A manual to help explain Roswell (and UFOs generally)?

The July 4^th2014 Times Literary Supplement had a piece on the Piers Plowman tale.

Here’s Wikipedia’s entry about the work:

Piers Plowman (written c. 1360–87) or Visio Willelmi de Piers Plowman (William's Vision of Piers Plowman) is a Middle English allegorical narrative poem by William Langland. It is written in unrhymed alliterative verse divided into sections called "passus" (Latin for "step"). Piers is considered by many critics to be one of the greatest works of English literature of the Middle Ages, along with Chaucer'sCanterbury Tales and the Pearl poet's Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

The TLS review (Page 23) by James Wade was about a book by Lawrence Warner, The Myth of Piers Plowman: Constructing a medieval literary archive [Cambridge University Press, 2014, $95].

There were insights that go to the problem and exegesis of the 1947 Roswell incident that UFO researchers – real researchers – might apply to resolve that mystery (or myth, if you will).

(I will sometimes substitute Roswell for those places in the review that mention the “Langland studies” or “Piers Plowman Studies” to make my point, or suggestion.)

“Warner [in his book] assembles [a] motley crew of rogues and oddballs to serve up a rollicking tale of how a field of study [Roswell?] came to be created, or rather, fabricated.”

“When it comes to the long history of amassing raw material of [Roswell], a history this book traces … it turns out to be neither possible or necessarily productive to always distinguish between those who created, those who copied, those who corrected and those who just made things up.”

“[Warner] follows C. David Benson’s influential study Public Piers Plowman (2003), which defines myth as ‘a narrative that explains what is unknown and perhaps unknowable.’”

“… the Myth of Piers Plowman is focused on showing how ‘the unknown’ in Langland scholarship often turns out to be just ‘the unlooked for’ or ‘the unconsidered.’”

“… the book ends, appropriately, with a call to … medievalists to log out of online archives such as JSTOR or EEBO (valuable as those resources are) and tuck into the [Roswell] material themselves.”

“The point of all this, of course, is to make available new discoveries and new learning, but also to explore what happens when the [Roswell] archive expands, to see what a filed of scholarship looks like when it takes on new contours.”

“ …[but] a final caution: tread lightly … for like the mad and melancholic archivists this book chronicles, we cannot help fabricating the archive that we .. hope to interpret.”

RR

Read More

For UFO Newbies (mostly)

Many years ago we obtained a raft of 16 mm and 8 mm films, some stills, and a few audio recordings from the General Services Administation, many of which we uploaded to YouTube.

Unfortunately, NBC griped about other videos, from NBC shows, we had uploaded and Google suspended our account, since re-activated but without the original slew of videos.

However, here is the list of GSA (Blue Book) films and recordings of UFOs that may still be available to purchase or which may be on YouTube, uploaded by others:

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/gsa2.jpg

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/gsa3.jpg

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/gsa4.jpg

RR

Read More

The ET Equation: Something’s Missing

Assuming that the ETH enthusiasts are correct and UFOs are manned by visitors from someplace off Earth – extraterrestrials from other worlds (or dimensions) – what is the X factor that is absent?

That is, if we subject UFOs and the alleged “pilots” in them to anthropomorphic extrapolation, what do find that is lacking?

If UFOs are here to explore this world or even to exploit it (for minerals, commodities, such as water, crops, et cetera, or even human beings), that exploration is not unlike the explorations of humans during Earth’s history, the key periods being the 15^th and 16^thcenturies, with Columbus, Cook, Vespucci, or a bit earlier, Marco Polo, et al.

In the human explorations, even the dastardly ones of the Spaniards in Middle and South America, the explorers brought, inadvertently or purposely (religious thrusts of missionaries, for example)) elements of their cultures and civilizations: cultivation techniques, military wherewithal, books, art work, adornments of various kinds, and more.

Discounting the AA theories – pyramid construction is without practical value by any stretch of the imagination – one finds little or no evidence that any alien visitation gave humans something of value or use.

We’ve noted, in the past here and elsewhere, that UFOs and their supposed occupants seem to lack cultural artifacts: books, music, art.

Despite Betty Hill’s mention of an ET book in her kidnappers craft and Adamski’s contact Orthon’s shoe prints, and a few other bizarre episodes, one never reads or hears of cultural or helpful offerings by UFO aliens interacting with human beings in a meaningful or practical way.

Jose Antonio Caravaca’s plethora of odd sightings and contacts wherein beings are present, not one displays a sensible interaction; the behavior is bizarre, even insane-like.

So, if one proclaims that UFOs and ETs are here or have visited Earth for exploratory purposes of some kind, those UFOs and ETs undercut their reality by acting outside what we know explorers to do.

That is, if the premise is like the premise of human exploration, why isn’t the follow-up similar?

Do aliens have an agenda that is so oblique and weird that the exploration premise is set aside for something that doesn’t logically follow?

Moreover, where are the refinements of an advanced culture, the art, the literature, the music, that are blatantly absent in any contact with UFO occupants as reported, inside and outside of alleged alien abductions too?

Aliens, visiting Earth, must have a purpose, but what is it? And why have no fecund results occurred during the immense spate of UFO visitations (sightings) or contacts?

As Jacques Vallee proposes, in his data and perception driven exculpation of the ET/UFO reality in the paper presented in the posting before this one, one can add the lack of any cultural or even scientific purpose for alien visitations.

No! Alien probes of humans in abduction accounts are as purposeless as they would be if they had occurred during Livingston’s sojourns in Africa. To attribute UFO visits for human anatomical studies is futile, on the face of it: such superficial medical studies remain as the hallucinatory product of deranged minds during a defective neurological episode. Such procedures by alien explorers would be side-saddled if one accepts the premise of explorations per se, using the human model.

There is something missing in the ET equation for UFOs, something more than the rational refutation by Jacques Vallee: it’s the evidence for a culture or cultures that would spur exploration of the Universe in the first place – a need to satiate inquisitiveness and imagination, which would be accompanied by cultural or refined elements (books, art, music) of which there are none in the UFO reports accumulated.

RR

Read More

A source for UFO reports/sightings by serious UFO researchers

The National Reconnaissance Office has been extant for the whole modern era of the so-called flying saucer and/or UFO.

This NRO Bulletin provides grist for serious UFO researchers or investigators, who've mined the NSA, CIA, and U.S. military constructs for UFO information, but still seek (or need) confirmation of actual UFO sightings/reports:

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/recon.pdf

RR

Read More

Swords and Vallee -- Two kinds of brilliance

Papers circulating at our private UFO web-site by Michael Swords and Jacques Vallee might prove interesting to some of you.

Michael Swords offers this: "Could Extraterrestrials be Expected to Breathe Our Air?"

And Jacques Vallees presentation is "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects"

RR

Read More

The FBI wants no part of the Army Air Force or Navy 'flying disk" nonsense

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/fbi-fugo.jpg

Read More

Papers on Misperception (for the erudite among you)

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/misperception-1.pdf

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/misperception-2.pdf

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/misperception-3.pdf

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/misperception-4.pdf

RR

Read More

Burden of Proof (explained)

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1.      Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

2.      Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

1.      Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
   Jill: "What is your proof?"
   Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

 RR

Read More

A document derived from a FOIA request that some may find interesting

http://fkbureau.homestead.com/nsa-umbra.pdf

Read More

The Trent/McMinnville UFO Model?

This is one of the iconic 1950 Trent UFO photos:

Is this the model that farmer Trent used to create his photos?

More about this, upcoming.

RR

Read More

Another domain of life -- the fourth!

Our friend, Dawson College's [Montreal] Bryan Sentes, a true intellectual, provided a link, at Facebook, to an article that offers the suggestion that there might be a fourth domain of life, which bespeaks that life is more diverse and odd than we might imagine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20265#.U8_iFeOSwrU

Read More

Why aircraft never evolved from alleged UFO design

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0722/Do-airplanes-evolve-like-birds

Read More

UFOs: The Unread Crowd

I’ve harped on this before, so forgive me for being redundant, but this is an issue that needs to be redressed.

I see from comments and e-mails that many readers here haven’t read Scully's Behind the Flying Saucers but presume to speak about the book and its contents.

And among the books I cite for my speculations, few, if any, have read or have them but they, too, presume to comment on my citations.

And what about those of you who haven’t bought Nick Redfern’s book, Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind, or any of Kevin Randle’s offerings?

Yet you quidnuncs continue to pontificate about their content.

This is the height of hubris, ignorant hubris.

That UFO people don’t support those who author credible, worthwhile tomes about the UFO topic is more than disappointing; it’s disgusting, you bastards!

I’m sure many of you buy cigarettes and beer, but opt not to support those who grind away at the UFO mystery, using their personal funds and time to enlighten the ufological masses.

That some of you deign to comment on esoteric books and postings about them that I bring to this venue makes me intellectually sick.

You oafs are not respected nor esteemed, but I allow your comments out of a sense of courtesy, for the mentally challenged.

Go forth, buy Nick’s books and Mr. Randle’s, and anyone else who has credible cachet in the UFO community.

And if you choose to comment on my fantasy offerings, do so with the background of knowledge you’ve garnered by reading and understanding the material proffered.

The UFO clan is awash in dolts. Let’s keep them far from this blog.

RR

Read More

The insertion of alien faces in ancient imagery?

Again, in this book, there are images, from old art-works, that contain what appear to be faces of those damnable little gray beings that UFO witnesses keep seeing.

This is The Wheel of Becoming (19^th Century Tibet) [Page 400];

 The “alien faces”?

This is Yama and Yami, The Lord Death and his Shakti (19^thCentury Tibet) [Page 409]:

The “alien faces”?

This is Chakra-Samvararaja and His Shakti, Vajra-Yogini (18^thCentury, Tibet) [Page 404]:

The “alien faces”?

Did the creators of these works see little gray beings? Or did they have a neurological epiphany?

N.B. No, they're not impressions of skulls; they have the flame of life on their tops

RR

Read More

The Electrical Connection to UFOs and the Other World(s)

In the book pictured here [Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974] resides images that derive from various cultures over many years, millennia sometimes.

Some of the images seem, to me, to be similar to electrical schematics, too nearly so to be discounted as something imagined from thin air.

Here are two, this first comes from a sand painting of the Navaho people, early 20^th Century [Page 188]

Another -- from the Aztec civilization, 15^thcentury, A.D. [Page 189]

 This is an IBM computer chip diagram:

This is an electrical circuit:

This is Quetzalcoatl’s Heart of the Underworld (Aztec/Pre-Columbian) [Page 176]

This is computer wafer chip:

The [speculative] point I’m trying to make is that there appears to be a metal intrusion on ancient and current artists [Jackson Pollack], a mental intrusion that has similarities to electricity or electrical circuitry.

While early man, in its cave paintings, produced “realistic” images of their surroundings, some cultures -- Indian, in the sub-continent, Indian, in middle America – appear to have been affected by mental images that have co-incidental similarities to electrical design and circuitry. Why?

That UFOs are often reported to affect electrical circuitry in automobiles, atomic or military weaponry circuits, and power plants indicates that UFOs may have an integral electrical component or essence. [See my previous posting about electrical alien beings.]

Do UFOs affect witness brains, the electrical aspect of the brain?

A matter for research or investigation?

RR

Read More

Jonathan E. Caldwell was the creator of flying saucers (UFOs)?

These two New York TIMES clippings from August 20/21, 1949, reproduced in Flying Saucers Over Los Angeles: The UFO Craze of the 50’s by Dewayne B. Johnson and Kenn Thomas [Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, Illinois, 1998, Page 272] …

…tells of two flying saucers [Flying Disk “prototypes”] found in a barn near Glen  Burnie, Maryland, which is about eleven miles south of Baltimore.

It was determined that the constructs had been invented by a man named Jonathan E. Caldwell, who disappeared in the winter of 1940/1941.

The Air Force initially issued a Roswell-like statement: “…'some flying disks had been located  in Maryland,' and that Army special agents made an investigation.”

The Air Force then decided “that the two experimental aircraft … 'have absolutely no connection with the reported phenomena [sic] of flying saucers.'”

The TIMES continues “Less than  twenty-four hours earlier, however, and Air Force spokesman had said there was a 'a good chance' that the two weird devices … might be prototypes or forerunners of the flying saucers or discs.”

Roswell dé-jà vu surely.

But, more intriguing, who was Jonathan E. Caldwell and what happened to him?

RR

Read More

UFOs and Electric Beings?

Bryan Sentes, a Facebook friend who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, provided this link to his FB followers:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy.html?full=true#.U8l_ZeNdUR5

It allows speculation that, perhaps, somewhere in the Universe, a race of beings has evolved, beings who live off pure energy and may be energy beings themselves.

RR

Read More

The Stupidity of UFO Mavens

My god....what's wrong with UFO-interested people?

Are they totally ignorant or insane?

My ideas about speculation have raised havoc with a few readers here, David Rudiak among them.

The consternation comes from persons who, apparently, think that UFO accounts and reports bespeak a reality, that flying saucers and UFOs contain extraterrestrial visitors from outer space.

They think the Aztec and Roswell tales contain actual, real accounts of dead alien bodies and an ET presence.

That I suggest those tales are speculation really irks these people. They have come to believe those two tales (and others) are true or real.

It's a matter of fanatic faith for them, like the existence of God.

No wonder that skeptics get berserk with these folks.

No UFO report or event has ever proved anything, except that something odd was seen in the air or on the ground.

Again, Roswell generated the Aztec story. Aztec is a fiction. Roswell was an odd event, far from settled as a flying disk crash.

One can only speculate about both: why Aztec was created and what really happened near Roswell.

To think there are facts or data proving either was a real ET event is insane, intellectually.

The thought processes expressed here, in comments, show delusional thinking at its worst.

I'm embarrased to have allowed such comments, and I'm chagrinned to think I've quartered here a raft of ravings that normal people can see are stupidity in the extreme.

RR

Read More

Ufology’s Academic Mistake(s)

David Rudiak is irked by my approach to the Aztec and Roswell stories.

Let me explain so that even he understands what I’m doing…

Aztec is, for me, a fiction. I tackle it as a fiction.

Roswell has become mythic. One should deal with the 1947 event as a myth, using the academic methodologies for mythology.

George Adamski’s tales are a contrivance (created for reasons not quite clear, but concocted surely). One should treat Adamski and his contacts as part of a self-generated creation.

Many of the UFO accounts provided here and at his blog-site by Jose Antonio Caravaca are delusions, and should be treated with psychological methodologies.

Mr. Rudiak sees Roswell as a substantive 1947 event and treats it forensically, which is admirable, in an odd way.

French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez, Lance Moody, and CDA (perhaps) see Roswell as a myth, developed by Stanton Friedman’s 1978 intrusion and developing as a mythos until today (2104).

To deal or treat Roswell as something other than a mythos grates the skeptics.

Treating Aztec as a real event, with real chronologies, data, and facts, when it is a fiction, created by Silas Newton and exacerbated, unknowingly as a real event, by Frank Scully, would be foolish.

To try and obtain factual material for a fictive event or story would be stupid on the face of it.

One can gather supportive materials that underlie a fiction, but to take that supportive material into a realm of reportage and fact would be a nonsensical activity.

Mr. Rudiak doesn’t get what premises my speculation, even though I gave him and readers here a heads up with the two New Yorker excerpts in the posting preceding this one.

I like Mr. Rudiak. I think he has accumulated much about Roswell and UFOs generally that is valuable.

But he isn’t academic in his approach. He misses the nuances of speculation. He’s a tyro when it comes to how writers work, what they are trying to do, what truths they are trying to determine using something other than concrete facts or data.

When I say Aztec derives from Roswell, that seems, to me, to follow from the time-line, the persons involved, and the details that intersect between Aztec and Roswell: downed flying saucers, with bodies and a military cover-up.

Mr. Rudiak wants more. He wants me to concretize a fiction.

I’d like to accommodate him, but his obsession is not mine and I’m not going to chase that dog’s tail, just to assuage his obsession with the ETH.

RR 

Read More

A Doorway to Shaver's "Inner Earth"?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/16/331982188/a-huge-new-crater-is-found-in-siberia-and-the-theories-fly

Read More

Ufological Speculation

The current issue of The New Yorker magazine [7/21/14], in Briefly Noted [Page 81] has this about writers who’ve written books, one about Freud and one about The Beat Generation.

In the paragraph about Becoming Freud by Adam Phillips (Yale), is this:

“Talking [Freud’s] admonishments about writing biographies, Phillips, a psychoanalyst himself,  attempts ‘a Freudian life of the young Freud.” The result is anti-biography. Phillips eschews scene setting, character sketches, and chronology, in favor of a string of musings on the first fifty or so years of Freud’s life.”

And this from the notation of American Smoke by Iain Sinclair (Faber) “ … the result is beguiling, full of sparkling prose and odd, unexpected detours … his trip is mostly a journey of the imagination.” [Italics mine]

This is what writers do. The conjure up the truth from associations and connections that spur their imaginations, causing a fictive work that approaches truth often more truthfully than a factual rendition of data and information that is gathered from disparate and controversial sources.

Great writing – Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Joyce, et al. – is a product of imaginative speculation that harbors truths that facts often miss.

David Rudiak gathers facts and tries to allow those facts to bespeak truths that aren’t exactly there but seem to be – his Ramey speculations, for example. (His Ramey thesis is interesting and imaginative but shorn of proof. However, had he allowed his views to be speculative rather than a presentation of reality, his observations would have been more readily accepted by UFO cognoscenti.)

David bludgeons his followers with a treasure trove of information, but while less is more, for him, more is more and he provides a cascade of information that doesn’t gel in the imagination of his readers.

David writes, a lot, but he isn’t a writer.

He now is taking me to task for my speculative views on Bernerd Ray, Silas Newton, Roswell, and Aztec, pressing for proofs and “facts” that are just not available at this late date.

I’m left to speculate on what may be a truth that I imagine – Silas Newton was presented some photos of a Roswell incident that Bernerd Ray had captured on film; Silas Newton taking the story as a ploy for nefarious activity, creating an Aztec scenario, that he got Frank Scully, a writer/reporter, to see as an actual account – Skully’s imaginative faculties filling in the blanks that Newton’s tale were fraught with, and so we have Behind the Flying Saucers.

Speculation can get one in trouble sometimes and particularly when it comes to criminal investigations, if one isn’t careful.

But in ufology or cosmology or anything else, imaginative speculation is a doorway to truths, as Einstein found out as well as and, in particular, quantum physicists who discovered that when dealing with the evanescent aspects of quantum mechanics.

Theoretical physicists are prime examples of speculative thinkers (and writers).

One has to take what exists in the way of information and mold it to portray a truth that they see as possible – not true perhaps, in the factual sense, but true in another way: encompassing possibilities that could be real.

David Rudiak did this with his Ramey hypothesis, but his presentation is hammered too hard, causing readers of his foray to shy away. Mr. Rudiak is proselytizing, on behalf of his bias, that extraterrestrials exist, fly in UFOs or saucers, and crashed near Roswell in 1947.

It’s an acceptable view – to me.

But when I conjecture that Bernerd Ray and Silas Newton were in contact (or more), derived from their similar professions, locale, and circumstantial employment situation, Mr. Rudiak questions my speculation, as do Frank Warren and Scott Ramsey, all of whom think Aztec happened as Frank Scully told it.

But Aztec did not happen as Frank Scully had it. He was, unknown to him at the time, regurgitating the Roswell tale as reconfigured by Silas Newton (for the reasons I have enumerated earlier here).

David Rudiak can’t accept my speculation which has more grist than the vague blotches in his enlarged Ramey memo.

That’s okay with me. After all, as French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez often remind us, “That’s ufology.”

UFOs and its pseudo-science are too silly or ephemeral to get worked up about.

Even the so-called Roswell slides are nothing to get worked up about: they will end up proving nothing, except that someone took photos of a strange thing, in an unknown place, at an unknown time.

But speculative writing about UFOs and its mimesis will continue here, and elsewhere I hope. It’s entertaining, and I would hope approaches truths that facts can’t emulate.

RR

Read More

Despicable Ufology

An often complaint by UFO aficionados is that science, scholastics, and/or academics don’t study or examine the alleged “good UFO cases.”

And why don’t they?

One reason is the inherent lunacy of most UFO mavens.

But another reason is that the UFO crowd is adorned heavily with unethical people. Persons who steal material online, posting it as their finds or even original thoughts and writings, not providing attribution of citation(s).

Many plagiarize material and pass it off as their own.

Writings of ours, input here, can be found all over the internet, at UFO web-sites and blogs, without a link or sourcing notification.

Such scummy activity is eschewed by academics and scientists – anathema, for them, of a high order.

There is no way to correct the unethical, immoral behavior of the sleazy pirates; they are immune to decency and elegant, legal behavior.

Some even ignore copyright notices – although we have won a few copyright infringement “suits” over the past few years.

(Hosting platforms and other internet venues, wishing not to be sued, will readily stop or remove copyrighted material being exploited by their customers or users.)

But the stealing goes on apace.

We’ll start posting those sites that have taken material wholesale from this venue and presented as their own. (And we’ll sue some of the practitioners.)

But that won’t correct “ufology” in the mind of science or academia. They will remain wary and aloof.

And we don’t blame them.

RR

Read More

SAGE Publishing/Peer Review Scandal

http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/07/updated-lax-reviewing-practice-prompts-60-retractions-sage-journal

Read More

NASA says we will find aliens in 20 years, but...

... they've already shown up, or so the Roswell slides tell us:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/15/nasa_aliens
_are_out_there_we_will_find_a_new_earth_within_20_years/

Read More

The Aztec/Roswell Bodies? (Support for the Roswell slides?)

As many of you know, we spent much of 2013 presenting our view that Frank Scully’s book, Behind the Flying Saucers was really about Roswell, not Aztec, and we presented our supporting view(s) here, at this blog, which you can find via Google.

What interests me, currently, amidst the Roswell slides imbroglio, is the descriptions of the alleged bodies discovered in the Aztec (actually Rowell) flying saucer crashes as enumerated by Scully.

These comments are from Scientist X, given to students and media at The University of Denver according to Scully:

“ … men [were found], ranging in ages … from thirty-five to forty years old … Their bodies had been charred to a dark brown color.” [Page 28 of the 1950 Popular Library Edition, paperback]

“ … dead men … found in the second craft … had not suffered from burns …and were all of fair complexion … of small stature. No different from us, except for height, and lack of beards. [Page 28, ibid.]

Scully’s protagonists said:

“We took the little bodies out, and laid them on the ground … They were normal from every standpoint and had no appearance of being what we would call on this planet ‘midgets.’ They were small in stature but well proportioned. The only trouble was that their skin seemed to be charred a very dark chocolate … [apparently] burned as a result of air rushing through that broken porthole window or something going wrong with the means by which the shipped was propelled and the cabin pressurized.” [Page 116, ibid]

“ … they were dead, from either burns or the bends.” [Page 117, ibid]

“What has been done with the people that were on the ship? … some of them had been dissected, and studied by the medical division of the Air Force and that from the meager reports … received, they had found that these little fellows were in all respects perfectly normal human beings [sic], except for their teeth … Their teeth were prefect. [Page 119, ibid]

As contended by me, earlier here, Bernerd Ray who worked for Scully’s Silas Newton [see 2013 blog posts], seems to have taken photos of the beings now known as the Roswell slides, and shown them to Newton.

And they are, indeed from Roswell, not Aztec, which was a cover story devised by Newton at the behest of the Army Air Force with whom he maintained oil contracts.

Frank Scully’s wife saw and reported upon the Ray photos, which are still extant, and may be the slides that The Roswell Team is touting.

There is much that has not been investigated about the conjunction of Aztec and Roswell for many reasons, some stemming from the contention that Aztec is a viable, real story of a flying saucer crash, and strongly defended as such by Frank Warren and chief defenders Scott and Suzanne Ramsey, along with authors/researchers William Steinman, Wendelle Stevens, and Richard Thomas, all of whom believe that Aztec is a singular event when, in reality, it was a fictive cover story, promulgated by Silas Newton, as noted.

RR

Read More

From Jose Antonio Caravaca -- an Impression

Read More

Is this the source of the Roswell slides?

Did Bernerd and Hilda Ray snap their photos from a display of mummies:

http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/guanajuato.htm

RR

Read More

The Roswell Slides: What’s that smell?

There is, in my mind, a serious question of ethical behavior in the Roswell slides discovery and ongoing story.

When I first heard about the Roswell slides, from Anthony Bragalia, I thought he told me that a woman who was handling an estate sale found, hidden in a trunk, a cache of Kodachrome slides that she passed on to her brother, a Chicago businessman.

Mr. Bragalia wrote later, for this blog, that the woman who found the slides was an estate-cleaner, a cleaning lady, not an estate representative. Either I misunderstood him when he first told me the story or his initial concept of the woman's role was in error when he told me.

Somehow she or her brother ended up in contact with one of the so-called Roswell Dream Team members (Tom Carey?), thinking they had slides of an alien that was recovered in the Roswell crash of 1947. (As to why they thought this was what the slides showed or what their interest was in Roswell or how the Dream Team member came to be involved was never made clear to me,)

Mr. Bragalia passed on the nub of the story to Frank Warren [The UFO Chronicles] and Nick Redfern, and skirted further information to me as I was determined that the slides should be made public, to the UFO community at least.

When I noted the slide story at this blog, Mr. Bragalia and Kevin Randle, who was the originator of the Roswell Dream Team, said I was full of hooey, and that Mr. Randle didn’t know anything about the alleged slides.

After Paul Kimball disclosed that Mr. Randle did know about the slides and what was being pursued relevant to them, Mr. Randle dropped off the Team. Mr. Bragalia, however, tried to stifle my knowledge and effort to get the slide story out in the open.

And just yesterday [7/10], Mr. Bragalia took to comment here to say my view that the slides were inappropriately taken by the woman who discovered them, as she was required by law to disclose her find, was in error. 

Mr. Bragalia then proceeded to provide this comment about my view (which I got from an attorney):

No Rich, completely untrue! Who told you this poppycock? There is no TX Attorney General interest, no litigation, law suit or other legal hindrance of any kind in release of the slides...

The slides were obtained by a clean-out of a deceased owner's home (therefore legally trash) and not obtained from an "estate sale."

And any statute of limitations would have long passed to lay claim to the slides, Also...

Hilda had no children. Bernerd had no children. There are no direct descendants, no one to lay claim or make the claim to the slides.

The whole thing you've written is preposterous on the face of it for these reasons and more. 

And a Roswell team member I have just phoned who is closer to this situation than any of us thinks it ridiculous.

AJB 

Now it seems the woman who found the slides wasn’t handling an estate sale but, rather, cleaning up the house in which she found the slides; that is, she was part of the crew disposing of the Hilda Ray house.

That makes little sense to me, but that’s Mr. Bragalia’s stance now [July 10^th, 2014].

When pressed that his view about the cleaning of the deceased’s house, which our corporate attorney said was “full of shit,’ Mr. Bragalia sent me this:

Well whatever...it is to laugh:

Tell him this: the slides aren't leaving the owner's possession. And exact, ultra-high quality digital images have been made, and too many people have already seen them, and too many scientists have tested them to 'harm' the story.

It would take a court mandated action to take away the original slides. By then they would have already been broadcast (likely from a foreign country as I told you) where they would remain.

And tell you barrister this: I will be calling the TX Unclaimed Property Office and the TX AG's office to see if any kind of investigation of any type has been initiated against the Chicago owner of the slides.

Old slides left in a trunk and left in an attic after the couple is deceased and the RE firm has engaged a company to clean out the property- its trash, sorry. It's like leaving yellowed National Geographics when you die. In the dumper they go. To prove if the slides have any value would require someone to have come forward to say that they do. Who is this person?

T

It seems that Mr. Bragalia, a friend of this blog (so far) has come to an obsessed position about the slides, and is willing to set aside transparency and ethics in order to make a mark in the UFO community and the world at large, as he sees the slides as absolute proof that an alien body was recovered at Roswell, and the slides confirm that.

From what Larry wrote, after seeing the slides, Mr. Bragalia said Larry is now a believer, a view that I (and others) don’t exactly read into his comment(s) where he (Larry) describes what he sees in the slides.

I and others (who might come forward) don’t see the slides as proving anything. They are circumstantial at best, and acquired in a strange way, promoted just as strangely, by their present owner.

Something has been dicey about this slide story from the get-go.

It’s become a messy affair, surely. And that’s because the Dream Team thinks they have to get all their ducks in a row before they disclose what they think is the Roswell secret.

Instead of being forthcoming and transparent, Mr. Bragalia and his cronies have circumvented ethical behavior as a means to what they see as a monumental end: The Roswell Crash was real and alien bodies were found.

That conclusion is as far from acceptable by anyone with half a sense about what the slides show or can show.

The slides were obtained in a way that doesn’t seem proper to me (and others). They were passed on to a person who is planning to exploit them, and Mr. Bragalia and his team-mates are complicit in that exploitation, ethics and transparency be damned.

This is where we are…

RR

Read More

From a colleague/correspondent

Read More

The Roswell slides may not see the light of day…

Or, at least, not by way of the Roswell “Dream Team.”

It seems that that the woman who found the slides in a trunk as part of the estate sale of Hilda Ray took the slides without notifying the court of them in the catalogue of estate items and, thus, engaged, allegedly, in theft, transferring the slides to her brother, who could be charged with conspiracy to defraud.

Who are the victims of the alleged fraud? I don’t know.

But the Attorney General of Texas will determine who is to be notified of the fiduciary breach and whether or not they wish to prosecute.

This is an ongoing matter, and I’ll keep you-up-to-date as the matter is adjudicated.

RR

Read More

UFO Sightings in Africa -- interesting and truly odd.

John Spencer in his World Atlas of UFOs … [Hamlyn Publishing. London, 1991], cited here, earlier, provides a number of odd UFO reports in Africa, from 1951 through 1985.

What sets these sightings or episodes apart from the usual raft of UFO sightings elsewhere is that almost all of them have an entity or entities involved or seen, who interact with witnesses, either talking to them or inviting them aboard their perceived craft.

In a 1951 encounter [on Drakensteen Mountain, Cape Province, South Africa] a British engineer, driving up the mountain, was flagged down by a small man with a domed head and speaking with a strange accent who claimed he needed water. The engineer took him to a stream and returned him to the spot where he first encountered the “under 5 foot” man. There the engineer saw a disc-shaped craft that the man invited the engineer to enter where the man said a colleague had burned himself.  When the engineer asked the little man where he came from, the man pointed to the sky and said, “From there.” [Page 146]

An Elizabeth Klarer of  Drakensberg, South Africa allegedly had a series of UFO sightings beginning in 1917, with an “extraordinary” sighting on December 27^th, 1954 when she, attracted by the excitement of some Zulu children, watched as a 60 foot (18.3 m) disc-like craft descended and hovered  near her. It was flat with a dome and through a porthole she saw a humanoid figure “surveying her and the landscape” before flying off at great speed. In April 1956, early in the morning, she discovered, on a hill at her family farm, a huge metallic craft resting on the ground, with an entity standing outside it. He was tall [6 ft. 4 in. or 2 m) with clear grey, slanted eyes and high cheekbones. “He was wearing a one-piece suit.” The alien asked, “Not afraid this time?” She boarded the craft where she met a second alien. She was flown to a mother ship that was filled with similar aliens, who appeared to be friendly, one of whom was named Akon, a vegetarian, who “spoke” with her telepathically. Akon told her they came from a planet “four light years away” [sic] that put it in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri. Elizabeth became pregnant with Akon’s child hwo now lives with Akon on Meton, in the Alpha Centauri star system it seems. [Pages 146-147]

On February 14^th, 1975, an Antoine Sévérin saw a domed UFO in a field at Petite Ile. of Reuníon Island in the Indian Ocean. Small entities got out of it and fired a white beam at Sévérin “rendering him unconscious.” [Page 151]

On January 3^rd, 1979, Meagan Quezet and her son of Mindalore, Johannesburg, South Africa, while walking their dog, around midnight, spotted this egg-shaped craft:

 It stood about 12 ft [3.65m] high and stood on four landing legs. Five or six people stepped out of it and approached the witnesses, speaking in a high-pitched tone that sounded like Chinese. They were dressed in coveralls, one of the men, of normal height, having a thick head of hair and a beard. Thinking something wasn’t right, Meagan sent her son to get Daddy telling him to “run, please run.” The entities entered the craft, there was a buzzing sound, and the craft disappeared into the night sky. But apparently, Meagan had been taken aboard the craft right before telling her son, Andre, to get his father, where she saw chairs and “funny lights” during which the entities imparted a message that shocked her, but which she has been unable to recall, even under hypnosis, which she had reluctantly undergone after the episode. (She was about to be subjected to a physical examination, when she and her son jumped out of the craft, and Andre ran off to fetch his father.) [Pages 152-153]

On August 15^th, 1981, a gardener, Clifford Muchena, saw a ball of light rolling towards him at an estate [La Rochelle] in Mutare, Zimbabwe. The fireball moved across the lawns, and as Muchena watched it he saw two tall beings or men standing nearby. They were wearing shiny silver suits and their faces shown a bright, shining light. Another witness saw the two men, who seemed to be carrying torches, but she saw them wearing blue jeans, neither she nor Muchena connecting the “men” with the ball of light. [Page 156]

Here we have several sightings, some with elements of hysteria, but all within the realm of sightings that have been catalogued by Jose Antonio Caravaca and flush with material that is grist for some kinds of studies, not just “ufology.”

Is there value in investigating vicissitudes of such reports as those presented by Mr. Spencer and Señor Caravaca? I think there is. But to what avail? That is open to discussion.

RR

Read More

Delusions: Self and Otherwise

This 1979 book from my shelves addresses many of the points or, rather, non-points, made here in comments recently.

Contents include:

Reality exists outside of us

Science is objective

Nothing but…

The myth of mind control

The lying truths of psychiatry

The chapter “Reality exists outside of us?” [Page 144 ff. by Sir Alan Cottrell] says this:

“ … it would appear that the concept of an independent reality ‘out there’ has been discredited … The central conclusion  is that if reality has any meaning at all, it is in the context of the observer and the observation itself.” [Page 158]

My point, with this book, is that what we’re debating in this place (and elsewhere) have many possibilities. No topic is definitive, to the point of conclusiveness.

If someone thinks they have the answer(s) to things, they don’t.

UFO skeptics don’t have the answers, and UFO believers don’t either.

UFOs, among lots of other things, are wide open to explanation and rumination.

What troubles me is the facile, superficial argumentation that rears its head in comments here.

Gilles Fernandez, Lance Moody, Zoam Chomsky don’t have the answers, but neither do David Rudiak, Tony Bragalia, Dominick, et al.

Further, most named here are ill-read, maybe not about UFOs but about almost everything else.

Their “discussions” here are limited by their liberal arts and general academic illiteracy.

Ufology – sorry Gilles, and Zoam and David – needs an intellectual overhaul.

Paul Kimball and Joel Crook would agree I think.

The rubric “ufology” like the categorical UFO sobriquet is fraught with baggage that dolts have assumed in order to belong to the rampant discussion(s) of UFOs on the internet, not just here but everywhere.

I suggest that those wishing to make points in this arena do so with cited material and footnoted asides that come from material outside the internet swill.

After all, we’re not animals….or are we?

RR

Read More

Buzz Aldrin saw a UFO during his Apollo mission.....maybe

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buzz-aldrin-describes-ufo-encounter-224121618.html

Read More

Seeing things: UFOs, ghosts, et cetera

In An Encyclopedia of Occultism: A compendium of information on the occult sciences…by Lewis Spence [University Books, New Hyde Park, NY, 1960]there is this:

Ghost seers: Sir William Hamilton has observed, “however astonishing, it is now proved, beyond all rational doubt, that in certain abnormal states of the nervous organism, perceptions are possible through other than the channels of the senses.” [Page 180 ff., italics mine]

The segment continues with folk-lore about children who are born at certain times of the day [midnight mostly] have the ability to see spirits, ghosts, and other occult apparitions.

That people see things is a given, but are those things a tangible reality or a delusional figment of the mind?

In comments to a proceeding posting here, tulpas are presented as real, created entities, brought about by various means. (TheEncyclopedia cited here doesn’t mention tulpas, and I generally eschew the concept.)

Even though the idea, outlined in my post on Koestler’s works, that reality may be created by the cooperation of a brain/mind effort, in certain circumstances, the thesis is not proven, although here are circumstantial elements that seem to offer the possibility.

Yet, is that scientific in methodology? Does it even make common sense?

The appearance of an thing in the sky that is odd, and thus unidentified may be the result of a neuroscience-induced anomaly; that is, a brain glitch.

Or it may be a psychologically induced delusion.

Or it may be something real, in that it often impinges aspects of nature that indicate tangibility.

But where are the artifacts or remnants of those UFOs (or ghosts, or anything paranormal)? They are evanescent, in the extreme: none have been brought to examination except by witness reports or indeterminate evidence – indentations in the ground, radar traces, blurry photos, and shaky testimony.

One has to be skeptical of UFO reports or sightings even though the amassed accounts seem to suggest that something “real” has been observed and sometimes interacted with by humans who, for all intents and purposes, are not insane, in the traditional sense anyway.

What “ufology” or UFO examination needs is a disruptive method of research. (See The New Yorker, June 23^rd, 2014, The Disruption Machine, by Jill LePore, Page 30 ff.)

Such a “disruption” would eliminate the past follies of the UFO old-guard, the old researchers who’ve botched the investigation of UFOs (or the categorical UAP if you will) by an Sci-Fi bias.

Do UFOs really exist, as David Rudiak, Anthony Bragalia, et al. insist, but Zoam Chomsky, Gilles Fernandez, and Lance Moody vehemently deny?

We’ll never know if UFOs remain tethered to the past erroneous efforts by UFO devotees.

RR

Read More

Mars' Curiosity Rover captures photo of UFO?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/06/mars-curiosity-rover-ufo-pictures_n_5538801.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Read More

Are UFOs mind-created?

Material in Arthur Koestler’s The Roots of Coincidence[Random House, NY, 1972] allows one to consider that UFOs are created by the mind of person(s) seeing them and, perhaps, even creating them.

“Our universe is no truer than that of the neutrinos – the exist in a different kind of space, governed by different laws … In our space, no material body can exceed the velocity of light, because at this velocity its mass and so inertia becomes infinite. The neutrino, however, is subject neither to gravitational nor to electro-magnetic fields, so that it need be bound by the this speed limit and may have it own, different time. It might be able to travel faster than light, which would make it relativistically [sic] recede in our time scale … mental entities, it appears that they have no definite locus in so-called ‘physical’, or, better, gravi-electromagnetic, space …This kind of perception involves a mental interaction, which is subject to laws of its own …” [Page 64]

“ … Eccles …believes that ESP and PK are weak and irregular manifestations of the same principle which allows an individual’s mental volition to influence his own material brain, and the material brain to give rise to conscious experiences. He also reminds us of an unduly neglected hypothesis, which Eddington formulated in 1939, of a ‘correlated behaviour of the individual particles of matter, which he assumed to occur fro matter in liaison with mind.” [Page 76]

“ … one reason for the erratic nature of ESP …[is] our inability to control the unconscious processes underlying it. Grey Walter’s experiments were not concerned with ESP, yet he [realized] that the ‘readiness wave’ will only attain sufficient strength if the subject is in a state described as ‘a paradoxical compound of detachment and excitement”. [sic] [Page 128]

What is being addressed above is the suggestion that those who wish to partake of an ESP experience needs to be relieved of excitement and emotion and need to be in a state of “self-transcending emotion.” [Page 128 ff.]

This goes to my previous conjecture that those seeing or experiencing a UFO event do so when they are in habitual zone of activity; that is they’re doing something rote and routine, such as flying a plane, gardening, picking flowers, hiking, or any other activity during which they enter a quasi-somnambulistic state of mind.

But Koestler goes further. He delves into quantum physics, positing that the “theory” allows for the mind to create material matter (or things) which have the appearance of reality but are actually illusionary.

“ … in Einstein’s cosmos and the sub-atomic micro-cosmos, the non-substantial aspects dominate; in both, matter dissolves into energy, energy into shifting configurations of something unknown. Eddington summed it up …’The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.’ … On both the cosmic and sub-atomic scale this intimate, tangible relationship turns out to be an illusion.” [Page 59]

“In his 1969 Eddington Memorial Lecture [ Britain’s most respected neurophysiologists, Dr. W. Grey Walter] reported, laconically, that harnessed to an electric machine, by an effort of will, one can influence external events without movement or overt action through the impalpable electric surges of one’s own brain.” [Page 123]

That the mind is able to create “realities” ex nihilo seems to be what cosmologists say nature did in the creation of the Universe [The Big Bang].

Koestler, in this book – and previous book The Ghost in the Machine – indicates that creation occurs by thought – an interaction of brain of mind actually. And a reality is created that appears actual but is illusionary, although the reality is as concrete as the reality one finds postulated in Quantum Theory (or Mechanics).

Does this mean that UFOs are created “realities”? Koestler tackles that with much about the Pauli-Jung collaboration Naturerklärung und Psyche which he sees as flawed although the work and Jung’s theory of the archetypes appear to have a similar acceptance of intangible reality that is tangible, in some sense.

My point here is that there are suggestions, by men (and women), that raise the specter of mind-created reality (ghosts, for example) and UFOs could very well be a created-reality that interacts with human senses and the natural world and its accoutrements (radar, film, et cetera).

The matter is more complex than my précis here presents it but I’m hopeful that some of you can or will address the finer points…

RR

Read More

Chile releases UFO photos

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-kean/government-agency-in-chil_b_5558713.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Read More

The Skeptical [UFO] Insanity

For those of us who’ve seen something odd in the sky that may be labeled a UFO, an Unidentified Flying Object or UAP, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, the ongoing colloquy here between Zoam Chomsky, Gilles Fernandez, and maybe CDA and Dominick, AI12, Larry, Don, Joel, et al. is baffling or worse.

That Zoam Chomsky takes an atheistic view about UFOs, denying they exist at all, even as a mythical sobriquet, is intellectually painful.

Gilles Fernandez’ attempt to place all UFO sightings in a quasi-scientific category just irritates.

CDA refusing to accept Roswell as the scene of a covered-up alien craft accident doesn’t irk. It’s a proper skeptical view, considering that nothing has surfaced, after 67 years, to show a flying disk landed or crashed near Roswell, nothing but vague or erroneous witness testimony.

But to deny that UFOs exist at all is sheer pathological thinking (or rather non-thinking). The evidence – government concerns and investigations, thousands of reputable reports from credible (sane) people, and some circumstantial forensics (indentations in the ground, film or photos that may be faked but haven’t been proven, conclusively. to be so, radar trackings by qualified military or authoritative personnel) – is overwhelming, even if it isn’t proof of anything but a strange, unknown phenomenon.

Monsieur Fernandez’ views are simplistic and just as nebulous as the accounts he seeks to excoriate as mythological.

Mr. Chomsky’s views are radical and pathological. They disregard the Cartesian reality that has been sensed by humans, even if some of that sensed reality is delusional in several UFO cases.

That Mr. Chomsky hasn’t seen a UFO allows him to refute the idea that others may have. He takes the obtuse view that what he hasn’t experienced doesn’t exist.

Mr. Fernandez just chooses to attack the idea of UFOs, providing the patina of mythology to all accounts, even when some of the reported instances of a UFO sighting accrues from a person or persons whose mental faculties and sensory perceptions are above reproach.

The 1964 Socorro sighting is such a case, no matter what the thing Police Officer saw ultimately turns out to be – it’s, at this point, a UFO – it meets all the qualifying accoutrements to be so labeled.

Bumping heads with Mr. Chomsky or Monsieur Fernandez is a futile game of one-upmanship. Those two skeptics, both radical in a unique way, are given sway here as their pronouncements are interestingly lunatic, and this from someone who uses his psychological training to make that assessment.

But those wishing to convince Mr. Chomsky or Monsieur Fernandez that UFOs generally exist or that some UFO accounts bespeak an actual witnessed event have got to understand that they will not win the argument; the two fellows cited here are not amenable to rationality.

To continue the back-and-forth here, readers and commenters have got to apply reasonable argumentation and academic intellectualism, not obscurant references that don’t apply (Chomsky) or obscurant internet references from people who are without cachet in academia (Fernandez).

Let’s see where this takes us…

RR

Read More