Aristotle told his impatient student, Alexander the Great, "There is no 'Royal Road' to Geometry." There isn't one to UFOlogy either. I can promise you that if you are not extremely perceptive [and a bit lucky], you cannot get an accurate picture of what's known vs. what's responsibly guessed vs. what's full-of-errors vs. what's full-of-worse by merely scavenging about on the internet. The only Road to actually knowing something about this field is to lean heavily on its founders--that means to learn its history. This post is in aid of that. It is lightyears from sufficient, obviously, but it may serve someone as a door. The downside of this is that if one really wanted to know anything about this field, one would have to be willing to put in some real time and some real work [that much anyone can decide to do on their own], but also to have the resources available to them to do so [and that few people, unfortunately have]. In my viewing of the web, the status of UFO information resident here is not quite yet at the level which would support a dedicated "student" in the quest. This is because, even if a report is available in full here and there [as they are for USAF's Project Blue Book on Footnote. com] a relative "rookie" does not have the "historical context" to aid in the interpretation of that report. It is advantageous to be able to read what the past giants had to say about the period, the USAF handling, the "similar cases" to get perspective. This is not to say that the giants were perfect. All of them were/are human and had strengths and weaknesses. But understood as a whole, their cumulative insights and facts are the beginnings of a good guide. This post is one guy's [mine] foggy view on these founders and what they gave to us. It's no history. We can't dedicate 600 pages for that. It's just a window from which to describe [a little] and give praise [a lot] to some folks who made a difference.
Don Keyhoe is, in this person's opinion, the most important person in UFO history. Fiery and adamantly insistent, Keyhoe carried the field through a sustained flak attack from the Air Force, aimed a destroying it. At our distance from him, what we should do for our own benefit is to read his first two books:
Flying Saucers Are Real and
Flying Saucers From Outer Space. These things are important to the field because Keyhoe had many contacts inside the military and the vast majority of the
factual things transmitted to him turned out to be real. A good number of the speculations did not. Reading the whole of the founders makes distinguishing between these two elements fairly easy. As Keyhoe went forward leading NICAP, he wrote other books. The further they get to modern times, the less reliable are his sources, except when he is depending on NICAP's own case files. By the time
Aliens From Space shows up, it's caveat emptor. The only way to protect yourself in this is to be a historian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The next guy in the collage is Dr. Hynek. His whole life was a puzzlement with the phenomenon that apes his expression in the picture. But regardless of what some may wish to think [negatively] about him, he was the second most important person in the field. This is because Hynek was on the "inside", albeit on the outer, naive layer of that "Inside". As scientific consultant to the Project, he watched the circus that was Blue Book across the years, and later gave us his all-to-rare first-hand look. Hynek's critique of USAF handling of UFOs is, taken in whole, devastating. One shouldn't undervalue the importance of obliterating the idea that the military did anything like a solid and honest job. Conspiracy commentary is useless. Facts, such as Hynek gives, are Truth. Then, in the more admirable part of his UFO involvements, [when he no longer hoped that his role with the Air Force would produce real results], Hynek, perhaps more by accident but at least somewhat by design, created many UFOlogically-important things. His two books,
The UFO Experience [ the closest thing the field has to a textbook] and
The Hynek UFO Report [another invaluable historical insight into military malfunction as well as key cases], should be on must-read lists. He also created CUFOS and a fine magazine [IUR] and a few high-quality symposia and a soft network [the "Invisible College"] of scientists, and generally pointed the way to where we had to go if we were ever to be a real field of study. We, of course, never made the effort. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The third guy in that collage is Edward Ruppelt. Captain Ruppelt was the project head on Blue Book during late 1951 through early 1953. He therefore was "on seat" during the great wave of 1952, a coincidence for which we should be grateful. We should be grateful because Ed Ruppelt wanted to write up his experiences [and others', as he heard of them ] in the UFO field from the government side of the mirror. His terrific book,
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, was the result. This thing should be read by everyone really interested in UFOs. Ruppelt undoubtedly wrote the book to make some extra money as he began his civilian life [a not uncommon practice ] but that doesn't mean it's not accurate. The great UFO icon, James McDonald, constantly referred to it in his research, and said that his later research into Blue Book records surprised him constantly about Ruppelt's straightforward reporting of the case data as he knew it. But this isn't the whole story on why Ruppelt is important. What Ruppelt's book did was to say to the serious readers of works like Keyhoe's, "My goodness, Keyhoe is apparently right about the reality of UFOs." Even though Ruppelt is astonishingly careful about his own opinions, they don't make any difference in the end. [some have tried to make this a big deal; whether he "really believed" in UFOs himself]. What did make a difference is how the facts as reported by Ruppelt affected young readers of the subject--we were stunned and pleased and captivated--some of us for life. I have met more life-time UFOlogists of my generation who were turned into that by Ruppelt than any other source. It's Ruppelt's inside information AND his unintended "children" that are his contribution to the field.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Bloecher. What can you say about Ted Bloecher that isn't good UFOlogically? Ted would probably insist that his great colleagues, Isabel Davis and Alexander Mebane, from the early CSI-NY be with him on this Hall-Of-Fame stage, and I'd not balk at that--they were probably the greatest team of researchers that we've had. Sadly, if you have no access to the CSI newsletters nor their files and correspondence, you'll never know much about Isabel nor Lex. Access to Ted's production isn't much better, alas, but there are a few monographs [like his 1947 wave collection, and his breakout "little people" publication on Kelly/Hopkinsville's case (with Isabel) ] and some articles [like the New Berlin "landing" case in Flying Saucer Review] , but it is his beginning of the Humanoid Study Group which had the biggest impact. The HSG collected the "forbidden" occupant cases from all over the world [work done with Dave Webb] and led to this aspect of UFOlogy emerging from the darkness and ultimately to the HUMCAT catalog [and massive listings like that of Albert Rosales on the web today]. Many of the cases are bunk, and others probably have nothing to do with UFOs, but the philosophy here, at these early stages, was to collect everything that was not a hoax and begin to sift from there. Part of the "sifting" led to the emergence of Budd Hopkins as a colleague of Ted's, and ultimately [amazingly quickly actually] to
Missing Time and the whole of modern CE4 ideas. Ted throughout this was the model of discipline and restraint, even in the face of an unmanageable torrent of information.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Beside Ted on the collage is UFOlogy's scientific volcano, Dr. James McDonald. Big Mac brought more depth science and more intensity to the work than any other human. As he was an atmospheric physicist of some repute, he had both skill and contacts to lay to rest many, many erroneous "explanations" for cases [particularly involving radar but many others as well] which had been floated by the deliberate debunking of the Air Force or Uber-debunker Donald Menzel. McDonald was able to show that such debunks were at best overstated, and usually completely wrong to the point that you wondered about intellectual dishonesty by their creators. McDonald's works are also hard to come by since he never wrote a book. Trickles of his analyses appear in Flying Saucer Review or Astronautics and Aeronautics [the AAIA journal] and in the famous House [of Representatives} Symposium on UFOs. Once a collection of his privately-published [often as lecture handouts] papers was made available by the Fund For UFO Research. McDonald destroyed Menzel's dishonest debunkings. McDonald scathingly criticized and cleansed the Colorado "Scientific" Study. His fire also caused a few problems for the field, but on balance he stands like a scientific mountain.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dick Hall. Talk about being there consistently for the long trek. We just lost him so his active trek is over, but prior to that, Dick ran NICAP for most of its existence, helped originate the UFO Research Coalition and The Fund For UFO Research, made the MUFON Journal, for a while, a respectable, accurate purveyor of, particularly, good non-American case reports..and a lot of else. Fortunately for us Dick DID write books, and they should be read. I recommend NICAP's assault weapon to Congress,
The UFO Evidence, and his much-later follow-up,
The UFO Evidence Two, and his third case book,
Uninvited Guests. Frankly, anything you can read of his will advance your understanding of the field.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coral Lorenzen, the pretty lady with the no-nonsense brain, who founded APRO way back in 1952, and carried it forward until it and she died together. Coral was a tough cookie who held her organizational power a bit too tightly as the years went by [why APRO didn't survive her] but in her early years refused to cave in to others opinions, whether those of the military [who DID visit her] or other elements in UFOlogy, who thought certain types of cases weren't worth taking seriously. For that we owe Coral what early awareness that we have concerning "occupant" reports and her opening up of the rest of the world's cases [particularly those of South America] for U.S. consideration. Coral, sometimes with her husband Jim, wrote a bunch of books. As with Keyhoe, the earlier the book the better.[try the poorly-named
The Great Flying Saucer Hoax, as an example of one her better ones]. Coral's true "best" comes in her APRO Bulletin, where the UFOlogy experience of the world is often displayed. As a side-effect, the "war" that occurred between her and Walt Andrus in the late 1970's led to the growth of MUFON as a national rather than a regional UFO organization.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aime Michel. Smart. Clear. Intellectually-adept and extremely well educated. Impressive here across-the-pond by us Yanks. I'll leave it to our French brothers to correct our distant impression of Michel's worthiness, but to us he seems a giant indeed. He came into French UFOlogy behind the interesting Jimmy Guieu and between them give the english-reading person a rather full appreciation for the famous [and wild] 1954 European wave from the French perspective. Read Michel's
The Truth About Flying Saucers. He also came up with a bold and creative concept which, if true, would clinch not only the reality and intelligent-activity of the phenomenon,but also part of the agenda. I believe, like most of my colleagues, that this brilliant idea turns out to NOT match the facts in the end, but it is none less praiseworthy as a great try. The book incorporating the idea has many useful facts even if the over-all theory is not supported by later analysis.
Flying Saucers and the Straight-line Mystery is still a good book and we owe the English versions of both of these to CSI-NY , especially Isabel Davis, and most especially Lex Mebane. Michel wrote many intelligent things for FSR and they stand today as some of the brightest writings anywhere. As a historical aside, Michel's case files blew Allen Hynek away when he visited him in France while still working for the Air Force. And Michel was formative in Jacques Vallee's development, and in his contacting Hynek about him, leading to their collaboration and all that entailed.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jacques Vallee. The UFO master when it comes to grass-roots science in the field. [ I use this phrase with some thought. Jacques applied statistical analysis to the great pile of individual anecdotes, attempting to squeeze out of them "universal" patterns. If, in my view, the agents behind the phenomenon were not so careful to not allow such universal patterns, in the interest of their desire to remain culturally-covert, Jacques would have found them. This is the application of the beginnings of the scientific methodology--the discovery from raw facts of the behavior of any new phenomenon--i.e. the "How" of nature. ] His work, based in his own attitude towards the value of statistics and some inspiration by David Saunders, led to his two great books,
Challenge to Science and
Anatomy of a Phenomenon, which can be argued as the two most consistently written scientific books on the subject. Vallee wrote many other increasingly-controversial books, all of which are creative attempts to unlock the ultimate mystery, since he became convinced that science could not do so. My personal opinion is that these theories, while bright and honest, do not explain the mystery, particularly in its majority. But the wonderful
Passport to Magonia does, for me, point to a minor fraction of it, and for that guide I am grateful to Jacques. All of his books are interesting, but if you can only read a bit, make it
Challenge and
Anatomy, and give a peek at
Magonia.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Last man standing, or in this case sitting on his couch with his buddy Gordon Creighton, is Charles Bowen. Bowen did not found Flying Saucer Review but he did upgrade it to the flagship journal of the field. FSR did not intend to be an academic journal, but an information-sharing one. If anyone was hoping to learn what was going on with the phenomenon, they had better read FSR. The strength of the journal was its worldwide coverage. Creighton, as an almost universal translator, was mainly responsible for this, while Bowen, as Editor-in-chief exercised an admirable touch---allowing speculation within reason while not succumbing to the temptation to go wildly "native", as the Brits would say. Anyone who does not have access to FSR, and can balance it with the Halls, Hyneks, and McDonalds of U.S. UFOlogy will probably play hob trying to get a proper grip on what has happened in the field. There are a few other great references of course not directly associated with these ten giants. David Jacobs'
UFO Controversy in America is one. Jerry Clark's
UFO Encyclopedia is another. Barry Greenwood and Larry Fawcett's
Clear Intent is a third. I'll stop there. If your own favorite wasn't mentioned, I apologize. This is just a blog afterall. Peace.
Aristotle told his impatient student, Alexander the Great, "There is no 'Royal Road' to Geometry." There isn't one to UFOlogy either. I can promise you that if you are not extremely perceptive [and a bit lucky], you cannot get an accurate picture of what's known vs. what's responsibly guessed vs. what's full-of-errors vs. what's full-of-worse by merely scavenging about on the internet. The only Road to actually knowing something about this field is to lean heavily on its founders--that means to learn its history. This post is in aid of that. It is lightyears from sufficient, obviously, but it may serve someone as a door. The downside of this is that if one really wanted to know anything about this field, one would have to be willing to put in some real time and some real work [that much anyone can decide to do on their own], but also to have the resources available to them to do so [and that few people, unfortunately have]. In my viewing of the web, the status of UFO information resident here is not quite yet at the level which would support a dedicated "student" in the quest. This is because, even if a report is available in full here and there [as they are for USAF's Project Blue Book on Footnote. com] a relative "rookie" does not have the "historical context" to aid in the interpretation of that report. It is advantageous to be able to read what the past giants had to say about the period, the USAF handling, the "similar cases" to get perspective. This is not to say that the giants were perfect. All of them were/are human and had strengths and weaknesses. But understood as a whole, their cumulative insights and facts are the beginnings of a good guide. This post is one guy's [mine] foggy view on these founders and what they gave to us. It's no history. We can't dedicate 600 pages for that. It's just a window from which to describe [a little] and give praise [a lot] to some folks who made a difference.
Don Keyhoe is, in this person's opinion, the most important person in UFO history. Fiery and adamantly insistent, Keyhoe carried the field through a sustained flak attack from the Air Force, aimed a destroying it. At our distance from him, what we should do for our own benefit is to read his first two books: Flying Saucers Are Real and Flying Saucers From Outer Space. These things are important to the field because Keyhoe had many contacts inside the military and the vast majority of the factual things transmitted to him turned out to be real. A good number of the speculations did not. Reading the whole of the founders makes distinguishing between these two elements fairly easy. As Keyhoe went forward leading NICAP, he wrote other books. The further they get to modern times, the less reliable are his sources, except when he is depending on NICAP's own case files. By the time Aliens From Space shows up, it's caveat emptor. The only way to protect yourself in this is to be a historian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The next guy in the collage is Dr. Hynek. His whole life was a puzzlement with the phenomenon that apes his expression in the picture. But regardless of what some may wish to think [negatively] about him, he was the second most important person in the field. This is because Hynek was on the "inside", albeit on the outer, naive layer of that "Inside". As scientific consultant to the Project, he watched the circus that was Blue Book across the years, and later gave us his all-to-rare first-hand look. Hynek's critique of USAF handling of UFOs is, taken in whole, devastating. One shouldn't undervalue the importance of obliterating the idea that the military did anything like a solid and honest job. Conspiracy commentary is useless. Facts, such as Hynek gives, are Truth. Then, in the more admirable part of his UFO involvements, [when he no longer hoped that his role with the Air Force would produce real results], Hynek, perhaps more by accident but at least somewhat by design, created many UFOlogically-important things. His two books, The UFO Experience [ the closest thing the field has to a textbook] and The Hynek UFO Report [another invaluable historical insight into military malfunction as well as key cases], should be on must-read lists. He also created CUFOS and a fine magazine [IUR] and a few high-quality symposia and a soft network [the "Invisible College"] of scientists, and generally pointed the way to where we had to go if we were ever to be a real field of study. We, of course, never made the effort. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The third guy in that collage is Edward Ruppelt. Captain Ruppelt was the project head on Blue Book during late 1951 through early 1953. He therefore was "on seat" during the great wave of 1952, a coincidence for which we should be grateful. We should be grateful because Ed Ruppelt wanted to write up his experiences [and others', as he heard of them ] in the UFO field from the government side of the mirror. His terrific book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, was the result. This thing should be read by everyone really interested in UFOs. Ruppelt undoubtedly wrote the book to make some extra money as he began his civilian life [a not uncommon practice ] but that doesn't mean it's not accurate. The great UFO icon, James McDonald, constantly referred to it in his research, and said that his later research into Blue Book records surprised him constantly about Ruppelt's straightforward reporting of the case data as he knew it. But this isn't the whole story on why Ruppelt is important. What Ruppelt's book did was to say to the serious readers of works like Keyhoe's, "My goodness, Keyhoe is apparently right about the reality of UFOs." Even though Ruppelt is astonishingly careful about his own opinions, they don't make any difference in the end. [some have tried to make this a big deal; whether he "really believed" in UFOs himself]. What did make a difference is how the facts as reported by Ruppelt affected young readers of the subject--we were stunned and pleased and captivated--some of us for life. I have met more life-time UFOlogists of my generation who were turned into that by Ruppelt than any other source. It's Ruppelt's inside information AND his unintended "children" that are his contribution to the field.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Bloecher. What can you say about Ted Bloecher that isn't good UFOlogically? Ted would probably insist that his great colleagues, Isabel Davis and Alexander Mebane, from the early CSI-NY be with him on this Hall-Of-Fame stage, and I'd not balk at that--they were probably the greatest team of researchers that we've had. Sadly, if you have no access to the CSI newsletters nor their files and correspondence, you'll never know much about Isabel nor Lex. Access to Ted's production isn't much better, alas, but there are a few monographs [like his 1947 wave collection, and his breakout "little people" publication on Kelly/Hopkinsville's case (with Isabel) ] and some articles [like the New Berlin "landing" case in Flying Saucer Review] , but it is his beginning of the Humanoid Study Group which had the biggest impact. The HSG collected the "forbidden" occupant cases from all over the world [work done with Dave Webb] and led to this aspect of UFOlogy emerging from the darkness and ultimately to the HUMCAT catalog [and massive listings like that of Albert Rosales on the web today]. Many of the cases are bunk, and others probably have nothing to do with UFOs, but the philosophy here, at these early stages, was to collect everything that was not a hoax and begin to sift from there. Part of the "sifting" led to the emergence of Budd Hopkins as a colleague of Ted's, and ultimately [amazingly quickly actually] to Missing Time and the whole of modern CE4 ideas. Ted throughout this was the model of discipline and restraint, even in the face of an unmanageable torrent of information.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Beside Ted on the collage is UFOlogy's scientific volcano, Dr. James McDonald. Big Mac brought more depth science and more intensity to the work than any other human. As he was an atmospheric physicist of some repute, he had both skill and contacts to lay to rest many, many erroneous "explanations" for cases [particularly involving radar but many others as well] which had been floated by the deliberate debunking of the Air Force or Uber-debunker Donald Menzel. McDonald was able to show that such debunks were at best overstated, and usually completely wrong to the point that you wondered about intellectual dishonesty by their creators. McDonald's works are also hard to come by since he never wrote a book. Trickles of his analyses appear in Flying Saucer Review or Astronautics and Aeronautics [the AAIA journal] and in the famous House [of Representatives} Symposium on UFOs. Once a collection of his privately-published [often as lecture handouts] papers was made available by the Fund For UFO Research. McDonald destroyed Menzel's dishonest debunkings. McDonald scathingly criticized and cleansed the Colorado "Scientific" Study. His fire also caused a few problems for the field, but on balance he stands like a scientific mountain.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dick Hall. Talk about being there consistently for the long trek. We just lost him so his active trek is over, but prior to that, Dick ran NICAP for most of its existence, helped originate the UFO Research Coalition and The Fund For UFO Research, made the MUFON Journal, for a while, a respectable, accurate purveyor of, particularly, good non-American case reports..and a lot of else. Fortunately for us Dick DID write books, and they should be read. I recommend NICAP's assault weapon to Congress, The UFO Evidence, and his much-later follow-up, The UFO Evidence Two, and his third case book, Uninvited Guests. Frankly, anything you can read of his will advance your understanding of the field.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coral Lorenzen, the pretty lady with the no-nonsense brain, who founded APRO way back in 1952, and carried it forward until it and she died together. Coral was a tough cookie who held her organizational power a bit too tightly as the years went by [why APRO didn't survive her] but in her early years refused to cave in to others opinions, whether those of the military [who DID visit her] or other elements in UFOlogy, who thought certain types of cases weren't worth taking seriously. For that we owe Coral what early awareness that we have concerning "occupant" reports and her opening up of the rest of the world's cases [particularly those of South America] for U.S. consideration. Coral, sometimes with her husband Jim, wrote a bunch of books. As with Keyhoe, the earlier the book the better.[try the poorly-named The Great Flying Saucer Hoax, as an example of one her better ones]. Coral's true "best" comes in her APRO Bulletin, where the UFOlogy experience of the world is often displayed. As a side-effect, the "war" that occurred between her and Walt Andrus in the late 1970's led to the growth of MUFON as a national rather than a regional UFO organization.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aime Michel. Smart. Clear. Intellectually-adept and extremely well educated. Impressive here across-the-pond by us Yanks. I'll leave it to our French brothers to correct our distant impression of Michel's worthiness, but to us he seems a giant indeed. He came into French UFOlogy behind the interesting Jimmy Guieu and between them give the english-reading person a rather full appreciation for the famous [and wild] 1954 European wave from the French perspective. Read Michel's The Truth About Flying Saucers. He also came up with a bold and creative concept which, if true, would clinch not only the reality and intelligent-activity of the phenomenon,but also part of the agenda. I believe, like most of my colleagues, that this brilliant idea turns out to NOT match the facts in the end, but it is none less praiseworthy as a great try. The book incorporating the idea has many useful facts even if the over-all theory is not supported by later analysis. Flying Saucers and the Straight-line Mystery is still a good book and we owe the English versions of both of these to CSI-NY , especially Isabel Davis, and most especially Lex Mebane. Michel wrote many intelligent things for FSR and they stand today as some of the brightest writings anywhere. As a historical aside, Michel's case files blew Allen Hynek away when he visited him in France while still working for the Air Force. And Michel was formative in Jacques Vallee's development, and in his contacting Hynek about him, leading to their collaboration and all that entailed.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jacques Vallee. The UFO master when it comes to grass-roots science in the field. [ I use this phrase with some thought. Jacques applied statistical analysis to the great pile of individual anecdotes, attempting to squeeze out of them "universal" patterns. If, in my view, the agents behind the phenomenon were not so careful to not allow such universal patterns, in the interest of their desire to remain culturally-covert, Jacques would have found them. This is the application of the beginnings of the scientific methodology--the discovery from raw facts of the behavior of any new phenomenon--i.e. the "How" of nature. ] His work, based in his own attitude towards the value of statistics and some inspiration by David Saunders, led to his two great books, Challenge to Science and Anatomy of a Phenomenon, which can be argued as the two most consistently written scientific books on the subject. Vallee wrote many other increasingly-controversial books, all of which are creative attempts to unlock the ultimate mystery, since he became convinced that science could not do so. My personal opinion is that these theories, while bright and honest, do not explain the mystery, particularly in its majority. But the wonderful Passport to Magonia does, for me, point to a minor fraction of it, and for that guide I am grateful to Jacques. All of his books are interesting, but if you can only read a bit, make it Challenge and Anatomy, and give a peek at Magonia.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Last man standing, or in this case sitting on his couch with his buddy Gordon Creighton, is Charles Bowen. Bowen did not found Flying Saucer Review but he did upgrade it to the flagship journal of the field. FSR did not intend to be an academic journal, but an information-sharing one. If anyone was hoping to learn what was going on with the phenomenon, they had better read FSR. The strength of the journal was its worldwide coverage. Creighton, as an almost universal translator, was mainly responsible for this, while Bowen, as Editor-in-chief exercised an admirable touch---allowing speculation within reason while not succumbing to the temptation to go wildly "native", as the Brits would say. Anyone who does not have access to FSR, and can balance it with the Halls, Hyneks, and McDonalds of U.S. UFOlogy will probably play hob trying to get a proper grip on what has happened in the field. There are a few other great references of course not directly associated with these ten giants. David Jacobs' UFO Controversy in America is one. Jerry Clark's UFO Encyclopedia is another. Barry Greenwood and Larry Fawcett's Clear Intent is a third. I'll stop there. If your own favorite wasn't mentioned, I apologize. This is just a blog afterall. Peace.
Oh my, I'm glad I made the stop at the blog today. One of the things I really find lacking in an internet survey of "whats available" is what I guess would be called historicity and context. I thinks one needs to have that to have any hope of making sense of the phenomena. I see a lot of stuff written that ignores trends, statistics and where we've been before. This is valuable information here and thanks for it.
ReplyDeleteAbout a year ago I was visiting my elderly aunt, looking at my now deceased uncles bookshelf when I found Keyhoe's "Flying saucers are Real"--the original version. Theres an immediacy in his writing that decades later is still palpable. That same uncle got me started back when I was about 10 by making discussion of UFO's dinner conversation. Life was never the same after that........
Such a good blog posting. Thank you so much for this.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you could embed some links in your text for references. Like these:
* Keyhoes "The Flying Saucers Are Real" http://books.google.de/books?id=b48A2urDmf4C&lpg=PP1&dq=keyhoe&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
* The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects By Edward J. Ruppelt http://books.google.com/books?id=XQ0QylbGR_IC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Unfortunately, almost everything is protected by copyright so it's not always that easy to get good information on this topic.
As i am german i have read some texts by Illobrand von Ludwiger. Did you ever hear his name before? He did an extremely good job for MUFON-CES here in Germany and europe.
Keep your good work up!
I'm glad that both of you have that necessary appreciation of history and context that makes you doubtlessly wise people. And, I am very glad that you liked the post. As far as links are concerned, I'd do that gladly, but I am a computer dinosaur and cannot. {my Godson who conned me into doing this blog claimed that he'd do such things, being a wizard, but alas the busy-ness of youth]. As far as Illobrand is concerned, I met him at the Sturrock/Rockefeller conference. MUFON-CES seems to be a pretty good organization, especially technically. I would love to have English-language access to things like Schneider's high-strangeness catalogues [ex. on solid light cases and Gravity effects cases], as well as the photo analysis work of Rolf Dieter-Klein. But as I am a typical American with very little language facility, I must leave such things to those with better abilities.
ReplyDeleteOne of my most valuable treasures, given to me by Dick Hall, is Keyhoe's copy of "The UFO Evidence", complete w/ quick notes scribbled in the margin by Keyhoe (I hope to scan it and make it availble in .PDF form). I'm currently working on a new site and it is good to have confirmed by you, dear Professor, that I'm on the right track as I plan it to be filled with the best work of the truly original Ufologist you have most kindly noted for us above (commercial free and incorporating "educational fair use" of course).
ReplyDeleteYour modesty betrays you here somewhat because you have glaringly (but admirably) left yourself out, but most reading here know you are deserving of at the least, honorable mention, when any discussion of the 'UFOlogical Greats' arises.
Consider it done. Lastly, please relay my sincerest thanks to your Godson for being such a bother.....
I hope I'm not intruding. I have no idea how I chanced across this weblog. If these conversations are meant to be entered into by serious researchers only, I'll be glad to withdraw, with apologies.
ReplyDeleteA very serious problem, it seems to me, is the paucity of scientific investigators willing to lend their knowledge and instrumentation to the study of this phenomenon.
Since last spring, there have been strange, illuminated flying objects being videotaped at quite close range virtually every night in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Two ordinary and totally unrelated women have invested in very expensive photographic equipment in order to clearly see these objects and tape their peculiar airborne behaviors for others to observe on YouTube. Both women describe these objects as balls of plasma that transform into lighted craft that mimic, often ineptly, conventional aircraft flying overhead. Identical objects are being filmed over Central Park in NJ, and as far away as Moscow, Russia.
The State Director of MUFON in Pennsylvania was contacted in late summer and paid a brief visit to the hotspot in Murrysville, PA on October 25. Unfortunately, he arrived and departed before the nightly activity began, spending only an hour with the female contact and leaving her with the feeling that these objects were not of great interest to his chapter of MUFON.
The New Jersey woman contacted the Physics Department at Princeton, hoping to obtain investigative help from someone, perhaps a graduate student. So far, no help has been offered.
A couple of weeks ago In Murrysville, curious people arrived to "help" the woman who films the glowing objects as they "rest" in the darkness of the woods surrounding her home before rising into the air. One man, a state constable, labored to trudge through the undergrowth, his idea being to observe them at close range on the ground. In the videos, these objects are seen to move slightly among the trees in an evasive manner. Since that outing, the woman reports, the orbs' nightly flights seem to arc away from the areas where she's become accustomed to filming them. However, they are still appearing in more rural wooded settings just a few miles away.
It's disheartening to think that such an opportunity for research might be lost through the bumbling of amateurs. But it seems that no one with real expertise can be enlisted for serious study of the nature of these objects.
Firstly, to Jonah: humble thanks from someone who has never had any ambition but to be of some service to the field. For those who refuse to believe that anyone can honestly feel this way, well...sorry...my testosterone just went up and I'm counting to ten...I'll never convince any such person that there are several of us who really care about this mystery and will never make a dime off it. Thank you, Jonah, for being the sort of person who will be a great colleague and sharer--we need you all. Your Keyhoe treasure is a great historical treasure indeed. A good friend of mine is a near-PhD in ancient history. When he hears of such treasures, he speaks in sacred tones of "the bringing out of the Relics". We need to "bring out the relics" often in this field, despite the "hot-&-now" history-ignorant world we live in. Your "sacred book" takes us back to the purer age of UFOlogy's youth, when the first outlines were easier to see. And it mysteriously grounds us in the undoubtable reality of what we're doing. Beyond that, I, for one, would be delighted to someday see what Keyhoe thought was worthy of noting in Dick's UFO Evidence. Bless us with that gift someday.------------------------------------------------------------------------------And to "anonymous": First to your UFO concern--If the MUFON state director won't help, then there are few options. Once in your general area [Maryland] there was an organization lead by Mike Frizzell, [who is a good man], named The Enigma Project which did field expeditions. If it still exists, it may be findable on the web. The other thing to do would be to go to the MUFON headquarters national site, and report this. They have what they call a "star-team" which they'll send out on some investigations.----Now on a second issue, since you kindly brought it up: what is the nature of this blog? This blog is certainly not only for serious researchers [I don't fit that category myself in many of these topics]. There are lots of kinds of blogs. Some are just personal "diaries". Some are appendages to a person who has some professional, even economic, interest in what's being posted. Some are "private hobbies" [I noticed one where the producer wanted to present every beautiful piece of mediaeval church art he could find]. Some have degenerated into chat rooms of the "call-in radio" analogy. Obviously each of these is subtly asking for a different sort of interaction between the readers and the blog-maker. I'm making this point because I want to say how I see this blog. The blog is sort of like my house. In that house is a sort of museum containing unusual things. I open the door to the minimuseum and say "you're welcome to come in a look if you'd like--no charge". I then give a little explanation of one of the odd items in the museum for anyone who cares to listen. I view this particular blog therefore just as I would view visiting someone's home and, if I was visiting your home, I'd act accordingly. If I disagreed with something you said or I was seeing, I'd politely ask about that, and offer a kindly worded suggestion. There have been people who have not had such manners, but thankfully few. This endeavor should be a joyful thing. If it does not bring someone joy, at least be kind. [ if someone thinks I'm over-the-top on this, you should see a certain blog that someone told me about where I, not just some "disagreeable idea", serve as target for a massive personal smearing activity. Joyful collegiality indeed. Remind me to quit reading such blogs, even when I hear about them ].
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your two helpful suggestions. The Enigma Project does, indeed, still maintain a website, and it will be my pleasure to pass that information on.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for taking your forum off-topic; that was discourteous, particularly since I'm an anonymous person without the vaguest idea of who you might be. As long as the museum door is left open, though, the mystery of your identity and the curiosities you present for display goad me to keep on visiting. I promise I'll be more quiet from now on.
Again, thank you.
Don't be quiet if you feel I can do some service. That's what life is about.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fine list!
ReplyDeleteCoral (and Jim) Lorenzen's book - Flying Saucers and Their Occupants, was cutting edge back in the 1970s! They bravely included what seemed to a be an 'astral' or out-of-body abduction -- a couple with their child, in a moving car that was being persued by a ufo. When the woman was taken into the ufo she saw insect-like beings.
I would have included Raymond Fowler for his whole body of work in New England (before and during his MUFON days). His attention to details of investigations and his working with Dr. Hynek was/is very important along with his personal journey (realization) that he came from a family of abductees as well (heartbreaking later books).
Also John Keel, who I believe wrote his ideas on ultraterrestrials before Jacques Vallee wrote his nearly identical ideas of metaterrestrials. Keel always allowed for the possibility that there were indeed E.T.s doing reconnaisance, but suspected the intelligence behind the absurd and dangerous behavior of most ufos and 'aliens' was not E.T. in origin.
Then there is Ann Druffel, who's groundbreaking The Tujunga Canyon Contacts (1970s) dealt with sightings and the repetitive abduction phenomenon, including missing time (before the term became coined by a later researcher and before other researchers realized that abductions aren't a one-time occurance).
Once one gets past "my" ten founders, the array of very worthy contributors to UFOlogy broadens rapidly [and becomes increasingly controversial]. That's why I stopped at ten. If I go on, even to another ten, I begin naming personal friends, and, limited to ten, not others---well, not a great idea for me...so I'll let everyone else add who they want to their list, and, for me, keep the peace. I can think of at least twenty more folks that I'd honor on the wall-of-fame, but I'll leave you to guess who they might be.
ReplyDeleteThey are everywhere, everyday and to see them one need only to listen not look, do you see, I know you do. Daytime ships are friendly and their occupants have a good message while the night time predators want to take something away. Simple is powerful.
ReplyDeleteWhere Aimee Michel's Straight Line Theory
ReplyDeletecovers the European map, I think you can't fault his factual basis, since he was often among first responders, and it was his contacts and territory
otherwise. For all the incomplete theories out there, his is the most comprehensive, least over-
simplified (among the nuts and bolts crew). That it may be both/and rather than either/or is where
the de-bunkers can't find a handle.
The straight line theory is beyond me as far as my ability to understand the statistical argument---which is very controversial. interest in it, even among UFOlogists, has come and gone. Most people that I know who think that they understand something of the statistics seem to feel that the case hasn't been made. Recently I think that Don johnson is trying to resurrect interest in the concept. For me, I place Michel's UFO case work on a very high level of confidence, while leaving the Orthoteny alone, since I have trouble with whether the statistics are "remarkable" as David Saunders would say. Whether any theory turns out to be true or not, does not diminish the body of work of a superior UFOlogist like Michel. [particularly if that theory was a rational and potentially useful guess, rationally defended].
ReplyDeleteNo book list on this subject is complete without
ReplyDeleteex NASA's Paul Hill's book: "Unconventional
Flying Objects". He was secretsly in charge of
Project Blue Book after the USAF supposedly
ended it, but didn't.
Whereas Hill's book is a fine piece of UFOlogy, the rest of this claim isn't believed by any major student of UFO history that I know. You'll have to produce documentation to get anyone to consider that. Also, please note that the post was not a book list. But the most important thing that I have to say is, this blog can't become a chat room on every possible UFO topic; I don't have the time to respond to all that. The simple mention of the Hill book was appropriate--a generally agreed upon fact. The follow-on speculation isn't unless it's backed up with something, preferably referenced to another source so that the bulk of the material doesn't have to appear on this blog, but rather the readers can be told where they might find such support for a generally non-believed assertion elsewhere on the web.
ReplyDeleteRabbit holes and aguments lead you away, the truth is easy just listen to what you say. If you want to see them the bible shows the way, I see them always, every single day.
ReplyDeleteJohn Keel should be on that list. He did more for ufology than most. His books are still cutting edge and truthfull. Not filled with all the new-age mumbo-jumbo thats in UFOlogy today.
ReplyDeleteIvan T. Sandderson for Invisible Residents. Intensely scientific study of underwater ufos. As anaturalist he approached the subject with bold stealth.
ReplyDelete"Jacques applied statistical analysis to the great pile of individual anecdotes, attempting to squeeze out of them universal"patterns. If, in my view, the agents behind the phenomenon were not so careful to not allow such universal patterns, in the interest of their desire to remain culturally-covert, Jacques would have found them"
ReplyDeletecomment not directed specifically to JV's pattern analytics , if the 'agent behind the phenomenon' is as intelligent as they are supposed to be , and their knowledge of humanity is vast , wouldnt they intentionally leave a bit of droppings everywhere so it will be grabbed by pattern analyst and the resulting pattern will be the one that these 'agent' want us to see ? like those 'honey traps' that is used by counter-intelligence services to lead the enemy into making wrong conclusion ?
if this is true then what pattern emerged from the study will just lead us to what they want us to see (like you already said)..
what the heck is their intention if every road leads to confusion and lies ?
well, yes. That's exactly our problem. We can't get hold of anything that we really can be sure represents the fundamental reality that's behind any of this. All we can do is study what the appearances are and glean the generalities. For me that's still significant, as it points rather powerfully to a technology beyond what we can muster. THAT insight has been worth it for me.
Delete