Two things to clarify

Copyright 2020, InterAmerica, Inc.

Apparently I’m not writing clearly enough, as I’ve received a few private messages that indicate I’m proposing something I’m not.

For instance, in my posting about hypnosis, I thought it was clear that I’m an advocate of the psychoanalytic view that hypnosis allows false memories within the renderings from sessions; that is, analysts, looking for the source of a problem will be flummoxed by material obtained under hypnosis because that material will consist of unreal or fictive, imagined events or corrupted by the unconscious that holds the memories, as the unconscious is a receptacle for everything one experiences or thinks they’ve experienced.

And discerning what may be true and what isn’t becomes almost too complex to evaluate.

However, I believe, and I expressed this notion here and elsewhere a few times, that a discerning, qualified professional might be able to see in the material brought forth in an hypnotic session some- thing that pertains, maybe not about the issue at hand but relevant to how the hypnotized person is constructed, from within the un- conscious – a repository of great worth as Freud, Jung, and current psycho-analytics see it.

Material from an untrained ufologist or pretender is surely useless, as that material may derive from the amateur’s bias or subliminal influence and, thus, is useless as a source of truth from or about the person hypnotized.

But material from a professional session may contain clues that seem outside the search being made but is still, perhaps, relevant in some way. To throw it away is stupid and unscientific.

Then there is the 1948 Aztec episode, one that wasn’t a UFO ET crash – everyone knows or should that I’m not even within miles of seeing UFOs as interplanetary vehicles.

But a message came to me via Facebook shrugging at my insertion here about Aztec.

The point of the posting was about a nefarious arrangement that the U.S. military had with two of the fellows tried for swindling persons, the fellows close to the military, dealing in oil propositions and other matters.

My point was, and Nick Redfern offered a 2012 piece by him that pointed to a suggestion  that there was some mischief afoot in the whole Aztec scenario that the men were scapegoated, perhaps.

What that mischief consisted of cannot really be determined now but with all the background about Gebauer and Newton taken into account, and their dealings with Army before their trials for fraud, but it is clear that there was (is) more here than meets the eye.

That was the point of my initial interest spurred by some misinformation given to me during the Roswell slide fiasco, but interesting enough to see another misdirection away from flying saucers (and maybe even the Roswell incident).  As to why was my motive for pursuing the matter then and mentioning it now.

But a reader assumed I was advocating the idea that Aztec was a real event, an actual flying saucer crash, the person aghast at my naïvete, even now writing that my assertion about U.S. government or military foolishness is meaningless.

But the intuited wayward activity of U.S. agencies is almost palpable. (Nick Redfern has reported much about it.)

And when I wrote that the Aztec story was an attempt at a Roswell misdirection, I meant that Aztec was a ploy to further bury Roswell as a bona fide incident, even though my benefactor writes that Roswell was well off the radar in 1950 when the Aztec story made a public appearance.

That’s a valid point but agencies of government are always wary that their obtuse activities may rear their ugly heads, so those agencies pile on the misdirections and red-herrings whenever they can, Aztec being one….but, again, why?

Moreover, this blog is titled “Conjectures” – it’s not UFO Certitude or UFO Gospel, but UFO Conjectures.

To stay confined to views that some think have been settled is not what I do. So trying to get me to be a tried and true skeptic about hypnosis, Aztec, or anything else is futile.

Let me live (to do my own foolishness) as the pained George Costanza implored in Seinfeld.

N.B. Image used from https://www.apparentlyapparel.com/

RR

A "Dilbert" that DrDee (and a few others visiting here) might appreciate

UFOs from another Universe?

Copyright 2020, InterAmerica, Inc.

Monday night [4/6/20] I watched, again, the Science Channel’s airing of its Big Bang episode for How the Universe Works program – a showing I’ve mentioned before here and now see why it’s un- likely the final escapade about Mutiverses might be as an expla- nation for UFO visitations.

With our Universe theorized to be 98 Billion Light-Years in size, from its beginning in the non-explained Big Bang singularity, arising ex nihilo, another universe abutting ours, from which UFOs and another intelligence edging its way into our existence, emerges as an improbability, even an impossibility.

How far is Earth within our 98 Billion Light-Year Universe? That is, where is Earth located inside our Universe? Somewhere in the middle? Near its edge?

And where would another intelligent species be within its universe? Somewhere in the middle? Near its edge?

The astronomical evaluation that beings from one planet in its multiverse has ended up coming into our Universe, if or when their existence abuts ours, staggers the imagination, let alone the scientific probability that such a thing could happen.

This disallows me (and others) from presenting UFO visitations from another universe.

The idea is fundamentally errant just as visitors from another galaxy, in our Universe is troublesome because of the distances involved between planets, and the pathetic presence (stature) of Earth within our Galaxy or, worse, our Universe.

This leaves us with visitors from another dimension perhaps – one right alongside our lived-in dimension -- or visitors from Earth’s future.

Anything else is thought gone mad, something that is pronounced within the UFO community.

RR