An obscure UFO sighting from 1951 (but don’t let that deter your reading)
Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
In a comment to CDA and Don, here, I mentioned that I had
stumbled upon a 2012 documentary at my ROKU account:
The video recapped old (and newer) UFO sightings and had
clips of UFO notables (when they were kids or looked like kids anyway): Richard
Dolan, Nick Pope, et al.
There were several interesting accounts, including a not-bad
presentation of the now screwed up 1980 Rendlesham/Bentwaters case.
But the tale (report) that I found intriguing was a 1951
encounter, in the air, by a Navy pilot, Graham Bethune:
This “sighting” is typical of the period, the early 1950s,
when flying saucers were not beclouded by idiotic accounts, as one can see in
the documentary’s Phoenix Lights presentation, where only one witness was
articulate and sensible in his rendering of what was seen that night in 1997.
Of course, any documentary has a clip or more of faked UFO
film and photos, and this one has a few, including those of Billy Meier.
Anyway, read pilot Bethune’s account (linked above), and see
if it erases Zoam Chomsky’s objection to the UFO reality.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, February 16, 2018
25 Comments:
There's no shortage of "UFO" stories--especially from the time of "saucer" scares.
And given Bethune's many incredible claims, why should we believe this wild story?
Entire cities underneath military bases? A Nordic ET presence cooperating with the US government? This Bethune reminds me of George Filer--part Shaver mystery fanboy, part new-age Space Brothers disciple, and part Keyhoe "saucer" conspiracy monger.
A stereotypical 1950s "flying saucer" nutter.
By
zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 16, 2018
A site search on nicap.org will produce the ufological history of the Bethune sighting.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Friday, February 16, 2018
Rich, I think we have a good example of "madness" in Zoam's reply.
"This Bethune reminds me of George Filer--part Shaver mystery fanboy, part new-age Space Brothers disciple, and part Keyhoe "saucer" conspiracy monger."
That's a pretty good description of Geer and Disclosure. Whether it applies to Bethune remains to be seen. I have no reason to assume the statements attributed to Bethune by Geer are accurate or true, but Zoam does, I guess. Skeptics are believers like that.
One can find the USAF reports and the 1970 Stuart Nixon and James McDonald correspondence with the principals on nicap.org.
There was some discussion on UFO Updates early this century. No doubt Filer and Geer were participants. That might be a good place to look for the Disclosure type "madness".
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Friday, February 16, 2018
But he didn't get to meet Aura Rhanes!
The name game: Bethune - Bethrurum.
Bst,
Theo
By
theo paijmans, at Friday, February 16, 2018
Hear is a video of many UFO witnesses accounts, along with the "Graham Bethune" account, at the: Disclosure Project National Press Club Conference - May 9th.2001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrRwTAEvkX0
You make your own mind up. These witnesses are serious minds; NOT nutters!
Some Skeptics can't see the woods, for the trees being in the way...............
By
Daniel, at Friday, February 16, 2018
I think Theo caught something I missed... Zoam thinking Bethune is Bethurum.
(Maybe Zoam ate too many Valentine chocolates from his fans.)
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, February 16, 2018
Rich;
No confusion here. I even compare Bethune to George "They've Landed" Filer--another ex-military longtime "saucer" believer and laughable "disclosure project" nutter who is more well known.
And--according to Michael Salla, a fellow nutter--twice during Bethune's second career as a deranged "flying saucer" and "alien presence" promoter he has authored or been the conduit for distribution--with commentary--of phony "flying saucer" photos!
A Nordic "flying saucer" landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier no less!
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
But Zoam...
These "nutters" are builder of the flying saucer myth.
Without them. all we'd have are reports from people who had a momentary hallucination or mental disturbance.
You are a little too hard on those who are mentally unsound.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Rich says: 'These "nutters" are builder of the flying saucer myth.'
I distinguish between the "UFO" myth--a virtual, even beautiful space-age dream, a cultural construct--and the mass of very nearly all of the inconsequential "UFO" REPORTS made over the last century.
The "UFO" MYTH, an ambiguous archetypal narrative, a fiction, resides in the minds of a population; and it expresses itself in real-world--but wholly inconsequential--REPORTS. Very few reports over more than a century have influenced the foundational "UFO" MYTH.
In fact, as I have related here many times before: Nearly every bit of the "UFO" myth--every narrative thread, device and motif--is found in the Airship mania of 1896-97. Secret high-technology projects in hidden laboratories; conspiracies; crashed airships with little bodies, mystery metals and hieroglyphics; strange humanoids from other planets!
Of course decades more of yellow journalism, pulp fiction, and liar's clubs reiterations developed the myth to the degree that by 1945-47, the full-blown "flying saucer" myth was foisted onto the public consciousness as the "UFO" collective delusion: the FALSE BELIEF that the completely fictional myth had some basis in reality, however nebulous.
So, as I said:
>> Yes, a delicious myth, a false belief or idea. And no, the Null hypothesis is the foundation for the PSH: over a century of completely imaginary subjective reality.
The idea "UFO" is the hum of the presses, static in the wires, an aerospace noise.
No signal, just noise.<<
Bethune's report added nothing to the "delicious" myth, only a bit of insignificant noise to the mass media machinery.
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Nicely put Zoam...
Of course, I agree, to a point.
But as Jung and Campbell, after him, told us, myth has at its core, a truth.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Thanks, my friend.
And that "truth" in our subject is the "UFO" collective delusion: the false belief latent in physical minds that the myth has some basis in external reality.
A myth is a false truth, a false belief about the world.
The logic of language defies, exposes irrational thoughts and beliefs.
Love ya!
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
We can now add to Bethune's other bizarre claims: speculations on "flying saucer" propulsion systems. They might owe a lot to the insane ideas of Paul Hill and/or Wilbert Smith, two of the original "flying saucer scientists" long before ol' Stan.
>> PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO photographs available and data on their propulsion systems by US Navy Commander Graham Bethune. $10.00. Send check or money order to G. Filer....<< Filer's Files, 02/2001
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Nutters exist in every area of life but they don't necessarily define that area. Astrologist nutters don't define astronomy. Nutter who think that they can turn lead into gold don't define the science of chemistry. Crank monetary theorists are not taken seriously in economics. So why are we to believe that any study of UFOs--and there have been serious studies by Condon and the Military/intelligence community--must be defined by the ravings of UFO nutters?
My suggestion? Forget the UFO nutters forever and attempt to determine what the intelligence community has and knows about UFOs that they believe affect the "national security."
By
Dominick, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Back in 2011, here and on Lance's website, we discussed the famous Kelly Johnson case (I think this was Paul Kimball's number 5 of the top 10). I got interested because General Putt appeared in it (I follow the 1940s guys where they wander). It didn't take long before I recognized what was going on: the pilot Wimmer pranked the others aboard. Ware had been having some fun joking about Wimmer having reported a UFO previously. Wimmer gives over the controls to the co-pilot Thorin, and views the scenery. Suddenly he says "Look! A flying saucer!" And so it begins.
It appears it was Thorin who organized the report writing and setting up a meeting with Johnson. Johnson decides not to forward their reports (perhaps he got the joke or maybe Wimmer took him aside and explained). However, according to General Putt, a Lockheed employee slipped him the reports while passing by in a hallway, and that's how this case made it into PBB. Likely candidate for giving Putt the reports is Thorin, however there was another crew member by the name of Grugan who is never mentioned in anyone's story. Perhaps he did it.
I may have mentioned the airplane was a true 'ship of fools'.
The odd thing is that no believer or debunker had a thing to say about my reading (the proof for it being exactly what the crew wrote in their reports). For them it was either a UFO or a lenticular cloud and that is that. They can not see outside, past, or beyond their little ET/No ET reality, which leads me to mention 'single vision and Newton's sleep'.
Wasn't it Keel who wrote that every believer gets the debunker they deserve? Ufology has been a Pon Farr for these guys.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Rich:)
-> But as Jung and Campbell, after him, told us, myth has at its core, a truth <-
The Truth is, more likely, Who benefits from the "muddied waters" of Ufology??....?
The truth is, Zoam's explanation of a UFO myth, doesn't go anywhere near explaining
your own (3) sightings of a UFO...and you agree with him???
This makes you the nutter, & He the Fruitcake:) Give us a brake.............
By
Daniel, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
When I first saw the Bethune entry on the Out of the Blue video, I was impressed and reading his paper, linked in my post, I remained impressed.
But then, all his subsequent UFO activity puts his veracity in doubt.
Jacques Vallee's idea (and those of others recently) that UFO witnesses are the "key" to the phenomenon, pro or con, goes to the heart of the matter, whether one is a skeptic or believer.
"Man is the measure pf all things." [Protagoras]
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Daniel:
Zoam's position is, I think, that I (and Bryan here) may have seen something but what it the question; it wasn't a UFO.
I can accept that, but it leaves open the question: what did I (and Bryan) see?
I place my observation in the UFO category, because I like the "myth" -- this aggravates Zoam's sensibilities and is illogical on its face.
But there it is.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
For Dominick -- this from The UFO Reality (one of my blogs)...
"Back in 1967, the founder of the UFO Group and his minions challenged the appointment of Edward U. Condon to head up the Colorado University UFO study for the United States Air Force.
The concern was that Condon had lost an earlier security clearance (because of Communist leanings and affiliations) and would have access to Top Secret government documents and material.
Had the effort been successful, the UFO study would have been given to someone else and the results changed for the better (as far as “ufology” goes)."
Here are the documents pertaining to the thrust to oust Condon at the time:
N.B. Those documents are no longer online, but if Dominick (or anyone else) wants to see our effort(s) to get Condon removed from the Colorado study, I'll re-scan them for entry here.
Condon told me, in a phone call, that if the specter of another security probe appeared, he'd drop out of the Colorado study.
Unfortunately, no one (including the NY Times, which provided some of the material for our magazine's expose) didn't follow up, and Condon ended up scamming the Colorado study, to our dismay.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
Thanks, Rich. As a long-time UFO follower, I am well aware of the Condon/security problem. All I'm saying is that despite Condon's bias and his totally disingenuous intro to that Report, there is still some semi-serious analysis of several UFO cases buried in that Report. In short, nutters played little or no role in that Colorado study.
By
Dominick, at Saturday, February 17, 2018
>> I place my observation in the UFO category, because I like the "myth"<<
You are again confusing a fiction, a false belief by the definition of "myth," with a real-world apparition that you merely failed to identify.
But it's a ready-made confusion, a misconception, presented by our popular culture, so I am sympathetic. The point is to understand this confusion that creates the false belief that there are real "UFOs" of some kind.
"UFO" is an ambiguous abstract. The category real "UFOs" is empty so far.
>> this aggravates Zoam's sensibilities and is illogical on its face.<<
I'm understanding, I think.
The failure to identify, a negative, cannot be the logical basis for a positive real "object." "Unidentified" cannot be an identity.
By
zoamchomsky, at Sunday, February 18, 2018
Failure to identify can mean only failure to completely identify something POSITIVELY observed.
Military radar for approach will query "unidentified aircraft approaching base x please identify." Their awareness is a radar blip of something approaching but they don't know just what is -so they ask.
Visually observing an unidentified airborne object can be just that, positively seeing something while it is unreachable and then reporting. That is not a negative. It is just incomplete identification without a conclusion.
To deny the veracity of the observer without cause is its own rude negative.
BD
By
Bryan Daum, at Sunday, February 18, 2018
You can't get any clearer than Bryans "POSITIVE" point of view, & I agree with him.
You on the other hand Zoam, You also are "CORRECT" but from a "NEGATIVE" Point of view, that there is no such things as a UFO ever, so how could anyone see something that does not exist?...You are playing mind games with us, Zoam!...
Rich, as you know, has had -(3) UFO sightings)- and I believe, he knew what he was seeing, only he is not going to admit to it, for reasons I think we understand.
What I do agree with you, Zoam, is where does the talk get us?
Well, it's a tug of UFO war for a start, - even fun? with a serious tone to it - in the UFO world of minds, SO stay with us Zoam, you give us food for thought...........?
By
Daniel, at Sunday, February 18, 2018
Now Bryan is confusing "UFO" reports with the ambiguous unidentified stimuli of reports.
There are thousands of reports, just nothing in those reports. There's no shortage of reports, it's the failure to identify--a negative--the ambiguous stimuli that's the subject of those reports. That's why they're called "unidentified" reports.
Any real-world thing can be "unidentified" as in "unidentified aircraft," "unidentified car," "unidentified person," etc. We all know what aircraft, cars, and persons are, even if "unidentified." It's the wholly ambiguous "object" of the generic term "UFO" that's makes your example a false comparison.
Then you combine the two errors--confusion and false comparison--to assert a wishful make-it-up conclusion: People see things, make "UFO" reports, and we should take mere reports as evidence of a "UFO" reality.
That's so funny! Let's just overlook the fact that the subjects of "UFO" reports are first unidentified and wholly ambiguous objects. So the subjects of reports in all their multivarious appearances are doubly removed from any exotic identitfication!
Unidentified planets and stars, unidentified meteors and asteroids, unidentified sundogs and clouds, unidentified satellites and space junk, unidentified aircraft and balloons: those are the known stimuli and identifications for nearly all "UFO" reports. And there's no good reason to think the residue of reports has any other stimuli--particularly some exotic stimuli.
Sorry, Bryan, no number of logical fallacies and make-it-up, upside-down rationalizations (phony excuses) will create a REAL "UFO."
What's a real "UFO." No one can say. If they could, it wouldn't be a "UFO."
"UFO" is an absurd ambiguous abstract, based in a negative, a mere pop-culture myth created by newspaper and magazine hoaxes.
By
zoamchomsky, at Monday, February 19, 2018
Zoam: ""UFO" is an absurd ambiguous abstract, based in a negative, a mere pop-culture myth created by newspaper and magazine hoaxes."
"UFO" and the "myth" were created by the USAF (and its predecessors) , inadvertently I think. That's where the press got the story.
Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Monday, February 19, 2018
Zoam:
-> "UFO" is an absurd ambiguous abstract, based in a negative <-
As negative as it may seem, this IS, what the world relates to, and understands.
A UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) is still thought of as a UFO that we all talk of. We are stuck with this term, world wide. It is as Real, as any real world thing you have commented on...Radar backs it up, and THAT, cannot be denied!!............
By
Daniel, at Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home