UFO Conjectures

Sunday, January 08, 2017

The UFO skeptic’s Bible (or it should be)

The book pictured here, by Paul Devereux and Peter Brookesmith, was published in 1997 by Blandford a Cassell, London:
It is a compendium of all the iconic (significant) stories and reports that have enthralled UFO buffs, and many that still do.

But the authors, along with Montague Keen and familiar UFO critic Nigel Watson, emasculate most (all?) of the UFO tales that UFO aficionados take for granted, including Roswell, which can be discarded by this one newspaper clip about Mac Brazel, who claimed to have found “flying disk debris” on his farm in June [sic] 1947. (I’ve left the piece fully scanned so you can read it. It appears on page 123 of the book.):
[Mouse over image and click to enlarge

The concluding Epilogue by Mr. Devereux provides a succinct appreciation of the psychology that afflicts Ufology and the UFO myth itself. [Page 179 ff.]

If you are a UFO believer and/or an ETH proponent of the mysterious phenomenon, this is a must-have/must read book, one that skeptics can use to bolster their anti-UFO views.

It surely must be available from a variety of sources (Amazon, Powells, et al.) and at a bargain price since it has been around for 20 years now.


UFOs not UAP

I’m a “UFO theorist” (in my mind).

And I’m agnostic about the phenomenon, but you know that.

But, for me, the UFOs I’m interested in are Unidentified Flying Objects not Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

The latter consists of atmospheric anomalies or other amorphous entities of a non-intelligent kind.

Then there are the things that are hallucinogenic in nature; that is, they are products of the mind, real in that sense, and worthy of neurological and/or psychological study, which I also find fascinating.

Yet, it’s those seemingly tangible artifacts that have shown up often and sometimes eject “creatures” or beings who act with apparent intent.

Many of those “sightings” or incidents are psychologically produced also, but there are a few which, from an evidence standpoint, aren’t, such as the 1967 Stephan Michalak/Falcon Lake episode, dismissed by Zoam Chomsky, [http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm] or the 1979 Robert Taylor “assault” in Scotland set aside by the Wikipedia account as “an isolated attack of temporal lobe epilepsy.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_incident]
Of course the 1964 Socorro sighting by Police Officer Lonnie Zamora was not an hallucinatory episode or a UAP product.
There are others, which I see as intrusions of AI machines or insertions from another dimension or time.

These are the sightings, among a few others, that intrigue (me).

They can be “explained away” as UFO buffs used to say but that is disingenuous and a superficial approach to such UFO events.

The sloth and apathy of “ufologists” have marginalized intriguing cases that seem to involve tangible (material), intelligently operated “things” that fly or land on Earth.

One can play around with such sightings but that is not “scientific” or imaginative.

One can debunk or be skeptical about such sightings or events but that would be stupid, until such efforts erase all possibilities of tangibility or apparent intelligence on the part of the “things” experienced.

Spanish UFO researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca’s “Distortion Theory” like Jacques Vallee’s “Control System” theory could answer some of the sightings I’ve noted here, except of the fact that there are remnants of reality (hard evidence) that something solid was involved, something palpable and corporeal.

Yes, some UFOs are “objects.” They are not Unidentified Phenomena.