Friday, February 25, 2011

Close Encounters of the Second Kind, physiological effects part six-c

Last set of five for this section: cases 86-90. 1970 era.
This set is composed of a fairly solid group of incidents, at least as far as each being interesting in its own way. And there is one "5" here. Jabrielles-les-Bordes, France: a case investigated by Bertrand Meheust at the request of Aime Michel, so it has great investigative bona fides.

It's nice to have a good piece of artistry to illustrate a case like Jabrielles-les-Bordes, and the one at the left comes from the great French publication Luminieres Dans La Nuit.Here a domed disk with ports and windows rests in a field. When the witness approaches it emits a beam like a laser, striking him. This orange light paralyzes him and he is temporarily blinded. The craft gives off heat and whistles on take off. The witness then recovers. A trace on the ground is later found at the right spot by the investigation. The primary investigator, Bertrand Meheust, is a good one and a tough sell. He liked it, so therefore do I.

Grants Pass OR is a disk case wherein the witness is also paralyzed. This witness felt sluggish after the craft left and she could move again. The case is based upon good credible sounding letters to Hynek, but that's all we've got. It's probably better than my "3" in reality.

Itatiatia Brazil is another Brazilian case, so I have my crap-detectors up. There are claims that the witness is/was a security guard at an important facility and a person of high character, so maybe this is OK, but I don't know the investigator. The case is a little reminiscent of Ft. Itaipu in that we have guards, shots fired, and an injury requiring hospitalization. Here a rectangular flying wing swoops in towards an area with an important dam and powerplant. Witness fires his gun and the craft seems to react with brightening lights, pulsing, and turbine noises. The shooter is struck by a "ray" and receives "pins-and-needles" and blindness. The attending physician interpreted the blindness as psychosomatic, but believed that there was a real incident causing it. Again, as with all these, we are very dependent on the investigator who writes the stuff up, and I have no info on that part of the "credibility".

Stratford//Bairnsdale Victoria is probably a good case. For one thing it is an Aussie case which usually means good honest investigators. Driver was being stalked by a bright light to the rear. Radio went out; car wouldn't accelerate; the interior heated up; and vibrations began to be felt all over the car structure and by the witness. All this phenomenology stopped when the light left. This even was true of a severe headache which quit unusually abruptly. Case could be a lollapalloosa but I have no complete report.

The last case here is Imjarvi. This is one of the weirder things going. Below is a cartoon like series of drawings meant to illustrate the point-by-point action. Two skiers are confronted by a domed disk. It's surrounded by a "fog". A lightbeam descends from the center-bottom of the craft. This may be one of our notorious "solid" light beams which act as much like substance as they do like light. I believe that it is specifically stated that the beam operated like an extension with an end. Within this "light elevator" was a small weird being with a conical hat and green boots. [my mind is beginning to drift towards "folklore" at this time]. Critter is a bit elfin with a bogles' prominent hooked nose. It zaps the skiers with a light from a small black box. It and the light elevator re-entered the craft and were suddenly not there. Temporarily blinded, one of the men was also fainting and paralyzed on his right side. He had headaches, vomiting, and difficulty breathing. Much pain and dizziness. The other fellow was better off with just dizziness and a red, swollen face. His chest and hands were, however, covered with red spots. The lesser impacted witness seemed to let the experience go and get about his life. There was, however, a later experience where they thought that they saw a small man in his house which upon searching they could not locate. The greater-impacted witness seems to have been psychologically affected longer term and has made all sorts of claims, such as hearing a feminine voice in his head and meeting a fairy-like woman---all more than once. With all such cases, we have to decide whether we are going to lump everything together or split the original event from the later claims. That's everyone's choice. For what it's worth, I think that something anomalous happened in the first place, and am forced to reserve judgement on all else. Whether that original event was UFOlogical or one of our time-honored fairyfolk type incursions...??? David Jacobs once announced to me that he was certain that the whole thing was an abduction. Well, my friend, I'm not ready to jump to that. It has a feel of a parallel otherworld intrusion [faery/trickster call it what we may] to it that at least presents an alternative way of viewing it. But...???
All for now. The next set[s] will be cases # 91-105, era 1970-1974.

4 comments:

  1. "Itatiatia Brazil is another Brazilian case, so I have my crap-detectors up"

    Care to elaborate why you have detector for brazilian cases ? what brazilian case you find most thoroughly investigated and rated as great case ? and whats the worst ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's my "issue" with the Brazilian cases, whether legit or not: When I decide to include or disregard a UFO case for being foundational for any further hypothesis-building, I naturally must make my assessments of "Strangeness" and "Credibility".

    There's rarely any "Strangeness" deficiency in these Brazilian reports, they are often as strange as they come. But that in itself places a very strong burden on Credibility. The Burden of Credibility is lessened when cases cohere to established piles of well-documented phenomenology, but increases when past knowledge does not seem to buttress the new claims as well.

    So, what's the credibility issue? a]. In the very early days, we had three solidly conservative and highly analytical UFO researchers who acted as a team [Auriphebo Simoes, Flavio Pereira, J. Escobar Faria] and when they communicated their information it was highly trustworthy --- NO issue with that stuff.

    b]. The Big Three also had cultivated several contact people in the BAF who were sympathetic to talking about military cases, and gave out good information --- so NO problems there.

    c]. Along came Olavo Fontes, full of energy and fired up for the highly strange. As years have gone by, SOME of his work seems holding up, and some seems to be the product of a bit too much "enthusiasm", which is what Simoes warned us about way back when. Still, taken with intelligence, Fontes is generally a trustworthy source.

    d]. But even then it was becoming apparent that Brazilian newspapers would print the most astonishing things for which, on inspection, there was no evidence at all. Enthusiastic UFOlogists began passing along these stories as if there was nothing wrong with them despite no proper examination/investigation. FSR in the person of Gordon Creighton was particularly off-base on this in my opinion.

    e]. plus when Fontes died [the Big Three had long retired from the chase], Brazilian "UFOlogy" was left to a "never-saw-a-case-I-didn't-like" individual named Walter Buhler. UFOlogy was at his mercy for a long time, and though there may well have been good researchers at work, their work either never surfaced in North America or we "didn't know them well enough to trust".

    f]. Irene Granchi ultimately tried to resurrect quality Brazilian UFOlogy, occasionally doing so, but despite psychological support from US researchers like Allen Hynek, still seemed a bit underfacilitated to do the job.

    g]. Today may be OK. I do not know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. the imjarvi case... why do i feel that these entities trying to scare us with the 'we-are-better-than-you,see-our-flying-machine' ? in this modern era and especially in the western world , with everyone educated and know things about technology, why do i feel these entities are trying to one-up (aka showing a technologial superiority) humans ? its like they are trying to represent themselves (whatever they are) as better than human (technologicaly)..

    the solid light phenomena are fun though, bottling light in a containing field ? the trancas case came to mind...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea, of course, why you feel that. I do not.

      Delete

Followers

Blog Archive