in such ludicrous folly surprises.

This represents what is ubiquitous at French UFO blogs and web-sites, and among UFO enthusiasts everywhere: an attempt to pretend research or investigation but, more importantly, what has gripped the UFO discussion -- madness of a kind.

RR

Tiko Okit 

UFO in Kumburgaz: probable scenario

So already I've never really dug this case before. Of course, I discussed this. But I never tried to figure out what could hide behind it. I thought she was inconclusive. Because the phenomenon is indistinguishable limit. So we can do all kinds of interpretation. And my first impression, when I discovered this case, it was the name of the city that inspired it:

Kumbburgaz. Since, I immediately thought of a despise with a gas tank (big round and white sphere), which could be located on a deposit in front, across the other side of the Marmara Sea...

Finally, without knowing the direction of the camera, this was still one hypothesis like another. Then it could be a misunderstanding with anything, like a boat, buoy etc.. Yet according to the various reports, it was investigated and then dismissed. In short, there were many conflicting arguments, concerning a case far from being really concrete. My

judgement was then suspended. Because I don't reject the idea that this could be a singular object. I mean, UFOs exist.

Sometimes singular objects are found in matters far more concrete than this. At the same time, I also don't reject the idea that it could be a despise. Or even a hoax. 

It's just that I've been discussing a possible fake with Gilles Fernandez (who doesn't want to communicate with me anymore ^^) that I wanted to know more about this case. Because he explained to me that there was only one witness to the phenomenon. And that the video maker didn't want us to look in his camera. So I searched, and checking, we find other witnesses. Then the video maker doesn't seem to have banned others from looking into his camera (there are even pictures where he is offered). Then the opposite would have been amazing. Since the phenomenon has taken place over an extended period of time. And many people came around him. How would he ever dodge requests? By the way it says other witnesses saw lights in the distance. So the hoax... 

So I'm going to repeat what I said on another post (that's why Gilles doesn't want to communicate anymore) is that you can't prove a video (or photo) is fake, in reproducing this one identical. Because in this case, a witness provides me with a video, I reproduce it in CGI, and I conclude it's a fake, period. In short, we can reproduce everything! This doesn't prove anything. Even less, by reproducing something blurry by another blurry thing. So to suspect a fake, you need facts, clues, to go that way. And with this case, there's no indication that it could be a fake. Although there are many rather strange points, I agree. Because for example, the phenomenon comes several times in a row, in the same place, and no one takes a boat to check... Or nobody comes to bring a telescope to better distinguish it... And etc.. 

In the end, context seems to show that the witness, thanks to a powerful zoom, has filmed something well in the distance.

And there's little chance he invented this case. So unlikely it's a fake. On the other hand, with the assumption I'm proposing today, it would have been amazing if he didn't understand what he was filming. Finally, in time he should have understood it.

Or at least someone else... Anyway, I'm developing my assumption, that you understand what I'm talking about. So checking out the witnesses, I came across the direction targeted by the camera. And if this one does not target gas reserves around the Marmara Sea, it does aim at a city, which has a white roof mosque. This somewhat joins my first

assumption. So a misunderstanding, not with a sphere-shaped white gas tank, but with a very reflective half white sphere.

Because my research focused on buildings that could create this despise. And the mosque is doing the trick very well. 

So I don't know if the witness knew what he was filming. I don't even know if this is the right solution I'm proposing now.

But it seems so obvious, I don't understand she wasn't proposed before. Though, maybe someone did... But I never heard of it myself. And if this was investigated, why wasn't the mosque hypothesis mentioned? Because, scientists argued the argument of the investigation is often advanced. Like these so-called E-looking characters. T's... While checking out, you see mostly dark spots. In short, it's far from obvious. What is already more is that this story has promoted this whole area a lot. So I won't go so far as to say there was an arrangement between the witness and the city across the street. But it's amazing how this case went. And the corner is very nice by the way. This really makes you want to go on vacation there^^

Be careful though, because I haven't watched all the videos. So my hypothesis might match some of them but not others.

Yet even for the lights, it could be spotlight mounted on the mosque dome (their position describes its contours). As for the different shapes seen in the phenomenon, they are the shadows of the trees or the lightning of the dome. The dome is, by the way, structurally grilled. This could play on the shadows. As for the altitude of the phenomenon, you should not rely too much on it. It is known how temperature differences, especially over such distances, can change the altitude of light radiation. 

Finally here, I'll leave you with a ′′ small ′′ scheme (it's simpler ^^):.

PS (here I postpone the final text of the image, so that it can be potentially translated and therefore accessible to non-Francophones): Possible despise with a mosque and its very white dome, lit from the back and top. Shadows of branches and structure, as well as atmospheric disturbances, did the rest (pareidolia). More info: Most of the time, on the videos, the Moon is slightly right of the dome. Which makes this one often brighter on its right side. As for the city lighting, if it's not visible like the dome, it's, or its brightness isn't enough to cover the 70 km, or it's too low, or all at once (maybe it's even cut off at a certain time). Another interesting question comes directly after. That's why, if the Moon passes past the dome, and illuminates it directly (rather than from the back like here), why wouldn't the dome be brighter, and thus even more apparent? Which logically, must happen often. And who would therefore lead this phenomenon, to be seen more often than the few times it has been. Well, we can assume that at that moment, the Moon floods the atmosphere with its brightness.

Which makes the dome not really visible anymore. Kinda like the stars, disappearing, if the moon is too bright (so we could check if this is consistent with a certain position of the moon).  ·   ·

Tiko Okit 

I'm posting the picture again, because in the post you don't have access to its actual size (idk why): 

May be an image of text · 

Tiko Okit 

A very interesting question comes straight away, with this assumption. That's why, if the Moon passes past the dome, and illuminates it directly (rather than from the back like here), why wouldn't the dome be brighter, and thus even more apparent? 

Chris Clarke 

I think the object of Kumburgaz's video is a wide angle CCTV lens. actually there are a number of objects or scenes shown, and that's what I would expect from a video surveillance system passing through a number of video streams around the building or area. wide angle lens causes the view curve. You can also see an illuminating torch that casts a shadow on the object behind. I propose that the two ′′ alien heads ′′ are actually boats in the water.No photo description available. ·

Chris Clarke 

May be an image of text 

Chris Clarke 

May be an image of ocean and text that says '8:55AM AM 8:55 JUL. 19,2007' 

Chris Clarke 

and Gilles suggested that Kumburgaz's video could be a TV screen in his blog. 

https://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.com/...

The Turkish UFO case. Les vidéos de Kumburgaz (Turquie, 2007-2009), un Trucage et quelques Lumières dans le Ciel ? 

SKEPTICVERSUSTHEFLYINGSAUCERS.BLOGSPOT.COM 

The Turkish UFO case. Les vidéos de Kumburgaz (Turquie, 2007-2009), un Trucage et quelques Lumières dans le Ciel ? 

Tiko Okit Chris Clarke : 

Why not... It's possible too... In fact, at this level, all sorts of assumptions can be advanced (and even an E vessel. T ^^).

But it's in their probability, that's going to be played. And according to the many returns, the witness real… 

Chris Fowler 

A big red flag re. the footage is the definition and the camera used. As somene pointed out in another group, how on earth would you get definition so good on such a zoom, ha ha! 

Tiko Okit

Chris Fowler : 

Heu... If the definition were correct (as you say), we would already know what it is. And then some people wouldn't believe they saw E.T's in it, where there are only dark spots. In short, if for you these images are sharp, the Rorschach images are also ������ 

Chris Fowler 

Lost interest in the footage due to too many red flags and dodgy people, ha! 

Gilles Fernandez Admin 

Exactly Chris Fowler. 

Here, the dôme of the mosque is situated at... 70 kilometers (if I read correctly the images here)! Anyway, if 10 kilometers. 

The cam have an about 100x zoom + the Sony VCL-HGD1758 (about x1.4). 

The object when he is zooming max is occupying the angular size of the width of the screen (!!!)+ such a definition! Totaly impossible for a distant object.

 Again, the object is really proximal, as again, t is a pity I cant found the same material to do some test invalidating that the object was distant. ·

Tiko Okit 

Yet the results seem to be there... At least that sounds pretty blatant, right? Because the atmosphere and different layers of temperature must also be taken into consideration, which can lead light to travel very long distances sometimes. We could then face an optical phenomenon (we're over the sea), so we're a kind of mirage... 

By the way, many people, pointed fingers, the marina with its boats, from Esenk öy... So there distances don't seem to be problematic (yet the boats are lower and surely less bright than the dome of the mosque ^^). 

Afterwards, it's also possible that I'm wrong, indeed! Here I am making findings, which can ′′ possibly ′′ explain this phenomenon. But the explanation could be quite different... 

And it doesn't contradict the possibility, that the images of this misunderstanding with the mosque, could have been modified later... Or that they were filmed on a screen, after rigging... 

The important thing in the end is to avoid falling into the claim, and try to clear the most likely causes. Because the solution, often complex, can have multiple causes. 

Tiko Okit 

Still, I want to nuance my words, about reproduction, photos or videos... Because, the work to try to reproduce pictures, by all kinds of means, is always very helpful. Especially with this kind of business. In short, when you're looking to understand an event or fact, you have to use everything you have at your disposal. Knowing more, that this job, can always open up to other ideas and etc.. First and foremost, the priority is to seek understanding, and approach through it, always a little more to reality. 

That's why I totally respect the work some people put in, trying to find a match. And with that, maybe make a possible fake. Although in the end, and as I say in the publication, these results are unlikely to offer a perfectly sliced conclusion.

Because reproducing identical images, does not prove that the originals are false. And that's exactly what I condemn! It's the conclusions, often claimed as truths, that some people, do their jobs. But their work, I respect it. Like all the exchanges on this case and on this same page. 

(It might be that nuance, you didn't understand.. because when I say your conclusions are good, regarding Zimbabwe's school, you accept that.. but when I criticize your conclusions about Kumbaz, Here you take it wrong ������) 

Florent Michaud Admin 

I haven't investigated this case but considering the extremely small angular size of a 70 km mosquee (around 0,015 degree for a 20 meters roof), I agree that what we see on the screen doesn't match. 

Moreover, considering the angular size of the hypothetical mosquee, the fact that the witness doesn't seem to use a stand for the camera would make the shakings well worth than what was recorded. 

Tiko Okit Florent Michaud : 

Vibration is not a valid argument. Here the phenomenon is distant, it is a fact. So more or less far... 

Now, if you have a most probable hypothesis to offer, I'm interested. Because in that direction there is this mosque. And surprisingly, it matches perfectly. Then unless you are a specialist in the refraction of light on the atmosphere, I do not think you are able to reject the idea, that we are perhaps facing a singular optical phenomenon. For it would not be the first. Even if the distance seems insane.

Gilles Fernandez Admin 

There is a footage (a genuine one) where he is zooming and dezooming max in a sequence* of one his footage,. 

What is targeted is probably several kilometers behind him (the coast for example or at the "false" horizon) - I suppose he is using here a tripod -. 

We can see what he obtained, as definition, as for the apparent size regarding the total field of his screen/captor occupyed.

When now we compare with the "metallic textured object", and for the mosque hypothesis proposed here, again, how the hell he can obtain such a definition and apparent size (more than the screen/captor width?) if not a proximal object caught? 

You must assume that the mosque (enlighted or by artificial light or by the Moon) would be very very little than what it is targeted in the "genuine" footage in apparent size for the naked eyes, as for the camera when max dezoom (if not invisible or a micro point of light). Impossible to obtain such a definition and apparent size for a dozen kilometers situated object. 

  • sequence starting at about 3'11'' here:
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX3VTg1uQrw&t=191s 

May be an image of sky and text 

Tiko Okit: Gilles Fernandez : 

It must be said that with regard to these lights, the gauge looks very wide. But that doesn't mean that this light phenomenon would necessarily be closer than the disc. If the light disk is from Esenk öy, these lights could also come from it. In this, we should know if the camera was pointed in the same direction. Because, if it's obvious that these are two different phenomena, it doesn't mean they aren't linked. In this case, everything would depend on how these lights are fitted... 

Let's be clear, it's possible that we're here facing a very special optical phenomenon, where light is carried by the different layers of temperature, above the sea. Because it should not be forgotten that it is the light radiation, which comes to the camera, not the opposite. And it seems to me that with optical phenomena, we often have surprises. It's even a principle, concerning most of the UFO phenomenon ������ 

In short, it's true that a light that runs for almost 70 km, it seems aberrant. But it depends first on how powerful that light is.

And then, environment, allowing him to convey it. This would be the atmosphere, which makes us see an image, closer than it really is. And I think that's a possibility that should not be neglected. Especially with so many concordant points. 

For as far as the phenomenon itself is concerned, the one in the form of a disk (and which corresponds perfectly-by its form-to the dome of the mosque), well when the witness makes a wide plan, there it is rather tiny: 

https://youtu.be/BX3VTg1uQrw?t=338 

2009 Turkey UFO Video - Kumburgaz UFO OVNI (Increased Quality Version) YOUTUBE.COM 

Tiko Okit: (about the fakes) 

Of course, there are many fakes. But especially on the internet. Because there is anonymity and you can hide your tracks.

With the Kumburgaz case, the witness faces, in person, the media and everyone. And the witness knows he will be directly suspected or charged with falsehood. So whoever decides to produce a fake under these conditions would be slightly unconscious. Since the case takes place over several years. And she makes her talk, while the phenomenon still happens.

Since many people could come and see this. 

Knowing more, if I understood correctly, that it's not the witness, who offers the images of these 2 grays. No, it's someone else, who says they discovered these so-called beings in these pictures. But basically, the only images of the witness, are rather mundane (although original videos would have to be absolutely sure). And if you can consider seeing all kinds of things in these pictures, it's precisely because they are hardly discernible. So wanting to see the ring of a photographic lens is kind of like wanting to see little gray ones. This is somewhat the same approach. 

Because with this witness, who seems to have only filmed things he didn't understand, we're far from the fraudster who produces and vulgarly swings his hoax, or gives in the outbid. On the spot, he explained his disarray at these pictures. In addition, he must be given the benefit of the doubt. So it's important at first, to consider the witness as honest. As you should also avoid starting from the idea of a fake. That is to say, not start from this solution, to seek ′′ by all means ′′ to validate it. Otherwise we can produce biased work. Because at first, fake is just one possibility among others. And it's when we've eliminated all these other possibilities, that we're going to fake it. But not before. 

In short, ′′ all means ′′ must be used, for ′′ all assumptions ". They must be ′′ all contemplated ". Therefore, we must go back, from the basic facts, to check if other facts can match and etc.. And when we do, well the mosque seems to match (and if so, this phenomenon could still happen, depending on the position of the Moon). So the witness may have been the victim of despise. And in this case he would be perfectly honest. As a result of this, others were able to use the images of the witness, to alter and embroider around, based on pareidolism (the story of the 2 little grey ones). But these people could also be honest. Since if they thought they saw E's. T's in these pictures, they might have wanted to edit them, to show what they saw and etc.. So no need for fake. No, just the overflowing imagination of human beings, period. 

(Which doesn't eliminate the possibility of real exotic gear walking around our airspace) 

Gilles Fernandez Admin 

′′ It must be confessed that with regard to these lights, the gauge looks very wide ′′ 

I said light gauge?? I just said that for your ′′ mosque ′′ hypothesis, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get such a definition and apparent size (from the mosque dome for your hypothesis) at such a distance - that you measured yourself -, as it is on his videos. 

When you photograph at night, a point of light, whatever it is, and distant, from the moment you zoom into your sensor's maximum capability, this one will saturate that one (as is the case for comparison) that I proposed): from there it is impossible to have such a definition, details, as it is here and if it was the dome of the mosque, or an object distant several kilometers and only it is bright. 

Even less such an apparent size on the film. It is also strictly impossible for the dome to occupy the full width of its sensor with such material (and level of detail, definition) given the distance between the cameraman and your mosque. Try yourself at photography ^^ 

In addition, the mosque is in the city and the city should be assumed, blackout, no other artificial or other light from the city can be captured by its sensor, when it is in dezooming: just the dome of the mosque... 

In short, an abracadabrant hypothesis, so much to reject and on which, I will not return.

Friday, April 09, 2021

Get this book!

I've written about and lauded Albert Rosales's Humanoid Encounters series so many times here I should get a 10% agent fee, but I forego that because Albert's books are so personally entertaining and informative for me.

The 1950-1954 book (pictured above) is loaded with tales of entity encounters or flying saucer episodes involving alleged contact between witnesses and beings from elsewhere that one has to evaluate what was really going on in the early years of the UFO mythos.

Looking for one or two accounts to add here put me in a kind of funk: I just couldn't select from the many a few that stood out. Most stood out, as either a mass psychosis (around the world) or actual events that took place, in situ as related.

The provided reports came from various sources, most credible, some iffy, and others that seem made up from writers looking to make a mark in science fiction maybe.

The book, like all; in the vast series, is lightly illustrated and well worth the few dollars it will cost you to buy it.

There has been the usual discounting of the tales, but they all can't be bogus or fraudulent. That would be a sociopathic malaise itself, worthy of study or research.

I opt for some of the tales to be hallucinogenic and outright delusionary, but not all surely.

From those that incur a whiff of rational observation we can propose a spate of submerged reality that eluded us back in the early 1950s and is almost totally without presence today within the core UFO phenomenon. (Why that is so is sustenance for study itself.)

RR

Wednesday, April 07, 2021

Strata of Realities

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

The long-time or regular visitors here are immersed in various realities, aside from the one that we all think we’re part of.

Daniel is wrapped up in the ET reality (bless his heart).

Dominick, Ron, and Bryan are concerned with, aside from their regular lives, UFOs per se.

Martin and me like the metaphysical aspect of UFOs and life.

José Caravaca is swallowed up by his “external agent’s” mischief.

Nick Redfern is engulfed in life’s joys and everything paranormal or strange.

Kevin Randle is swamped with activities to correct errant UFO research of the past.

Tony Bragalia lives the good life and gets excited by odd UFO nooks and crannies, like recovered debris from UFO crashes or disintegrations.

Philip Mantle collects UFO paraphernalia, toys, goofy stuff, et cetera.

Occasional drop-ins are looking for something to whet their curious appetites

Each of us, like the rest of humanity, has some wayside activity that represents a part of our reality.

Most peoples just coping with day-to-day existence.

But I found that physicists at Cern have discovered new energies and matter that throws our known physics into a tailspin:

https://theconversation.com/evidence-of-brand-new-physics-at-cern-why-were-cautiously-optimistic-about-our-new-findings-157464

And my search for the origination of a God concept shows that God (Yahweh) was a kind of human.

But the big news may be that the former Director of the CIA has a pal who was in an airplane held in suspended animation at 40,000 feet in the air, by a UFO?

https://nypost.com/2021/04/06/former-cia-director-says-he-believes-ufos-could-exist-report/

Yes. While my neighbors are consumed by their lawns, golfing, their charcoal/gas grills, and whether to wear a mask outside their hovels, some of us are or should be consumed by the fact that we are submersed in various realities, many unknown or unheeded by us because we think that our realities are the real reality – when it just isn’t.

RR

Monday, April 05, 2021

The Airship Wave as presented here a few years ago

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

This photo by Alfred Stieglitz caught my attention when I saw it in a photography book I have:

I've provided several postings about it and about the Airship waves of the 1890s, some bringing in a few sour comments and avid discussions:

https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2014_01_06_archive.html 

https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2018_06_03_archive.html

The photo is dated 1910 but when I ran a provenance check, it turned out that the photo was taken earlier and shown in 1910 by Stieglitz at a gallery affair.

When I lived in Florida, I showed the photo to a 92 year-old artist, Fred Hoertz [1889-1978] who lived in my building and he said he had seen, when a young lad, one of the airships that was a topic at the time.

I asked him what he thought about his sighting, and his wife intervened saying "How do you expect him to remember such a thing from so long ago?"

He wanted to say something but didn't.

RR

Sunday, April 04, 2021

Intelligence and the UFO myth

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc. 

I mentioned the book pictured a few days ago and it's a good, informa- tive read.

I'm newly into it and the opening pages are about early (pre-1947) flying saucer accounts.

The 1890s "airship" reportage takes a hit, mostly seen or proven to be hoax-ridden newspaper stories mostly made up to attract readers (and revenue).

My friend Lucius Farish [RIP], along with Jerome Clark, often provided airship stories for magazines.

I have a few of them here and they are reported as if the stories are authentic and Lucius thought some were.

My pal French skeptic and Cognitive Psychologist Gilles Fernandez has also often written demeaningly about the airship craze of the late-1890s.

And while I've taken the Farish stance that some of those 1896 and other 1890s accounts seem actual, that view is not taken by the author of the book noted here, Maurizio Vergo, or other sane UFOers,

What supplements that sensible offset to belief in an actual airship wave is not the stories themselves, made up out of whole-cloth by newspaper reporters, but the intelligence of readers who bought the stories,

Human intelligence has always been iffy -- and still is: see Facebook for evidence -- but American intelligence was, generally at a low-spot, noticed by Tocqueville in his monumental book, Democracy in America (Two Volumes) [1830-1840] and hadn't improved by the 1890s nor improved much as of 2021.

Newspaper readers took the faux airship sightings as authentic believing that newspapers were as true and reliable as their Bibles. (And we all know how true Biblical renditions are.)

One can extrapolate the mentality of America's hicks of the 1800s to the hicks of America today. And not just about race or political asininity but almost everything: economics, science, art, music, and, yes, UFOs.

Look at the thinking inside the UFO community. It's as rife with ignorance as that which suffused the airship fictions of the 1890s and continues with the ET extension for UFOs or Ancient Astronaut delusions of the current day.

Yes, UFOs exist, -- Unidentified Flying Objects -- not UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) but the tenor of the explanation that such unidentified things are spaceships from extraterrestrial sources flies in the face of astronomical realities and is just as fanciful as the idea that airships were from Mars (or Venus) in 1896.

Human intelligence has not come much further than that found among primitive humankind, except for a few outstanding persons -- .0001 of the human race.

And some of us wonder why we haven't explained or understood the UFO phenomenon? The answer reaches out and slaps us in the face every day.

RR

Saturday, April 03, 2021

But there may be one reason that ETs would visit Earth ….

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

….and that reason appears in the 2008 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still (with Keanu Reeves).

And that reason is this: 

The Earth is only one of a few (or maybe the only one) planets extant with the flora and fauna diversity found here.

Thus it is, perhaps, unique and must be preserved at all costs.

Advanced civilizations or species found this planet, in forays across the Galaxy or Cosmos long ago, and determined that Earth is a one-of-kind (or one-of-a-few) planet(s) that showcases the multiplicity of life as evolved or created.

And being advanced, the cosmic travelers have become regular visitors working to document this one-of-a-kind biosphere, maybe even capturing examples of the species found here – humans among them – and transferring many to planets that haven’t developed such diversity but are able to maintain such transferred species.

A 1960 Twilight Zone, with Roddy McDowall, had the same kind of idea: an astronaut that landed on Mars is housed in a caged replica of a human habitat (house) showing that Earth species are something to be viewed as unique.

RR

For Easter

 


Friday, April 02, 2021

The Madness of ET Belief

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

I’ve always liked the idea that Earth (and we humans) are being visited by extraterrestrial beings, in flying saucers [UFOs].

It started with Frank Scully, supported by George Adamski and supplemented by Donald Keyhoe.

But then my sojourn in a few semesters of Astrophysics in college wiped that notion off the surface of my brain.

And, as many of you know, I’m, today, no ET enthusiast, for all the reasons of astronomical difficulties with the idea:

We are a smidgen in the Milky Way galaxy and much less – a quark – in the Universe or Cosmos; that is, Earth is virtually nothing in the great scheme of things.

I know a few who visit and comment here think otherwise but you are pathologically wrong. They really haven’t thought through the prob- lems of space, time, or anything else that impacts the probability (and even the possibility) of ETs visiting Earth.

I won’t go into, again, the insistence that travel between possible alien civilizations – even via worm holes or vortexes or spacewarps – is problematical in more ways than one can count.

But I will accent the reasons why supposed advanced beings from elsewhere don’t or won’t come here to Earth, certainly in the droves that UFO reports indicate:

Earth is pathetic, within the context of other planets, especially those containing possible advanced civilizations.

(While some of you continue to think that this planet, with all its wonders and “awesome” attributes is a special place of existence, it isn’t…when one compares just that which sic-fi imaginings have produced over the years.)

The idea of stupefying sojourns by alleged space travelers assumes that they have missed other planets with advanced or interesting beings and flora or fauna and find Earth to be a wondrous zoo unlike anything in cosmic existence.

If one assumes that ET believers think the galaxy and/or cosmos is flush with alien civilizations, how is it that Earth then becomes a standout? What makes it so? (Again, use your imagination.)

And if ETs fight the vicissitudes of onerous space travel to get here, and keep coming back, what is the motivation? Such activity would be as mindless as the ubiquitous travels of Earth’s retirees who think they have to see, again and again, the mountains and seashores of Earth before they pass on. To what purpose or avail?

Earth is a planet of ongoing and insurmountable insanity and ignorance. Would a truly advanced ET civilization persist in visiting such a place.

When I was ensconced in abnormal psychologies, I, along with my fellow students, including my pal, at the time, Wayne Dyer, often visited local hospitals for the mentally disturbed – Eloise, or Wayne County General in Detroit. We found the visits disturbing and quite awful, hoping not to revisit as often as our professors liked us to.

This is how one would see an advanced civilization addressing a visit to Earth: a one-time occasion, full of gasps and incredulity especially if such visits occurred during times of human stress: wars, serious plagues, the Holocaust, et cetera, et cetera.

No, buddies of mine here. Extraterrestrials, alien visitors are not coming to Earth – well, maybe once around 10,000 years ago as Carl Sagan suggested – but not as often or in such numbers as we see via UFO reportage, as Jacques Vallee tells us.

They just aren’t. And if you continue to believe that ETs are here, among us, or visiting as often as some oddballs keep insisting, get yourself to a psychiatrist. You really need help, of a serious kind.

RR

Thursday, April 01, 2021

The UFO mess on Facebook

While most of us are just hanging around waiting for something big or worthwhile within the UFO frame, the Facebook UFOers are providing much detritus, that has little or nothing to do with the UFO pheneomenon.

Here's part of the Travis Walton controversy mentioned by Bill Murphy for a recent Anomalist link:

A prevailing theme is that Mike Rogers, one of the guys with Travis when he went off into the woods and became a hostage (kidnapped) of ETs, may be disputing the alleged abduction. But I don't think that's what Mike is bitching about.

Mike Rogers is upset that he was not let in on a new film or docu about the Walton episode. This goes to the current turmoil in the UFO community between flying saucer stalwarts and long-timers, for reasons that are petty or trivial.

Another example arises from Philip Mantle's vivid attempt to dethrone Nick Pope as a bright star in the UFO firmament. I won't get into the argument that Mantle is pushing except to note that he, Mantle, is pushing, with all his might, that lousy "alien autopsy" film and the conglomeration around it, but still persists in claiming Nick Pope is not all that he (Pope) claims to be.
Nick Pope is, for me and many others, an above-board gentlemen well-versed in UFO historiography and a notable TV personality who worked with Britain's MoD from which he culled much that is helpful in understanding the UFO phenomenon and government agencies that have information about it. 

Mantle's persistent attacks on Nick Pope's credibility is rooted in direct and fetid fits of jealousy and envy on Mantle's part, feelings that Mantle dismisses so aggressively, he opens the door to the reality of his covetous desire to be Nick.

That Mantle lauds the despicable alien autopsy film while slamming Nick Pope is a grand example of sociopathic behavior, which seems very prevalent in the UFO community nowadays.

Then there's this:
A fellow I like, Ben Brannum, likes to provide photos that contain, he writes, UFOs, this one a clip from the recent Mars probe supposedly showing scads of UFOs all over the Martian skies.

Few can see anything resembling a UFO and a few even offering their photos, or non-photos of UFOs to augment Ben's "observations."

And here is a quant offering from my pal Curt Collins, offering a nostalgic yet informative bit of UFO related (or not-related) spaceship "news."
Sometimes UFO postings are fraught with relevant information, but any relevance on Facebook lately is not finding its way to the forefront of the social network's pages that I scour.

And I don't see any change on the horizon.

RR

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Two (more) books

I found two books, on a pile here, that I should have highlighted earlier for visitors: The 2020 book Flying Saucers in the Sky by Maurizio Verga treats the phenomenon as a myth and is generously illustrated, covering the early years [1947 on] of the UFO mystery.

The 1995 Ann Madden Jones book -- The Yahweh Encounters -- is relevant to my Birth of God thesis.

It is framed within the UFO phenomenon, and presents some views that may interest those readers here who feel mixing religious-themed conjectures with UFO speculations is an unnecessary side-bar.

I'll provide pertinent material from both upcoming.

RR

Oumuamua again?

The  Science Channel repeated its Oumuamua program Wednesday afternoon [3/31] and offered several propositions as to what the 2017 "visitor" was, including Avi Loeb's conjecture that the object was, perhaps, an alien (extraterrestrial) spacecraft:

I liked the idea that the fast traveling "thing" might be a visitor from another civilization. But that supposition flies in the face of a few things. The object was tumbling as it sped through our solar system:
And no apparent contact came forth from the speeding object. Even if it was only an AI probe, one would expect some kind of indication that it was a messenger or investigating traveler. But it only passed by, rather swiftly, with nothing exhibited that hinted at an intelligent device or spaceship.

Yet , the object remains fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua

RR

Monday, March 29, 2021

Jerome Clark's new book delves into UFO porn?

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/brit-kidnapped-sex-beautiful-blonde-23809828

https://www.ibtimes.sg/aliens-dressed-blonde-women-kidnap-humans-sex-shocking-claim-by-new-book-56481

The God date

Contact from Academia.edu: a renowned professor, provided an answer to my etymology query there.

It actually appears in a book I have, and while not specific, the period in which it appears is 10,000-4500 B.C. [Page 26 ff.]

Interestingly, the recently important excavation of Göbekli Tepe figures into the matter.

The date for cognizance of the God word or concept, while not specific, does fall within the time-frame that I'm working in.

(I've thanked the professor and maintain contact with him for help with my thesis.)

RR  

Anthony Bragalia gets confirmation for his FOI UFO debris material

  www.ufoexplorations.com

Sunday, March 28, 2021

WHAT IS THE DISTORTION THEORY: CLARIFYING CONCEPTS by José Antonio Caravaca

Copyright 2021, José Antonio Caravaca

Over the years I have experienced that some readers find it difficult to accept or understand the Distortion Theory. Some reject the idea out of hand, with no attempt to comprehend it as if it were sheer nonsense.

I can only speculate that much of the inhibition to accept or understand my thesis derives from the use of the term distortion, which somehow evokes in many an hypothesis linking UFO visions with hallucinations or mental disorders.

I have commented on countless occasions that my approach does not detract one iota from the mystery of UFOs. But this has not been enough for many people to continue thinking that the Distortion Theory defends the non-existence of UFOs.

I suppose that some of these detractors don’t waste their time reading my articles, beyond the, also ignoring my books about the hypothesis. These people make clear that they think I’m little less than a skeptic or even an avowed denier of the ufological paradigm who is convinced that the witnesses are somehow mentally "distorting" when they claim to have had a UFO encounter.

And they are so sure of this, that time and time again they ask me a series of questions as if they had discovered the Achilles’ heel of my approach.

That is why in my lectures or comments in my articles I usually find, as in an eternal deja-vu, some repetitive questions: How do you explain that UFOs are detected on radar screens and can be photographed? What happens when a UFO is seen by many people at the same time? They are all distorting at the same time? Can distortions leave traces and marks on the ground? Can a dog detect a distortion? All such queries based on the premise that distortion equals mental derangement, as if the Distortion Theory restricts the UFO phenomenon to a mere mental state that makes witnesses dream with their eyes open of flying saucers and extraterrestrial beings.

But obviously these people are wrong in their judgments and opinions. One can only legitimately disagree with an idea when one knows it in depth.

To begin with, I would like to clarify that the Distortion Theory was born with the intention of trying to decode how close encounters with UFOs occur, or in other words, why do people experience these kind of strange visions and why do they see them in a certain way?

My analysis does not go so much into assessing or uncovering the ultimate nature of the phenomenon, as trying to put on the table a series of clues that seek to understand the mechanisms that could be behind these manifestations and that could explain why the witnesses explain these phenomena in such a personal, subjective and non-transferable way.

But that is one of the keys of the Distortion Theory, to banish preconceived ideas based mostly on serious errors of analysis perpetrated on the UFO cases.

It is also essential to keep in mind that my area of study focuses on close encounters with UFOs, which evidently exhibit a higher strangeness than distant sightings, so for many readers, it is difficult to understand the enormous leap that occurs in research of this type of incident  in comparison with observations of unidentified objects at a distance.

The so-called close encounters of the third type demonstrate that we are not before a stable phenomenon with an "aesthetic" memory that we can trace or follow from one event to another.

Regardless of the fact that sometimes these apparitions are physical, which is indisputable at this point, UFOs have never presented continuity, that we have been in the presence of the same craft and the same crew-members. This is already a very suspicious fact.

To deny the reality of the phenomenon while undertaking alternative ways to find an explanation in the extraterrestrial hypothesis supports the idea that the main ingredients of the UFO paradigm-- i.e. the alleged spacecraft and their occupants have varied ingredients both in their typology and anatomy respectively, and in their behavior towards witnesses -- indicates the manifestations are restarted with each witness encounter from scratch. And this would demonstrate, among other things, that the UFO phenomenon, whatever its origin, modifies and reacts interactively to the presence of observers.

Therefore, it has been a mistake on the part of a great majority of researchers to try to transfer a template of a coherent and uniform phenomenon about which different witnesses from all over the world gave an account.

UFOs have never possessed a fixed photograph. Like dreams, these apparitions have been subject to a wide range of personal interpretations and decodings, as well as a filtering under socio-cultural conditions that would point out that the observer has a decisive or prominent influence on what is observed.

If we do not accept that our psyche modifies and interferes in an active way in the scenographic content exposed in the UFO experiences, we will be very far from reaching a correct interpretation of the paradigm.

And this adds another important fact: all the analyses that we carry out on the casuistry have to take into account this active interference on the part of the witnesses in the content exposed by the phenomenon.

Otherwise our hypotheses will be confused because the psychic architecture resulting from our interaction with the paradigm projects a fictitious composition that adorns the real phenomenon with elements and characteristics that have nothing to do with its true essence.

To conclude, I will say that these anomalous manifestations seem to stand in a liminal territory between our reality and the place from which these phenomena come (which may even be unexplored chinks of our own reality), and this could explain the complex amalgam of paraphysical factors recorded in ufological apparitions.

But we have to keep in mind that only by understanding the modus operandi of UFOs in their closest encounters with witnesses can we take the next step. To venture to discover the cause of these fascinating apparitions.  

JAC

What happens when you admit you're into UFOs

RR

Saturday, March 27, 2021

I could use some help

I'm stuck on a small but significant piece of information for my Birth of God treatise (that actually will factor in a UFO hypothesis I've not appended to my Substack package and papers for Academic.edu and Quora. UFO topics are verboten in my circles at each of those venues).

The problem for me is that I can find nowhere the etymology for the word God. (This is the case with dog also, yes?) Even my Oxford Dictionary is remiss citing old German and some philoso- phers in its origin source but no date for the introduction of God as a word (or concept even).

I've scoured and printed out dozens of scholarly PDFs:

And bought a few new books:
And re-searched some books I already had. Here are two:
So, if anyone has a source for the first appearance of the word God, or even the concept -- no book or source I've read (so far) has a date for the idea of God; well Julian Jaynes writes that the idea stems from the fusion, by primitive mankind, of "kings" (tribal leaders) with an idea of Gods, but he's wrong  which my work will argue -- please place a comment here.

Important N.B. This blog's internet troll, Parakletos, need not waste time trying to add a comment here  Blogger cites his commentary as Spam so I only see that he has sent Spam; what is in that Spam is not seen by me, as the note goes right to trash.

RR

Will this explain UFOs? [Explicate!]

RR

Friday, March 26, 2021

UFO researchers spurned by government agencies? (Tell me something I don't know)

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/ufo-sightings-report-478104

Thursday, March 25, 2021

A delay in the pending Pentagon "disclosure" of its UFO files?

https://whnt.com/news/ufo-report-might-miss-deadline-according-to-senator/

More about John Ratcliffe's comments

https://www.thecut.com/2021/03/an-upcoming-ufo-report-is-apparently-difficult-to-explain.html

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

A 2005 Must-Have UFO book, by Michael Swords

 

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

I've noted this little 250 page UFO book a few times here, but scanning it again, I have to adjudicate it as one of the best presentments of the UFO phenomenon in print, and maybe one of the best offerings in media that is available about the enigma followed by visitors to this blog.

The accounts offered in it derive from the credible files of J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO Studies and gathered by the eminent Michael Swords, with illustrations that are charming and spot on.

But it's the content that wows.

Every possible Flying Saucer [UFO] type that can be imagined shows up in the pages, and every kind of experience is also provided: events, sightings, episodes, everything.

This is a complete capsule of every kind of UFO report extant.

But the problem is this: once you peruse the listings Professor Swords has gathered for this little tome, you come away, astounded by the exquisite variety of UFO accounts formally reported, and on the record.

The content tells us that the UFO phenomenon is something truly extraordinary and unique in its varieties of expressions, something so weird and unique that it needs the full attention of someone or some group that has been, up to now, rather slipshod with research or sensible theorizing.

Yes, a lot of meaningless effort has taken place and weak efforts expended. But the phenomenon remains as elusive and unexplained as any other enigma known to mankind.

Get the book, if you want a grand stroll through the great mystery that tantalizes many of us. It's well worth the few dollars you'll spend to get it in your library and its content in your memory bank.

RR

Time-Life book (with no published date)

 

I don't remember what one-time regular here thought the Heflin UFO photos were true and revelatory but apparently Project Blue Book didn't agree:

The book has much, much more about the phenomenon but here are the pages showing kinds of UFOs reported over the years, and some of the weird entities also allegedly observed:
The book is a real treat, with correctives about iconic UFO sightings and lots of information that has gotten lost in the welter of conversations by UFOers over time that has mucked up that information.

I'm sorry I don't know the date of the book but you might be able to find it in a remainder bin at your local book store or via Amazon's independent booksellers.

RR