Bruce Maccabee's new book about the 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting
I’m just now reading Bruce Maccabee’s book Three Minutes in June: the UFO sighting that changed the world [Richard Dolan Press, Rochester, NY, 2017].
I’m only into the first few pages so a detailed excursion into the
content will have to wait.
(The Anomalist’s Bill Murphy noted a review of the
book, a few weeks back and I see several online via Google.)
But here, for now, I want to note Bruce’s commitment to the
ET scenario, using his analytic proof of the Kenneth Arnold sighting, which is
the purpose of the book.
He writes in The Introduction:
“Unidentified Flying Objects are real. Most reports … are
explainable. However some of them are not and some of those that are not
explainable are Alien Fling Craft (AFC), devices not made by mankind but
rather by Non-Human Intelligences (NHIs). [Page 2, Bold italics mine]
Bruce promises that his analysis of the Arnold sighting will
“prove [his] conclusion.”
I’m a Maccabee fan, and have been since UFO UpDate founder
Errol Buce-Knapp told me that he thought Bruce was working inside the UFO
community for Naval research.
(Bruce Duensing once sent me a photo of a spectre that
appeared in his kitchen, asking me who might tell him what it was. I contacted
Bruce putting him in touch with Duensing, knowing that if anyone could explain
the ghostly presence that Duensing experienced, it would be Dr. Maccabee.)
Yet, even as a Maccabee fanboy, I’m stunned that he is so
gung-ho nowadays for the ET explanation for UFOs.
After all, his rather thorough analysis of the
Trent/McMinnville photos had a skeptical tinge as I recall.
Anyway, I see, in the first few pages, something that
baffles me, and for which I expect him to offer an explanation when I get to
his analysis. It is this.
He writes that Arnold “was startled by a flash of light on
his airplane. It was so intense that it briefly lit up the cockpit … They [the
saucers] were at his left, far north of him.” [Page 5, Italics, mine again].
The “disks” were 20-25 miles away from Arnold’s plane, which
is noted later in this book and analyzed to determine speed and rebut critics.
I find – and it may be covered by Bruce when I get to the
latter pages – that for the “saucers” to provoke an intense, flash of light,
lighting up his cockpit” they’d have to be closer to Arnold. And with the sun
overhead rather than closer to the horizon, I find the perceived flash to be
troublesome.
But Bruce will probably offer an answer. I hope so,
For those of you who pretend to be UFO aficionados, I think
you should buy Bruces’s book and those by other UFO writers, like Randle,
Redfern, Rosales, et al.
These are serious “ufologists” or researchers who deserve
some compensation and support for their judicious efforts.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Monday, January 08, 2018
8 Comments:
I am interested in this. That is despite the lone thing I've read by Maccabee, his egregiously partisan intro to Captured!, a Stan and Kath book about the Hill case.
Am I a bad person for wanting to read Truman Bethurum's book before I plow through the Arnold literature?
By
Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Yes, you are very bad, Terry.....
Contactee stories are fiction whereas books from people like Maccabee are factual, or so he tells us.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 09, 2018
But since everyone now admits they're fiction, we can enjoy them as such. Reading a non-fiction UFO book means getting angry/flummoxed at their lies, exaggerations, illogic, etc. (And it means taking notes so one can make such points.)
By
Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, January 09, 2018
I'm with ya, Terry....
And there are truths in fiction (as Derrida tells us) that are meaningful, almost more than those found in non-fiction.
I plan a piece on Derrida's ideas, although I (like others) have trouble grasping the full extent of his thinking.
My pal, Bryan Sentes who teaches at a college in Canada, as you know, and which is close by you I think, cautions me about trying to present Derrida coherently to the visitors here.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Alas, Bruce's book will turn out to be another 'pie in the sky' type book. Or should I say '9 pies in the sky'?
Just like the innumerable, repetitive and tiresome Roswell 'pie on the ground' books, it will make a brief (very brief) splash, then quietly subside.
Meanwhile astronomy and astro-science will carry on as usual unperturbed, pelicans or not.
Come on, admit it!
By
cda, at Thursday, January 11, 2018
Bruce Maccabee's book, CDA, is like all his forensic looks at saucer sightings/events.
It's detailed and perspicacious.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 11, 2018
Rich: "My pal, Bryan Sentes who teaches at a college in Canada, as you know, and which is close by you I think, cautions me about trying to present Derrida coherently to the visitors here."
If Sentes' birth language is French, you might ask him to translate those things Derrida wrote that interest you, so as not depend on the existing published translations. On good authority, I was told the English translators often did not understand what Derrida was going on about and would have to resort to the literal, rather than a paraphrase that would make sense in English. Translation is not easy.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Friday, January 12, 2018
Thanks Don:
Bryan made sire to "approve" the translated books I bought were the right ones.
(I have a score of Derrida tomes now and am struggling to find them coherent, to me.)
I'm fighting to understand Lacan also.
These two guys and a few others provide mental sustenance that helps me cope with the UFO proposals that are rife in ufological circles.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, January 12, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home