UFO Conjectures

Friday, January 26, 2018

The Exaltation and/or Reverie of UFOs

Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
In a previous piece here I suggested that UFO witnesses are a special breed; that is, UFO sighters (and paranormal experiencers) seem to gain the attention of weird, other-worldly phenomena.

Jacques Vallee has stated that UFO witnesses may be the clue to what UFOs are, and a number of ufologists (UFO buffs) are climbing on that bandwagon, me among them, to some extent.

But while most UFOs have been and are seen by the run-of-the-mill humans, the common man (more so than sophisticated types) and are products of a neurological/psychological kind in those instances, there does appear to be a concrete UFO reality that appears or has appeared without benefit of a mental environment but that is not what I’m addressing here.

French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez is best able to cite the cognitive reality or unreality of UFO sightings and the mental stability or instability of those who witness UFOs.

Gilles is a cognitive psychologist.

But there are a number of citations extant that show how stress, drugs, general health, neurological displacements, psychological predispositions, et cetera, can evoke access to imagery and experiences that fall into a category that belies reality.

Those citations are available to UFO inquisitors should they take the time to seek them out.

For example, a paper about stress and the accompanying effects can explain how some UFO sightings (many that we all have dealt with) have come about, how or why they occurred:

The effects of stress and stress hormones on human cognition: Implications for the field of brain and cognition by S.J. Lupien a, F. Maheu b, M. Tu c, A. Fiocco a, T.E. Schramek at a.) the Center for Studies on Human Stress, Douglas Hospital Research Center, McGill University, Montreal, Que., Canada b.) Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program, Emotional Development and Affective Neuroscience Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA c.) University of British Columbia, Centre for Community Child Health Research, 480 Oak Street, L408, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6H 3V4

“Although adrenaline does not readily access the brain, it can still impact the brain through its actions on the sensory vagus outside of the blood–brain barrier, with information transmitted into the brain via the nucleus of the solitary tract. The most important brain area containing adrenergic receptors is the amygdala, which has been shown to play an important role in fear processing, and memory for emotionally relevant information.

“Because of their actions on brain structures known to be involved in fear detection and memory for emotionally relevant information, the stress mediators enhance the formation of so-called ‘flashbulb memories’ of events associated with strong emotions, including fear ...

“ …in the early 1960s, the discovery of neuropeptides as substances having not only classical endocrine effects, but also affecting brain and behavior, significantly extended our view of hormones and opened the door to new possibilities of hormonal actions on the brain (for a complete historical background, [see de Kloet, 2000].

“Moreover, an emotion possesses many of the properties of a stressor. First, it often has an identifiable source. Second, it is usually brief and leads to an intense and conscious experience of short duration.

“ … the more attention given to an event, the higher the probability that this event will be elaborated (relating the information from this event to other situations and related concepts in memory) at the time of encoding.

“The level of attention devoted to an event at the time of encoding will greatly depend on the emotional salience of this event.”

Now, no one is going to apply the stress explanation to sightings but it certainly can offer an explanation for some iconic sightings if one takes the time to look at the witness account with a serious eye.

But here are other possible influences for UFO sightings, and I’ve noted some of them over time here: drug use (the Travis Walton “abduction”), mass hysteria (the Fatima sun movement), neurological displacement, epileptic-like seizure (the Robert Taylor “assault”) and various psychological maladies (many of the humanoid encounters listed here from Rosales, Redfern, Swords, et al.)

My point? That UFO witnesses are open to visualizing UFOs for a number of reasons, some even having a mystical-like experience, mostly where UFOs appear as glorious lights in the sky at night or bright phenomena during the day….the UAP that some UFO buffs extol as UFOs when all that is witnessed is the Jungian phenomena or the Father Gill configuration, which had a more concretized reality for the deluded witnesses.

Yes, I think some UFOs may be probes from advanced other-world civilizations but so few as to preclude an explanation for the number of UFO sighting reports.

And many UFO sightings are misperceptions of mundane things surely, but those that are represented by detailed, authentic reports of odd things and entities seen are products of consciousness that transcends common sense and only happens to certain humans at a moment of euphoric bliss or temporary stress, some sightings induced by ingestion of befouled ingredients or even contaminated air.

The possibilities for UFO sightings are as manifold as the speculative imagination allows.

That UFO adherents refuse to ingratiate themselves to those possibilities goes to the heart of ufological ennui.

RR

45 Comments:

  • Exegetically, as usual Rich! No argument from me. Just delighted that you used the word: -(SOME:)- Tis OK Bryan, we are not smitten:) by any of the above. But Rich does make some interesting points of view on: (SOME) conditions of UFO sightings.It is hard to deny his account of those conditions; Drugs, Drunk, list goes on, that he meant, when saying: "weak-minded" I might have said: "Vulnerable" I know I wasn't, I'm sure you weren't, or Rich, with his three sightings!! These things just catch us of guard, when we least expect it. We see something we can't explain, and that is where it ends. Well seemingly so anyway...............

    By Blogger Daniel, at Friday, January 26, 2018  

  • "We see something we can't explain...."

    That's your incorrigible insistence anyway--a mere belief, a false belief.

    Refusing to accept most likely real-world explanations exposes a fantasy-prone personality who has taken refuge inside the culturally supplied "UFO" myth and delusion.

    It's irrational belief that there is something more than the world itself--the world described by science.

    "UFO" is an antiscientific symbol.

    That's the definition of Believer.

    People see things they can't explain--but that doesn't create an unknown thing.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, January 26, 2018  

  • Ah, yes!

    The UFO experiencers (or what they are) should be investigated -- what they felt, what did happen (according to them), were there any physical tracers etc, wouldn´t that be the closest of scientific exploration as long as we can´t summon ufos in the laboratory? Why do some people see ufos and some not? Not that it would mean that they´re just hallucinations (I´m not suggesting that), but perhaps what we see is already in our head...

    Or maybe those ufonauts are much more wierder than we think....

    P.S. Hi, Daniel!

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Friday, January 26, 2018  

  • zoam:

    -> That's your incorrigible insistence anyway--a mere belief, a false belief. <-

    It is not a false belief! Zoam. Let me say this, if you see an aircraft fly above you,..you believe it! WHY? You know of such things, you see it, you can hear it, you can feel or experience the vibration it makes, it's real!...

    If you are crossing the road, and you see a truck coming, you believe what your seeing, if not, your history! We are dependent on our five senses, right?
    It is the same thing, when faced with the unidentified whatever, you see it, you know what you see is there, but you have no "Recognition" of what it is you are looking at, you have never seen the likes of it before, so how would YOU, react to that Situation? Deny yourself the curiosity? and stay sceptical? sorry, that's the easy way out. Until you have your first viewing of something your not able to relate to, You will always be known as; Zoam, the sceptic:) So what's new?.........

    By Blogger Daniel, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Jerry:

    How are you? good to see you back in the fold. I was wondering where you were & what your up to. Welcome back!....

    -> Why do some people see ufos and some not? <-

    My guess is, people getting on with life, and not: "looking up" but looking down and around as we do. Life is about down here, and we are oblivious to what might be going on, right above our heads, if only we were to look up at the right time, in the right direction, we might see, what Zoamy doesn't:) and likely never will. Good to see you back though, Jerry...........

    By Blogger Daniel, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • I think the "Quest" for answers in our lifetime, is somewhat like a (Maze) At first you are faced with, nothing but dead ends, and if you keep trying, eventually you find the pathway through to the answers your looking for.............

    By Blogger Daniel, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • RR,

    That’s quite a list of physiological and psychological explanations. I’m sure that some of these are factors involved in sightings but I’m also inclined to think these are, routinely, easy explanations for the skeptics that may be inappropriate.

    Then here comes Jung and the Collective Unconscious, Jose and his External Agent and similar theories. There could be a thread there too, but each, as a theory, requires it own separate leap of faith.

    Beyond the intoxicated or otherwise affected or afflicted and frauds I go with the notion that most of the reports are just what was observed and inexpiable to the observer and I don't project beyond that.

    Our skeptical brethren love all of their tools for their skepticism. I often wish that some of them were to come upon their own transfixing encounter and then be honest about it.

    Skepticism is a good thing until it becomes its own religion of denial.

    I’ll continue to look for a signal amid the noise. Scientific exploration and research continues; there is more to be learned.

    BD

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Zoam: "Refusing to accept most likely real-world explanations..."

    You are as naive as CDA.

    "It's irrational belief that there is something more than the world itself--the world described by science."

    Yes, of course, it all makes sense now. Replace irrational belief with rational belief and all will be well. Shouldn't your 'science' be capitalized, Zoam?

    Science bless you,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Don; Any comparison to Chris is a compliment. Thank you!

    Do you have knowledge of things outside the world?

    Didn't think so.

    On what basis would one conclude something more than the object of perception?

    It simply does not follow.

    Always a pleasure, Don.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Yes, Daniel; That's me, zoam, skeptic and scientific realist, debunker and PSHer.

    And who are you?

    A guy telling a silly, utterly inconsequential "UFO" story on the Internet about once seeing what was most probably a large meteor or earth-crossing asteroid.

    But you refuse to accept that most plausible real-world explanation--insisting that it remain "unidentified." The only rhetorical--and glaringly fallacious--device in the "UFO" Believer playbook: Ignore the obvious and appeal to ignorance.

    Now which requires more general expertise and in-depth knowledge of this subject?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Hi, Daniel!

    It´s nice to see you´re still here. I guess you could say I´ve been through hard times (well, nobody got hurt but I lost a lot of my library...damn, I spent some serious time (if not money) to find those books....Basically I´ve just been too lazy to post here, I guess : )
    Hmm, funny, your point (as why people are not seeing UFOs nowadays) that people "not looking up" actually struck me quite clever. I´ve often wondered why people usually just stare in front of them and not look a the skies (or at least the roofs of the buildings), I mean even here where I live (Helsinki, Finland) there are interesting buildings and stuff you wouldn´t notice if you didn´t look, but a lot of people don´t seem to realize it.
    OK, sceptically (of course) I think that many UFO sightings happen just when someone living in a ciy juts looks up at the sky and sees something he or she can´t explain (because he or she hasn´t looked the sky very often)-- people seem to think that he sky is very static but in reality there´s a lost of stuff going on: satellites, International Space Station, planets, atmospherical phenomenoma, etc...
    I´ve said this before but, Daniel, we sure disagree but let´s keep on commenting!
    (Aaargh, I can´t believe I wrote "wierder" before, I thought only idiots do that....it´s weirder all the time...)

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • "Scientific exploration and research continues; there is more to be learned."

    Bryan; the very IDEA "UFO" is antithetical to science:

    The mere failure to identify--a negative--cannot be the basis for a positive assertion of existence. It's a Non sequitur.

    Further, the IDEA "UFO" assumes the answer, the answer is the question. The IDEA "UFO" is complete; Believers have already decided. Petitio principii

    Neither of these meta-rationales (phony excuses) for continued belief in the "UFO" myth are "scientific" in the least, they are, in fact, the opposite: They are Anti-science!

    Want to be scientific? Adopt the rules of science and the scientific method.

    If you really think the "UFO" IDEA was anything more than a popular-culture phenomenon created to sell science-fiction magazines to boys then nothing is likely to change your mind.

    Best always, zoam

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Zoam:

    -> Now which requires more general expertise and in-depth knowledge of this
    subject? <-

    Well Zoam, what would a skeptic know, than "witnesses" have, first hand? and there's a lot of them............

    By Blogger Daniel, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Dear Zoam,
    You start with “the very IDEA "UFO" is antithetical to science.”

    I respectfully demur and will start with the definition of science.

    Definition: “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

    Phenomena on the ground can be sought out and studied. Arial phenomena cannot be easily so. UAPs, as they are irregular and transient, are thus difficult to impossible for the scientific method. That only implies an unfortunate situation and certainly not a conclusion.

    This unfortunate situation seems to have a difficult path of seeking a signal amid the noise. We may decry the noise but not ignore the signal we seek.

    Your pompous insults of those who don't agree with you amount to zealotry. I object to that. Oh, and propping your opinions with Latin, cute but unconvincing. Try this one: odiosus.

    I have personally witnessed something aloft on a clear day that made no sense to me. I come to this blog to read of what others have seen and/or what they think about.

    Call it my own research or simply to have polite conversations with other that have seen such or are just interested.

    As I have said before, I object to skepticism that I embrace, becoming distorted by zealots in a distasteful religion of negativity.

    I know you are an educated man and so am I. The big difference is one of open mindedness. I am curious and willing to listen, consider and discuses politely with other while you are not.

    Dictionary reference of zealot: A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. –Sound familiar?

    Also, I write in my own name while you use a nom de plume, there’s another difference. Step up sir.

    Bryan Daum

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Saturday, January 27, 2018  

  • Zoam: "Refusing to accept most likely real-world explanations..."

    "On what basis would one conclude something more than the object of perception?"

    You don't seem to realize that accepting the "most likely" explanation for something you cannot prove had happened, and that is not an object of perception for you, is hardly "science".

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, January 28, 2018  

  • "what would a skeptic know, than "witnesses" have, first hand? and there's a lot of them."

    Another logical fallacy, Daniel, skeptics know the world as well as anyone and thousands if not millions of "UFO" stories don't add up to one REAL "UFO."

    Thousands of "UFO" files, but nothing in those files, ambiguous lights usually.

    And as I've demonstrated over decades, the best "UFO" stories are the most debunkable because they are composed of utter bunk! That's called ZO's Law.

    The RendleSham (Halt's Hoax); Cash-Landrum Hoax; Terauchi's "UFO" Panic; Arnold's Hoax; Zamora's Panic, and so on. Just name one.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, January 28, 2018  

  • After appealing to his own "sighting," Bryan appeals to "open-mindedness" now, as if believing a silly pop-culture myth is a reality is somehow thoughtful, as if it requires thought. It doesn't. In fact, I'd call it a "no brainer."

    The origin and history of the "UFO" myth and delusion is fully documented. It's not as if there's any question about its mere subsistence as a science-fiction inspired myth.

    And don't pretend--because that's all it is, a pretense--that these positions are somehow equal. If there were any REAL "UFOs" of any kind then we'd all know it.

    But the world knows the origin and history of the myth and delusion as the fiction it is; and it revisits that origin with every new spate of reports and confirms the non-reality of any kind of "UFOs."

    There is no "UFO" phenomenon, never was. --zoam, 1995

    And as if I'm unidentified, as if it made a difference. That wouldn't make "UFOs" a reality.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, January 28, 2018  

  • Don; I certainly do not "realize" that because the opposite is what is true in the world. Ask any scientist or philosopher of science, "proofs" exist in math and logic. The real world consists of competing hypotheses.

    The fundamental principle of science is parsimony, it's known as Occam's razor. So how is the "most likely" explanation, being the "best," not scientific?

    The greatest triumph of science is accurately describing what cannot be perceived. Some people are uncomfortable with the ambiguity and incompleteness of knowledge. I accept it as fact.

    The "UFO" subject is well within the completed realm of human knowledge--even if some refuse to accept that fact. ;-D

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, January 28, 2018  

  • Not, a another logical fallacy at all, Zoam, and I don't deny skeptics know the world as well as anyone, and that thousands if not millions of "UFO" stories don't add up to one REAL "UFO." This is where your wrong once again. The "UFO" stories don't add to one REAL "UFO" to skeptics like you, because YOU! have never seen one,
    let alone, except that others have.

    And as for your comment above saying:....-> A guy telling a silly, utterly inconsequential "UFO" story on the Internet about once seeing "what was most probably" a large meteor or earth-crossing asteroid.<-

    Is wrong once again, you have no way of knowing this. YOU! were not there, to see what I and other were watching.

    A large meteor or earth-crossing asteroid travel at something around 30 to 40 thousand mph. What we were watching was nothing like that speed. It was slow in comparison, with no tail that one would expect to see with a meteor.
    As for ambiguous lights, that's every witnesses question...

    I agree with Bryan, where he comments:

    -> Skepticism is a good thing, until it becomes its own religion of denial.<-

    Surely, THAT! should be a wakeup-call Zoam, or maybe not............

    By Blogger Daniel, at Sunday, January 28, 2018  

  • Daniel;

    Can you really not understand the logical fallacy in believing the sheer number of stories is evidence of anything? It's the very well known Argument ad populum or numerum. Or is it that you simply refuse to play by the rules of logic, and like some others here, think being irrational and making up your own fallacious "rules" is the way to maintain your belief in the "UFO" myth. That's called pseudoscience.

    There's no way for the casual observer, YOU, to determine size, speed, or distance and so duration of an earth-crossing asteroid event. What we do know is that they are common, there are millions, from the size of a sofa to the size of a house and might skirt the atmosphere or orbit out past the Moon. That's what is up there--not "UFOs" of any kind. Decades of continuous global surveillance has not detected even one "UFO" but it has detected millions of earth-crossing asteroids.

    So what you most likely saw was just that. I've heard such stories many times.

    Yeah, it's always those mean ol' skeptics fault that Believers don't have one shred of veracious evidence for REAL "UFOs" of any kind--only utterly inconsequential stories of ambiguous lights.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, January 28, 2018  

  • Zoam:

    Who is kidding who:) when you talk about the rules of logic? Who's logic? "YOUR'S" or Ufology, with its thousands of witnesses. A typical example in illustration, of comment you made earlier:.. utter bunk! [That's called Zo's Law]...

    -> And as I've demonstrated over decades, the best "UFO" stories are the most debunkable because they are composed of utter bunk!....[That's called ZO's Law.]<-

    Is this your logic? Sorry, not impressed. And WHO is being irrational, and making up THEIR own fallacious "rules" a way to maintain their belief in the "UFO" myth.
    Mmmm, I wonder who that could be? Enough said, Ufology exists for one reason, thousand of UFO reports, for which have many reason behind them, some of which you deny; FINE!...............

    By Blogger Daniel, at Monday, January 29, 2018  

  • Zoam: "I certainly do not "realize" that because the opposite is what is true in the world. Ask any scientist or philosopher of science, "proofs" exist in math and logic. The real world consists of competing hypotheses."


    You are replying to: "You don't seem to realize that accepting the "most likely" explanation for something you cannot prove had happened, and that is not an object of perception for you, is hardly "science".'

    For example, your "most likely" explanation for Socorro is a lunar lander prototype, but you cannot prove it. In order to even have an opinion you must accept Zamora's statement, which you cannot prove is true or accurate.

    It is not an object of perception for you and never can be because we cannot observe the past, and proof is not possible.

    "The fundamental principle of science is parsimony, it's known as Occam's razor. So how is the "most likely" explanation, being the "best," not scientific?"

    Before you decide on what is "most likely", on any principle about any human event in 'history', is to determine whether it happened. "Parsimony" will not help. Science may be parsimonious, but human behavior is not. Why do you exalt Occam as a fundamental principle when it is only a rule of thumb? The principle is only visible in comparisons and that occurs after the fact of doing whatever you mean by science, and is probably irrelevant.

    "The "UFO" subject is well within the completed realm of human knowledge--even if some refuse to accept that fact. ;-D"

    What is the UFO subject you refer to? Just like 'believers' you 'debunkers' focus only on the UFO. I suggest not doing that, but instead to study the case itself with an eye to human behavior rather than whether or not there could be a spaceship and aliens. Recently there is another 'witness to Roswell' in play. You will find out nothing about it by ranting about what was "most likely". I'll do a write-up of it on my website, no science involved.

    There is no such thing as settled science or a "completed realm of human knowledge". Plus, it is an unscientific and unprovable claim.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, January 29, 2018  

  • "thousand of UFO reports, for which have many reason behind them"

    None of which can be shown to be extraordinary--something not already known to exist in the world.

    Thank you, Daniel.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Monday, January 29, 2018  

  • Don;

    I don't need to prove the LLRV prototype hypothesis for Zamora's report. And I've said that repeatedly, as I have said we must assume some level of credibility and so accuracy and truth to his story.

    All we have is Lonnie's fairly detailed report. If we can't accept it for the most part, even as a sort of waking dream requiring analysis, then there's not much point.

    First doubt, but assuming it's credible, his report--in a real-world context--becomes our evidence and to which we apply reason. That's the Scientific skeptical approach.

    That may not be the impossible approach requiring firsthand knowledge of the event that you desire, but then that's not in keeping with the ambiguous, incomplete nature of knowledge.

    And so, in the real world, I can very well decide what is a "most likely" scenario or hypothesis.

    Occam's razor is more than a rule of thumb, it is a fundamental principle. And in weighing competing hypotheses I can revisit them and reconsider which is the "most likely" repeatedly.

    The historical fact of "UFO" myth and delusion as described by the PSH was decided in the positive long ago--and the assertion of any "UFO" reality is falsified with every inconsequential report. The world decided long ago! ;-D

    Best!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Monday, January 29, 2018  

  • Hi Jerry:

    ->I´ve said this before but, Daniel,we sure disagree but let´s keep on commenting!<-

    Jerry, disagreeing is ok, it just shows the "stance" that we, as individuals hold. Its ok! and we hear you:)

    Sorry to read the loss, of your books. One good thing out of this Jerry, at least; You've read them!.............

    By Blogger Daniel, at Tuesday, January 30, 2018  

  • "I don't need to prove the LLRV prototype hypothesis for Zamora's report. And I've said that repeatedly, as I have said we must assume some level of credibility and so accuracy and truth to his story.

    All we have is Lonnie's fairly detailed report. If we can't accept it for the most part, even as a sort of waking dream requiring analysis, then there's not much point."

    The point is to analyze the document. I assume the "fairly detailed report" is the three-pager from Captain Holder. That's the earliest one we have.

    This report is a pastiche of three perspectives mixed together to create a chronology. There are first person singular statements, third person singular statements, and statements without a pronoun which might be either first or third person. For a first approximation I'll assign the "I" statements as quotations of Zamora, the "he" statements to be from Holder's or Byrnes' notes, and the no pronoun sentences to be what either Byrnes or Holder heard, but some obviously made by Zamora. There are also some additions to the chronology towards the end.

    There are no signatures and what we have are on plain paper, not a form. What we have appear to be copies; the pages do not seem to be carbons, perhaps a typed copy of an actual report if there ever was one. That's for starters.

    "...we must assume some level of credibility and so accuracy and truth to his story."

    Maybe, but that document is not quite "his" story. What you are doing is normalizing an abnormal situation, and leaving yourself wiggle room: "some level" and "for the most part" is a container to hold all the stuff in Zamora's "fairly detailed report" that contradicts an LLRV prototype. 'Normalizing' can be found in both UFO skeptics and advocates. What gets 'normalized' is whatever does not support their preferences in the matter.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, January 31, 2018  

  • Don;

    Here's a relevant passage that illustrates a real rocket scientist and science writer's understanding of demarcation, falsification, plausibility, proof, truth, and "truth likeliness" as it is expressed variously as academic science writing, popular science writing, and science journalism from realist to pseudoscientific.

    "The current report proposes an astronomical [or aerospace] explanation that is plausible in the cultural context that surrounded this period in the country.

    "But such explanations are not 'proven' either, except to the degree required to demolish the common pro-UFO argument that "there is no OTHER possible explanation" aside from an unknown stimulus, perhaps alien visitors. THAT theory is not disproven but in terms of scientific proof is shown to be unnecessary to account for the testimony and photos. So it fails to attain confirmation. ...

    "In case after case, the authors apply wide knowledge of geometry, optics, meteorology, human perception, and human cultural context (they recognized one impressive-looking UFO photo as actually taken from a popular French science fiction movie), to illustrate that plausible explanations often are found not by dogged cookbook methods but by inspiration and by accident. No wonder, then, that not ALL such prosaic explanations can be found, however dedicated and diligent may be the amateur investigators.

    "The question of alien visitors [who could remain as detectable or not, as they desire, or even disguise themselves as weather balloons as needed] remains unresolved, but the satisfaction of seeing good detective work is worth the reading. The implication of this work is that the body of existing reports and photographs does not unambiguously require the existence of ANY new phenomenon. But there are plenty of HUMAN and natural phenomena of great interest to science, to national security, to psychology, to sociology, that are wrapped up in these reports which makes them worth studying...." --Jim Oberg, 2017

    https://www.academia.edu/35133835/BELGIUM_IN_UFO_PHOTOGRAPHS._Volume_1_1950-1988_

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, January 31, 2018  

  • Don;

    In multiple posts I've addressed various objections to the LLRV prototype hypothesis, and there is always the Lunar Surveyor test hypothesis which is rock solid since it was there that day--to which most of those objections would apply also. It's just that the self-propelled free-flying LLRV prototype is a better physical match to Lonnie's description.

    All we ever have are "UFO" reports, and any "evidence" never requires extraordinary explanations. Skeptics consider reports and create hypotheses that place "UFO" reports in a real-world context because we know the limits of the human perceptual apparatus and psychology, and the great influence of culturally supplied narratives, tropes and motifs. The PSH for "UFO" reports considers the history of all reports together and informs the Null hypothesis.

    Sensationalist "UFO" advocates place much more weight on the literal "truth" of reports and they misinterpret perceived similarities in reports as confirmations of an "abnormal" "UFO" reality instead of a shared culture, psychology and normal real-world life experience.

    Best!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 02, 2018  

  • I like how you fellows grab the topic and twist it to your own service.

    But I gotta concede the back-and-forth is interesting.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 02, 2018  

  • Zoam I am not against any hypothesis regarding the Socorro object. I do request that it explain the sighting, though. By "explain the sighting", I mean explain the information we have, which are documents that were written at the time -- they are the "effect" of some "cause".

    An hypothesis of the cause, as an LLRV or anything else including an ET spaceship, has to explain the effect. Since the effect includes the exclusion of the LLRV, that has to be explained if you think it the LLRV. If your hypothesis requires rejecting certain statements of the only witness, you will have to explain why they can be excluded and others included. And so on.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 02, 2018  

  • The Socorro "thing" was a terrestrial thing... that symbol, the rocket like thrust to escape, the two crew men in coveralls, the landing pods -- what ET ship would be so primitive?

    Move on fellows.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 02, 2018  

  • Rich: "The Socorro "thing" was a terrestrial thing... that symbol, the rocket like thrust to escape, the two crew men in coveralls, the landing pods -- what ET ship would be so primitive?

    Move on fellows."

    I didn't mention ET. That's the skeptic's job. The evidence you mention for 'terrestrial is contradicted in the files, some by Zamora, but also Hynek and Moody. The contradictions have to be resolved, if possible, before accepting them.

    What isn't contradicted is Zamora said he saw an oval shaped object that looked aluminum white raise up vertically from the arroyo about 20 feet with a loud sound, and then headed off to the west without a sound, at a low altitude and speed, nearly crashing into an obstacle, then appeared to increase its speed and altitude until it disappeared in his horizon.

    I could have used a non-UFO case, such as Barksdale AAF, July 2, 1947, but I doubt anyone reading here would care about it, there being no UFO in the story.

    I could have referred to Roswell, a story that both UFO advocates and skeptics agree: Major Marcel followed a stranger into the night to a location 100 miles away and around 5500 feet altitude in the boonies, then returned early in the morning while they were still in bed to show stuff he found to his family. They also accept that while at Ft Worth, he described the debris field.

    All I do is point out this all is supposed to have happened in total darkness, with not even light pollution.

    The skeptics believe it, otherwise they have to admit Cavitt lied, too.

    Or, I could relate the news story of a weather balloon and rawin kite found by a rancher in Texas a year before Roswell, so as to give an example of 'normal' behavior vs the 'abnormality' of Roswell.

    The Roswell news stories appear to be what we call today 'fake news'.

    But don't mind me, no one else does.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, February 02, 2018  

  • Don:

    You are full of insight(s) that I admire.

    But you (and a few others) take a topic into the weeds (someone told me) and there is no way to recover the point of the posting.

    The Zamora/Socorro sighting should have been discussed here in a posting about it.

    That's all I'm sputtering about.

    Zoam is a culprit too but I love him, so.....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 02, 2018  

  • I'll just leave this one here (mainly for Zoam)
    “Why should we think common sense is a good guide to what the universe is like?” says Philip Goff, a philosophy professor at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. “Einstein tells us weird things about the nature of time that counters common sense; quantum mechanics runs counter to common sense. Our intuitive reaction isn’t necessarily a good guide to the nature of reality.”

    By Blogger DrDee, at Saturday, February 03, 2018  

  • I don't know anyone who thinks common sense alone is a good guide to what the universe is like--certainly not me.

    Human perception and informed good sense are amazingly reliable in the environment in which we evolved, and thousands years of science have projected that good sense, reason, into the universe enough for us to understand its limitations.

    M-theory anyone?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, February 03, 2018  

  • I agree with Zoam (believe it or not). I'll add that translating QM into 'natural' language occurs in the form of metaphor and analogy, which can excite the imagination (and which heals the broken "heart of ufological ennui"), but should not be mistaken for being anything more than metaphor and analogy.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 03, 2018  

  • We humans, Don, are ripe [sic] with metaphor and imagination, making us interesting to ETs, if they exist and have been visiting here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 03, 2018  

  • Rich, perhaps the ETs are reflecting our imaginations back at us, appearing to us as we imagine 'ET'. So, from the 1960s folks see "greys", while back in the day, when we expected ET to "people", folks saw Nordics, and in the Middle Ages, demons and angels. In science fiction, in order to communicate with us usually the ET chameleon-like imitates our appearance or of someone in our minds, but maybe they read our minds and think, Oh, that's what we're supposed to look like to them.

    I'm more comfortable knowing the mpg and fuel tank capacity of a '47 Buick sedan, though, and things like that. So, you're right. Off-topic.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, February 03, 2018  

  • Don:

    You have to wash yourself in Caravaca's Distortion Theory.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 03, 2018  

  • My area of interest is the 1940s and there were no ufo beings then. In 1949 there was something 'being-like' associated with 'Scully', but that is a category of its own and something I'm saving for later ("mother is compiling"). Perhaps on other continents there were beings, but not here.

    Info for Youth: no, these are not tired old cases that have been chewed over for decades. There is more in the 47 Wave besides Arnold Mt Ranier and Roswell (which wasn't even a ufo case back then). Hardly anyone has touched them; there's not much besides a sentence or two in Bloecher and a mention here and there by Randle. No PBB files, they are pre-project saucer.A time before ufology, just Palmer and Arnold.

    Roswell was forgotten for 30 years? Except for Arnold (because the press labeled him 'first') and a photo or two, every case from 1947 was forgotten. USAF ufo policy changed in 1949 and that leads to Keyhoe and the ufo deluge.

    Consider it a collective ufological amnesia, and perhaps a subconscious recognition that there is a real difference between a "ufo" and a "flying saucer/disc"

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 04, 2018  

  • Don:

    Rosales, Swords, Aubeck, and Redfern all have countless "reports" of UFO (flying saucer" beings in their books.

    The accounts are interesting and vibrant. Paul Dean's material I have been putting online also provides many tales of UFOs with humanoid contingents.

    The literature is rich in material, subverting the idea the 1947 wave is where ufology's interest should begin.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 04, 2018  

  • "Rosales, Swords, Aubeck, and Redfern all have countless "reports" of UFO (flying saucer" beings in their books.

    The accounts are interesting and vibrant. Paul Dean's material I have been putting online also provides many tales of UFOs with humanoid contingents."

    True. Are they from the '47 Wave? The meaning of 'flying saucers' changed. It had been literally 'unidentified flying objects', but that was changed 'officially' by the USAF. by the early 60's perhaps. 'UFO' now meant 'not yet identified, but identifiable', and 'flying saucer' meant 'all that crazy alien stuff'. At least according to David N. Moody.

    In 1959, the USAF conference on UFOs recommending changing 'UFO' to 'UAP', thus weakening the meaning and broadening its scope. It didn't catch on the way their 'UFO' had.

    "The literature is rich in material, subverting the idea the 1947 wave is where ufology's interest should begin."

    It does not begin then, true, but it is possible that two lineages, one with beings and one without, exist in our history. The one with beings can be found from at least late Sumer and early Egypt. It was expected; the gods were in or above the firmament and traveled in their sky boats. But I think the appearance of oddities in the sky were not expected. One can find them utilized as omens or portents (ref. to Jaynes on omens).


    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 04, 2018  

  • Don:

    We are way off topic here!

    But let me say that the UFO accounts (or odd sightings that one can define as UFO-like) are plentiful and pre-date 1947, by only a few years if one doesn't want to go back to Sumer or the places where AA theorists congregate.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 04, 2018  

  • Don - There are THOUSANDS of reports of 'strange beings' prior to 1940 as Jacques Vallee & others have painstakingly researched and detailed. It's only post Kenneth Arnold these beings have often morphed into 'ETs' as opposed to angels, demons, gods & faery-folk. Vallee himself notes that many supposed 'religious' visions (including those at Fatima & Medjugorje) have elements that could easily be classified as 'UFO' incidents (strange spheres of light, disc shapes & shadowy figures experienced by some witnesses) when viewed in a different cultural context. Our changing cultural perceptions & interpretations of such phenomena is an ongoing process and is perhaps an element utilised & manipulated by whatever is 'pulling the strings'.

    By Blogger DrDee, at Thursday, February 08, 2018  

  • Dr Dee, I read your comment as: we are in agreement, unless I've missed something. I suggested there may be two lineages, one with beings and one without (just a 'ufo'). A third lineage would have both a being and a 'ufo'.

    From ancient Sumer to Medjugorje, there seems to have been no doubt in the minds of the 'witnesses' just who and what they were witnessing. In their cultures, doubt was unlikely. Gilgamesh did not doubt the commands were Utu's, and St Joan did not doubt the source of her voices. In our culture, doubt is very likely. So, there is that difference.

    "Post Kenneth Arnold" means Scully and Keyhoe (and then Menzel) who added ET to the saucers (meaning post Arnold ufos). I haven't found any beings related to saucers before 1949 (and those are suspiciously Scully-like), and not much speculation about interplanetary origins, which ufology adopted, via Keyhoe mainly, in the 1950s. Since my area of interest is the 1940s, I don't find any ufo beings. There are, of course, accounts 'backdated' to the 1940s.

    It is possible the 1940s sightings are unrelated to any of the phenomena in Vallee. The idea the saucers were "nuts and bolts" and "spam in a can" craft originated in the USAF, mainly General Twining/AMC and General Ramey. That their performance characteristics were not known or considered impossible, led to the interplanetary hypothesis (which was on project saucer's list) and ufology ran with it.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, February 08, 2018  

Post a Comment

<< Home