A UFO crew of five flabbergasted the witness
Paul Dean sent this along, correcting the headline date of 1955 to 1954, the alleged year of the sighting:
This is the account, from the above, where a witness describes her observation of "men" seen inside the dome of the craft she saw:
That virtually no UFO sighting today has accounts of "entities" or beings accompanying the thing seen in the sky, usually just an odd light, tells us that the phenomenon has either diminished in intensity and character or witnesses have become shorn of societal (cold war?) hysteria.
The ups and downs of UFO reports are grist for evaluation of a serious kind, within various disciplines.
No one has tackled the matter accordingly, in an academic manner, only in a superficial way. This leaves open the door for a UFO investigator/writer with the acumen and energy to provide a study that enlightens humanity about its latent fantasies and tendency to be "mad" as the circumstances of their existence intrude on them.
RR
The ups and downs of UFO reports are grist for evaluation of a serious kind, within various disciplines.
No one has tackled the matter accordingly, in an academic manner, only in a superficial way. This leaves open the door for a UFO investigator/writer with the acumen and energy to provide a study that enlightens humanity about its latent fantasies and tendency to be "mad" as the circumstances of their existence intrude on them.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, December 17, 2017
3 Comments:
Indeed, RR.
There seems to be so much we could learn from the rabid or even casual 'ETH' ufology.
What it says about US, OUR MINDS and how they can work.
The subject of belief is being examined, not least of all by curious bloggers like yourself who have had such a good look at subjects of incredible claim, imagined other origins without refusing related posibilities, turned the barrel upside-down and shaken many drops of likely or at least possible explanations for the amazing amount of crap we are still trying to digest.
As a skeptic I must indulge in introspection, self examination and a good, honest look at myself. In there I find the same kind of logical fallacies and various biases which I complain so much about in others.
I like how I approach claims of incredible nature, I appreciate how I see the same processes expressed by others.
Keep rock'n, RR.
All the best,
Woody
By
Woody, at Monday, December 18, 2017
Perhaps we should simply acknowledge the obvious. As human technology advances, particularly photography, the UFO phenomenon adjusts accordingly. Whatever UFO's represent, they continually shift their appearance just enough to keep us from getting good images. With the near universality of cameraphones does it not seem a bit odd that the 50's, 60's and 70's produced far better photographic evidence than the typical photo of the 21st century?
It is also quite interesting that, as you stated, entities seem to be pretty much a thing of the past. Our most convincing daytime sightings these days are frequently some sort of amorphous, shape-changing, metallic looking mass where the object constantly seems to be evolving. And they almost never land. A far cry from the wobbly saucers of yesteryear.
By
solarity, at Monday, December 18, 2017
Nice one, solarity, but the thing is; how do we know that a clear photo isn't a CGI
that's the problem!?...
An old photo of UFO is before, "CGI technology" THAT, can make all the difference to/for some!! And yes, amorphous shape-changing, are reported to be seen, so how do we think about this? There must be many explanation!?.............
By
Daniel, at Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Post a Comment
<< Home