Thursday, March 27, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
The Alien Astronaut theorists and a few UFO quidnuncs tell us that flying saucers or UFOs have been visiting the Earth for thousands, maybe millions of years.
And some UFO buffs insist that flying saucer or UFO crashes have been almost epidemic since 1947, those crashes covered up by government militaries.
But let me address the many-year visiting UFOs/saucers.
If craft from somewhere else has been visiting the Earth for millennia, and their current configurations are crash prone (Aurora, Roswell, Aztec, Kecksburg, et cetera), why has no one ever discovered the remnants of a crashed saucer/UFO anywhere on Earth, before the cover-up era?
Why haven’t explorers stumbled upon a metallic or solid substance entity that would be identifiable as an odd construct, out of place or time?
Explorers and paleontologists have come upon odd things in the sands, mountains, jungles, snow fields of Earth and placed those finds in museums or noted them in journals.
But no one, ever, has described a flying saucer “fossil.”
Yes, the AA theorists will point to things like the Palenque sarcophagus lid as indication of an alien space craft, but that interpretation is iffy, and no craft is represented or was found among the areas other archaeological debris fields.
Stanley or Livingston never found anything in Africa that could be identified as a vehicle or airborne craft.
Nor did Marco Polo in China, or Herodotus in and around the Mediterranean.
Lewis and Clark didn’t come upon a downed saucer or anything like one.
No one ever found the remains of the supposed Airships of the 1890s, although those alleged crafts were reportedly (by witnesses) to be accident-prone or had troubled flights.
No Egyptian hieroglyph depicts a downed saucer.
But then, in the modern era, writers, such as Kevin Randle, tell us that flying saucers have crashed all over the place, only to be smothered by government interference and secrecy.
But before this paranoid era – back in the good ol’ days of unfettered discovery – no noted explorer or romantic traveler to far off, unknown realms ever wrote or said they had discovered an out of place, odd artifact that one could discern, today, as a crashed flying disk.
Dinosaur fossils have shown up everywhere. But nothing like a downed UFO.
What does that tell us?
That the whole flying saucer thing is hooey, or UFOs are a phenomenon without substance, the creatures of myth – evanescent and without substance, then and now.
RR
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Monday, March 17, 2014
The whole universe, from a single point the size of an atom? (I don't think so.)
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2014/03/17/harvard-led-team-detects-gravitational-waves-evidence-cosmic-inflation/nvWTo5iSyhbMauKD1GegsK/story.html
RR
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2014/03/17/harvard-led-team-detects-gravitational-waves-evidence-cosmic-inflation/nvWTo5iSyhbMauKD1GegsK/story.html
RR
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
The Anomalist wishes that I’d engage in discourse with UFO aficionados rather than issue in what they see as dogmatic broadsides.
Discourse with UFO mavens?
That would be like having talks with a room full of monkeys.
And example may be seen by looking at the current comments at Kevin Randles blog, by Rick Hall and Nitram Ang.
These sycophants take to task the visitors here and comments made about the Roswell slides, about which they know jack-shit.
Mr. Randle’s problem has always been his democratic approach to UFO witnesses and persons commenting at his blog: everything is grist for presentation, no matter how asinine or errant.
Mr. Randle has been trying to correct his legacy with mea culpa’s about his past use of lying Roswell witnesses.
But he still insists providing carte blanche to bone-heads at his blog, persons who lick his boots only to be in the presence of a UFO notable.
Rick Hall is pissed because I don’t allow his comments an airing in this spot.
For me, it’s quality over quantity, and in Hall’s case, it’s a matter of not allowing garbage and ignorance to appear here.
Up next, I’ll provide comments on the deviants who roam the halls of the UFO community, one in jail, and one continuously spewing vile and vulgar comments trying to cover his tracks as a child pornographer.
RR
Monday, March 10, 2014
Our friends at Anomalist think I don’t consider Michael Swords and Nick Redfern as UFO rsearchers.
I don’t.
Michael Swords is a UFO theorist, which I can barely emulate, having none of his erudite insights and compendia of UFO knowledge.
Porfessor Swords gathers information, lately from the internet, and muses on what he finds.
Nick Redfern, my best UFO friend and the only person whom I respect totally when it comes to UFO knowledge and lore, is not a researcher, as I and the Oxford Dictionary define research.
Nick is a journalist, one who finds leads and follows up on them, reporting out to his readers what he discovers.
A researcher has to be archeological; that is, a researcher has to drill down into the nether regions of the UFO phenomenon and present his or her findings to the UFO public.
Chris Aubeck, co-author with Jacques Vallee of Wonders in the Sky, does this, with the help of a ‘team” he’s formed who access archived material, which Mr. Aubeck presents to his followers. (Mr. Aubeck just presents the findings; he doesn’t interpret them, as Jacques Vallee has done.)
Richard Hall tended to research. Wendy Connors also, in her heyday.
Jerry Clark may be likened to Nick Redfern, without the tenacity or imaginative acumen that Mr. Redfern has to discern what may be related to UFOs and what isn’t.
Our former colleague, Leon Davidson, was a researcher of Project Blue Book and the CIA, his insights discounted by some but relevant as I’ve noted in several pieces here, at this blog.
Lucius Farish, which I’ve noted in the previous posting, used research methodology, especially when it came to the Airship wave of the 1890s, but Lucius was an archivist primarily, like Wendy Connors was and Isaac Koi is today.
Researchers, as defined academically, are hard to find in “ufology” if they exist at all.
Research requires a dedication and discipline that no one in the UFO field practices, nowadays or formerly, in a real sense.
Research has been niggardly or superficial.
UFO people like to think of themselves as researchers, even when their research consists of reading a few books or going to UFO sites and/or conferences.
Study paleontology or archaeology or the processes of the minds as neurologists do and you’ll see what research really is.
Ufology is bereft of the epithet, research.
RR
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Our friend, the late Lucius Farish, had a piece in the magazine pictured here: The Techniques of Historical UFO Research [Page 18 ff.]
He, with Jerome Clark, provided the quintessential study of the 1896 Airship wave, and Lucius touched on the sightings from that era in his article.
But he really was concentrating on how UFO research should be conducted, noting that newspaper and other archives are rife with information that could help ufologists to gather reliable (or rather reliable) data if they are seriously going to investigate the UFO phenomenon. He didn’t eschew past sightings that some UFO gadflies insist are irrelevant – probably because they are too lazy to do the legwork Lucius and real researchers feel is de rigueur when it comes to a phenomenon as odd as UFOs.
Lucius provides a number of incidents that, when followed up thoroughly, offer insights that are substantial if one is truly intent on getting at the nub of the UFO enigma.
He cites cavalier research in such books as Flying Saucers on the Attack by Harold T. Wilkins.
Wilkins gave readers a hint of a 1742 sighting but didn’t provide a sketch that accompanied the reported sighting, which ended up being brought forward by an Oregon researcher, Charles F. Flood in 1968: a significant historical document that serious researchers should have at their disposal. Here’s that document:
Isaac Koi is the only current ufologist I know who has the fortitude to gather UFO documents, past and present, providing them to his fellow UFO aficionados, all without recompense or remuneration.
As for the 1896/1897 Airship sightings, Lucius gives a cursory account that puts to shame some of the nonsense that skeptic Gilles Fernandez tried to pass off recently as a scientific rebuttal of Airship sightings, writing that they were misidentified Venus sightings.
Unfortunately, Lucius Farish’s procedures and writings are not generally known today by UFO newbies, and magazine articles, as the one cited here, are lost to the present UFO milieu as UFO mavens today see 1976 (the magazine’s publishing date) as ancient literature, out of date and out of reach.
There is no real UFO research going on in UFO circles nowadays, just blather and posturing with insipid skeletal UFO accounts from the internet being the fodder of UFO discourse.
And some think my ongoing, repetitive screeds about the death of ufology and UFOs as a topic of interest is sensationalizing when, in fact, my redundant discourse may be likened to John the Baptist’s voice crying in the desert.
RR
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Kevin Randle, for instance, is just now acknowledging the death of UFO Magazine, something UFO cognoscenti have known for several weeks now.
Our colleague Anthony Bragalia gets hits at his blog for articles written four years ago, readers just now stumbling apon them in a spurt of UFO interest it seems.
And we note the "death" of some once-rabid UFO aficionados who once commented at UFO blogs and web-sites but no longer do: Zoam Chomsky, PurrlGurrl, Lance moody (who is still extant but as quiet as a dead person), Larry, Kandinsky, Paul Kimball, Don Ledger, Jerry Clark, Don Ecsedy, Chuck Finley, et al.
Yes, UFOs and "ufology" is, despite some denials from a sleepy core of mavins, are all but buried, even as some fringe cable networks rehash UFO lore and get a few viewers who are curious but not really interested.
So, let's cut the charade: UFOs are dead. Ufology is dead. Most of the real practitioners are dead.
RR
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
As some of you know, at our private UFO spot on the internet (to which a few were invited), I’ve placed FOI documents garnered by a member.
The papers indicate that Project Stork, which I touched on last year here, is still operating, and receiving UFO reports from everyone but the public.
It doesn’t surprise that government agencies and the military would continue its interest in UFOs and that the demise of Blue Book was a ruse.
What does surprise is that ufologists haven’t followed up on this.
I’ll add some more information here but won’t disclose much so the UFO rabble can't muck up what legitimate researchers might be able to discern.
RR
Monday, March 3, 2014
Sunday, March 2, 2014
I like the AA conjecturing about “exta-terrestrials” – they don’t pronounce the word as “extraterrestrials” – as it is imaginative and fictive.
But it can’t really be taken seriously, for a number of reasons.
One is that the “theorists” link images of ancient man to technology of today – today’s space suits, rocketry, et cetera.
Why would ancient alien visitors show up on Earth garbed in outfits and/or suits that mimic those of the 1960s and 1970s Earthian astronauts?
And where are such visitors today? Where did they go? And why do they show up in today’s UFO lore as little gray beings with little or no gear protecting their seemingly frail bodies?
Also, is it equally feasible that the stories AA theorists use to bolsters their views are just as reasonable for those who wrote, long ago, and many believe today, that it was “gods” or “immortals” who intervened and inter-acted with humankind.
That is, the myths and legends are just as palpable, or more so, if they truly represent gods and angels,
Alien or “exta-terrestrials” are a possibility but so are supernatural gods.
Those who study the paranormal know this.
And while the advanced thinking of early man, that produced the elaborate structures and ideas attributed by AA theorists to space aliens, seems questionable to some, the mind of man, early on, had the ability to build such structures.
It’s the difficulty and unexplained machinations of such building that allows AA theorists to hold sway with some of the populace.
But if supernatural abilities were operative – something just as possible to paranormalists and outrageous to saner persons – the structures (Stonehenge, the Mayan/Incan pyramids, et cetera) appeared without an “exta-terrestrial” intervention.
Yes, supernatural abilities and gods are a stretch, but not any more so that the intervention of alien space travelers with outmoded space gear and rocketry that AA believers offer as support for their “theory.”
Again, the imaginative views of the AA crowd are entertaining, but that’s all they are.
For me, that the gods did what legend says they did represent an equally valid view.
RR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
