UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, September 03, 2015

The “insanity” of [Adamski’s] Orthon

George Adamski provided reproductions of his Venusian visitor’s shoe-prints and symbols in a “message” left on a piece of photo stock:

These were displayed in his co-authored (with Desmond Leslie) book, Flying Saucers Have Landed.

But the symbols or “writings” come nowhere near what one would expect from an advanced extraterrestrial culture or civilization that the visitor [Orthon] was said to represent.

The “markings” look more like the scribblings (or drawings) of schizophrenic human beings:

Why did Leslie or anyone else take Adamski's offerings seriously?

Human writing evolved over time and I’ve written about the evolution of writing before here.

Some examples of early attempts by humans to communicate via symbols and writing:

Even primitive cultures displayed a sense of aesthetic decorum, as you can see.

Would an extraterrestrial civilization use math symbols, as some SETI advocates propose?

No. An alien culture would evolve totally differently than that here on this Earth; that is, the emergence of symbols, writing, language, and other modes of communication would develop spectacularly different than what has emerged here.

Even the cultural symbolic differences of Japanese or Chinese (Eastern) writing, on this sphere alone, is markedly different from Western cultures.
(I find no “explanation” as to why this is so. If you find one, let me know.)

How much more so would the writing, if there is any, of alien beings differ from that of Earth?

But even then, one wouldn’t expect the difference to be as hectic – schizophrenic – as that shown in the Adamski/Orthon examples (or other supposed UFO symbols reported).

The Orthon [Venusian] “script” alone should have discounted Adamski’s flying saucer lore. Why didn’t it?


Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Now Nick Redfern is mad at (news) media


A floating spoon on Mars? [What next?]


Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Nick Redfern's take on the government's interest in UFO abductees


UFO skeptics be damned?

Isaac Asimov:

“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.

One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"

Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”    

So, is there evidence for UFOs?

(Not ET-related UFOs, but just “Unidentified Flying Objects” or, better perhaps, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?)

My “friends” – CDA, Lance Moody, Zoam Chomsky, Gilles Fernandez, et al. – are avowed skeptics, they all (except for Christopher Allan aka CDA, who is skeptical about an ET connection to UFOs and the Roswell incident, in particular) are staunch “UFO atheists.”

And this despite the overwhelming “evidence” from reliable witnesses, who state they’ve seen odd things in the sky (and sometime on the ground).

Is it likely that all these witnesses were hallucinating or misperceiving mundane things?

If one adopts the idea, as my “friend” Brit David Clarke has in his latest book (noted here a few posts down in the blog), that UFOs are only a myth, what does that say about the skeptical mind?

Doesn’t the litany of UFO accounts, found in many sources – ancient records, the Blue Book files, news reports, et cetera – indicate evidence in the sense that Isaac Asimov suggests above?

Is there any other accumulation of human reportage that is eschewed so diligently, disavowed by persons with a skeptical bent?

No, I’m not talking about the existence of Jesus or his alleged resurrection. (There are not reliable records of either.)

UFOs have a panoply of human sensory interaction(s): sightings being the most plentiful.

All the persons seeing a strange “thing” flying overhead or nearby can’t be errant in their observations; the odds for that totality is statistically improbable, even impossible (if my training in psychometric methods has any standing in scientific measurement).

That the skeptical juggernaut is overly vibrant in the UFO field of interest goes to the heart of what may be wrong with the mental makeup of those who take such a livid stance against the many accounts from reasonable people, some professional in related fields: pilots, astronomers, aircraft designers, for example.

One can disavow the existence of God, because there are no witnesses to such a being extant,

But can one discount, reasonably (and intellectually) the many, many accounts of seemingly sane individuals, as have been gathered over the years, from ancient times to now?

No. If the skeptical view is anything, it’s determinate stubbornness to see what is obvious: something quirky has been spotted in the skies of Earth (and on the ground sometimes) for millennia, by persons who are not or were not psychologically or neurologically compromised.


Monday, August 31, 2015

What will the Alien Astronaut theorists do with this?


The UFO propulsion system?


Sunday, August 30, 2015

My Typical Day

An odd event from Jose Antonio Caravaca

Location. Villaviciosa de Odon, Madrid, Spain

Date: December 2012 Time: 6:30 a.m. – 7: 00 a.m.

The parents of Carlos Martinez Pedraza was staying at their private villa in a gated community when one early morning they woke up to a very strange noise coming from the garden.

It sounded like many squeals and yelps all at the same time. When they looked out the window which overlooked the garden, they did not see anything. It was almost dawn, so they turned on the outside patio lights and at this point they saw ‘hundreds’ of squirrels gathered inside the patio in the garden.

They were more than mildly surprised as they usually see 2 or 3 squirrels at the time but never this many, it was as if all the squirrels in the area that morning in the patio, all ‘screaming’ at the same time. They didn’t have an explanation. The strangest thing would come later.

When they turned off the outside lights the couple noticed something very strange floating over the garden. It resembled a long thin ‘doll-like’ figure. It had long arms and legs without any apparent muscle texture, it seemed flexible or “rubbery” and floated in a horizontal position facing towards the ground giving the impression that it was carried by the wind, but there was no noticeable wind. It seemed to be faintly luminous that seemed to emanate from inside the figure.

The figure wore a full-body red coverall, its face was very pale and it had a pair of two large round black eyes that appeared to be staring at the ground. It never turned and it was only seen in profile. They didn’t see a mouth or a nose, the red coverall covered the head and they didn’t see any ears. It seemed to be about 3-meters long and floated about 5-minutes over the garden.

All of the sudden the strange figure seemed to turn and vanished in plain sight “as if switching off a light”. The moment the floating figure vanished the squirrels were suddenly silent. It appeared to the witnesses that the bizarre floating being had somehow attracted the hundreds of squirrels.


Oliver Sacks, whose work I've used a lot here, has died.


Saturday, August 29, 2015

David Clarke's unsettling new UFO book: a review from TLS

The Times Literary Supplement for August 14, 2015 offered a review of our British friend David Clarke’s latest book How UFOs Conquered the World: The history of a modern myth.  [Aurum, 320 pp. $28.99].

The reviewer, Jonathan Barnes gives a nod – it’s in the In Brief section of the supplement – to David’s loss of fascination with UFOs as a product of alien/ET visitation.

David, of course, takes the stance that is reflected by skeptics (CDA, Lance Moody, Gilles Fernandez, and Zoam Chomsky) who visit this page now again: UFOs are optical illusions, misperceptions of aircraft or obtuse weather phenomena and Venus, stray balloons, Chinese lanterns, et cetera.

Reviewer Barnes end his short pastiche with David’s view of the UFO story: “Human beings”, [David] writes, rather wistfully and with the air of one who has learnt the truth the hard way, “cannot live without myths.”

David Clarke is an example of an erudite man. But he’s wrong.

Even though UFOs may not be ET-oriented, they are exotic and real, apart from the many “explanations” he proffers.

I’ve seen a few of these strange things and interviewed sensible people who have experienced them also, some close up.

They may not be extraterrestrial craft but they are something more than the belabored list that David offers (and that some of the skeptics offer).

David, like our Brit buddy, Christopher Allan [CDA], is cynical or disappointed that UFOs (and flying saucers) have turned out not to seem ET-related.

But some of us who came to the sightings in our youth, despite growing up not believing any longer that the ubiquitous things flying around our skies for lots of years, even millennia, are alien spaceships, still think UFOs are something that may have created a myth but yet have the core of a reality, from which myth must derive.


CNN's Life on Mars portfolio....[hoohah]


Friday, August 28, 2015

Nick Redfern has had enough with "disclosure"!


Ekphrasis (or, better, Ecphrasis): okay for UFO study?

An academic friend of mine has Facebook colleagues who like to evoke the mishmash of scholarship.

Rececntly, I had a back-and-forth with one of his Facebook “friends” about a passage in Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

It was the passage(s) about Arachne’s and Athena’s woven “carpet” contest.

The “friend” wrote this in reply to my plaint about his interpretation:

RC Kudos, as my English is probably not good enough to convey this: First of all, you seem to underestimate the level of sophistication of ancient literature, or ancient culture in general, (that's why it's called "classic", by the way). You are simply proven wrong by the volumes of critical material accumulated over the ages of interpretation, beginning with the respective scholia already in Antiquity itself. Secondly, hermeneutics of the four-fold meaning (literal, historical, tropological & anagogical) are to be found both in the Christian and Jewish tradition, for example with Origenes, Augustinus etc, (the Jewish equivalent is called PaRDes and refers to the ancient interpretation of the Tora). And more specifically: Arakhne's carpet and the "Metamorphoses" as a whole are tied together by a compositional analogy in that they both use a compiliatory strategy that involves known and hitherto unknown/invented mythologems to an extent where both "texts" take on the air of a Proteic Metamorphosis. That fluency, if you like, & transformativeness distinguishes both from the "statuary" nature of Classical Augustean literature.Just like in paintings, for instance, where you can sometimes find miniatures of the entire picture hidden on the canvas somewhere - And from Pindar and Homer on it is possible to show that expressions around weaving/carpets etc. have been used for metapoetic discourse …

Okay, you get it; a lot of academic gobbledygook.

The academes also like to use the word ekphrasis or, more correctly, ecphrasis, for interpreting works of art (poetry, in particular) which means:

Ekphrasis or ecphrasis, from the Greek description of a work of art, possibly imaginary, produced as a rhetorical exercise; often used in adjectival form, ekphrastic. A graphic, often dramatic, description of a visual work of art. In ancient times, it referred to a description of any thing, person, or experience.” [Wikipedia]

I prefer (for interpretations outside the world of academe and art), from the Oxford Dictionary: A lucid, self-contained explanation or description.

And here’s how all this applies to UFOs (or ufology):

While I keep harping on drilling down to determine all relevant facets of a UFO event or encounter (a significant “sighting”), I don’t mean to conjecture or add speculative accoutrements to the sighting.

That is, the sighting should be looked at in its overall, “superficial” aspect.

What is witnessed or attested to should be acknowledged on the face of it.

For example, in the Biblical Ezekiel sighting [Ezekiel 10], various hermeneutical interpretations have been applied, ascribing Ezekiel’s vision or experience to a symbolic array meant to provide a message to Hebrews and their enemies.

The “vision” – all by itself, unadorned and pristine as recounted by Ezekiel – has been muddied by askew interpretations.

What Ezekiel reported should be viewed just as it is. One can look for clues – drilling down into the report – as to what Ezekiel saw (just as one might do with the Zamora Socorro account, one of the best witness accounts of a UFO sighting).

Looking for esoteric hidden messages by Ezekiel is irrelevant.

Did he see what he saw? Or did Ezekiel create a wildly exotic “vision” to manipulate his people or their enemies?

I prefer to think Ezekiel reported what he actually saw, just as Eliseus did when he reported his father, Elias, “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” via “a fiery chariot and fiery horses” (and he saw him no more). [4 Kings 2:11]

While I’d like a scholarly, scientific look at UFO cases, especially some of the classic cases, I’d opt out of having anyone from academe getting involved.

They have a tendency to pontificate with abstruse nonsense that has nothing to do with actual content, preferring to incorporate their own misbegotten musings for what is, for all intents and purposes, a simple tale, told in poetic verse (sometimes) to make the story interesting to readers, not to imply subliminal messaging that their audience could not grasp even if they had the intellectual wherewithal to do so (as indicated by the RC answer to me at Facebook, seen above.

“Keep it simple” goes the current mantra, and that’s what we who are looking for an explanation of UFOs should do.


Astronaut Edgar Mitchell "corrects" British tabloid story


Thursday, August 27, 2015

Green Fireballs (and the quantum measurement effect)

Here are a few excerpts from Flying Saucers Have Landed, provided by Desmond Leslie in Part One of that dismissed book (mentioned here previously).

The excerpts deal with the green fireball phenomenon, which had its heyday in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with sporadic sightings after that. [See link below]

I’ve highlighted what strikes me as interesting about the Project Twinkle effort and that is this: when an all out effort was made to capture the things via various scientific methods, the green fireballs did not/would not appear.

This follows the quantum maxim that measurement (observation) of a quantum event alters that event. (I’ve elaborated on that “maxim” in various places, allowing that when a camera appears in a crowd, the dynamic of that crowd will change – a Marshall McLuhan effect.)

The quantum “maxim” seems to apply, not only to the green fireball phenomenon, but to UFO sightings generally; that is, when a UFO is spotted or seen, the UFO’s behavior seems to change. (Some see this as an indication of an “intelligent agency” while I see it as the result of the quantum measurement/observation effect.)

Anyway, here are the Leslie excerpts:

On the night of 2 November 1951 a ball of kelly-green fire, larger than the moon and blazing several times more brightly, flashed eastward across the skies of Arizona. It raced, straight as a bullet, parallel to the ground, and then exploded in a frightful paroxysm of light—without making a sound. At least 165 people saw the incredible thing; hundreds more witnessed the similar flight of countless other fireballs that since December 1945 have bathed the hills of the southwest in their lunar glare.

In the last year they have been seen as far afield as Pennsylvania, Maryland and Puerto Rico. Reports came so thick and fast during 1948 that in 1949 the Air Force established " Project Twinkle " to investigate them. " Project Twinkle" established a triple photo-theodolite post at Vaughn, North Mexico, to obtain scientific data on the fireballs. Day and night, week in, week out, for three months, a crew kept vigil. Ironically, while fireballs continued flashing everywhere else in the south-west, they saw nothing until the project was transferred to the Holloman Air Force base at Alamgordo [sic], North Mexico. There, during another three-month siege, they saw a few but were unable to make satisfactory computations because of the fireballs’ great speed. Search parties have had no better luck. They have combed in vain the countryside beneath the point of disappearance; not a trace of tell-tale substance has been found on the ground.’

‘Evaluation. The popular south-west belief that a strange meteor shower was underway has been blasted by Dr. Lincoln La Paz, mathematician, astronomer and director of the Institute of Meteorites at the University of New Mexico. He points out that normal fireballs do not appear green; they fall in the trajectory forced on them by gravity, are generally as noisy as a freight train and leave meteorites where they hit. The green New Mexican species does none of these things. Neither do the green fireballs appear to be electrostatic phenomena — they move too regularly and too fast.

‘If the fireballs are the product of a United States weapons project, as some south-westerns believe, it is a very secret one indeed: the Atomic Energy Commission and every other government agency connected with weapons development has denied to Life any responsibility for the fireballs. Could they be self-destroying Russian reconnaissance devices ? Not likely. While the United States believes the Russians have an intercontinental guided missile, there is no intelligence that indicates they have developed silent power plants or objects capable of moving nearly as fast as meteors (twelve miles a second). Yet — for whatever it may be worth — the only reports of green fireballs prior to 1945 came from the Baltic area.

‘The extreme greenness of the fireballs has impressed most witnesses. When asked to indicate the approximate colour on a spectrum chart, most of them have touched the band at 5,200 angstroms — close to the green of burning copper.

Copper is almost never found in meteorites; the friction of the air oxidises it shortly after he meteor enters the upper atmosphere. However, a curious fact has been recorded by aerologists. Concentrations of copper particles are now present in the air of Arizona and New Mexico, particularly in "fireball areas ". These were not encountered in air samples made before 1948.’

In 1934 I [Desmond Leslie] was at school in the south of England and, one November evening after ‘lights out’, our dormitory was suddenly lit by a brilliant green glare. With yells of delight we rushed to the windows, in time to see an immense green fireball move slowly across the sky and disappear behind the Sussex Downs. It was so bright that all the school grounds were lit up in this unearthly green glow. The walls of a white cottage half a mile away reflected the light almost as brightly as a green neon sign. Our speculations, however, were interrupted by the appearance of an angry master, who had come to investigate the commotion. 

27 April. [1952] 10.0 p.m. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 42.25° Latitude, 83.75° Longitude.

One brilliant blue-green object trailed by greenish sparks falling from it, crossed the sky with great speed, from north to south. [SOURCE: Ann Arbor News, 29 April.]

A few relatively current green UFO (fireball) sightings:


Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Flying Saucers Have Landed: A reference to plant pilots (a minor obsession of mine)

Desmond Leslie was a serious man. Why he hooked up with George Adamski poses a possibility for study, which I may tackle upcoming, as a look at the contents of the book pictured here, apart from the Adamski section [Part Two], is full of interesting flying saucer/UFO lore, ancient and modern up to 1957.

Meanwhile, as I traipsed through the book, which is eschewed by most UFO buffs because of the Adamski appellation, I came across this and wonder if any readers of this blog can tell me who the scientist was that is mentioned in this blurb, that I've highlighted with italics and bold font:

"In his book The Riddle of the Flying Saucers Gerald Heard refers to these objects as ‘Thinking Lights’, and puts forward similar suggestions. Other authors, believing that everything which flies must contain a pilot, have said they carry tiny beings six inches in height. Gerald Heard tried to convince us that they were propelled by intelligent insects from Mars. And one scientist, who should have known better, advanced a theory for small intelligent vegetables !"


Sunday, August 23, 2015

Ufological Drilling Down! (No one does that or has done that.)

It’s clear to me that UFO enthusiasts and those claiming to be researchers or investigators are facile when it comes to examining current and past (classic) UFO events.

Blue Book was lame, and so was the ersatz Condon UFO Committee.

(The exception seems to be the French cynics, as evidenced by many of the skeptical research papers, including the one I added here, from Gilles Fernandez, the other day; a really forensic attempt to clarify a UFO tale.)

UFO reports, scrutinized by so-called ufologists, including some a prolific as David Rudiak and Tim Printy (one an ET promoter, the other a rabid dissenter/skeptic), don’t dig past the top layer of sightings, although they pretend to.

In the 1996 Ann Arbor/Dexter/Hillsdale “swamp gas” sighting that Hynek attested to at a Detroit press conference was alluded to and investigated superficially.

No one, not the media surely, or Hynek or any UFO investigator, went to the Dexter site where at alleged craft was spotted by Frank Mannor and his son.
 No water was taken from the swamp where the sighting allegedly occurred. No photos were taken of the surroundings or the in situ spot where the supposed craft was seen.

The whole episode, along with the concomitant sighting at Hillsdale, fifty miles, give or take, away was never really investigated or studied in any significant way, UFO aficionados and media trumped by Hynek’s superficial explanation.

The same thing happened at Socorro, Ray Stanford’s shallow take notwithstanding and with the Betty/Barney Hill scenario: no one really checked her marred dress or the markings on the Hills car….I mean really checked.
 The Gorman interaction with a foolish acting UFO was never really studied just as the iconic Arnold “flying saucer” sighting wasn’t. (No one checked what he had eaten or drank before his flight over the Cascades, or what medicines, if any, he may have taken.
And was his plane checked for emissions in the cockpit? No.)

I could go on but you get the gist.

Even the touted skeptical reviews of such sightings, with photos, as the Trent/McMinnville has never gotten a real look, despite the jumble of material by Bruce Maccabee or Bob Sheaffer. (Neither contacted farmer Trent’s son or daughters to see what they could impart.)
While a lot of copy is often engorged about noted sightings (the Phoenix lights or O’Hare, for instance), nothing is done from an on-site check or with equipment to check veracity of witnesses or the surrounding environments at the time of the alleged events.

Most UFO investigators use the internet to gather what they use as material for their voluble but only knee-deep musings.

On-site investigation is often grab-and-run, as the Stanford Socorro take on the Zamora sighting, or the “swamp gas” imbroglio.

(The Roswell slides fiasco is a case study of how not to do UFO investigations, but that affair is not atypical. It is tantamount to how all UFO investigations have been done over the years and even now, when one can do so much more with the technologies available.)

Drilling down is not what ufologists do.

Creating massive amounts of hoary detritus is what the whole UFO literature is made of.

No wonder skeptics have cachet.


Saturday, August 22, 2015

Paul Yost and the 1964 Lonnie Zamora/Socorro "sighting"

Paul Yost was an aerial innovator, specializing in balloons and/or appurtenances to various kinds of air craft.

He worked for and with Raven Industries, a CIA "corporation" tied to Howard Hughes, which I've noted many times here and elsewhere.

He experimented in the American southwest, and I've tied him to the 1964 Sororro/Zamora event often.

Here is a comment, from him, in the patent paper(s) for the balloon array pictured here.
And here is that patent registration, in toto:

Yost patent

The Socorro incident was not a hoax, created by NMIT students as I've outlined and explained in a series of postings at our UFO web-site.

It was not an extraterrestrial incursion, as I (and others) have also outlined at our site(s).

The Socorro sighting by police officer Lonnie Zamora was a terrestrial event: an experiment by Hughes Aircaft/Toolco and the CIA, in which Paul Yost was a primary participant.

Those, with access to our UFO web-site, can read the various "documentations."


Friday, August 21, 2015

An odd and interesting UFO tale/event, n'est ce pas?

I think this link came from Gilles Fernandez a few months back (or was offered at another blog):


(Use the Google translation option to read it in English.)

It's a exemplary example of how a UFO or UFO-related event should be investigated or analyzed.