Friday, July 11, 2014

A Quick Notice of a Coincidence, plus a little news.

Hello after a while. I thought I'd drop back in here and post a small something.

But first some near-trivial news: a]. The City of Kalamazoo has deigned to approve the building permit for my "new digs" extension to the big old house I've purchased, and the excavator has dug an impressive hole. Foundation settings and concrete pouring are next. The relevance of this to this blog is that I, frankly, needed to start feeling a little more upbeat about something to regain the energy to bother to background check things for posting --- as I don't want to inflict shallow crap on you if I can avoid it. Well, as you know, psychology is an element in "feeling good" and a simple hole in the ground can paradoxically lift one's spirit. I'm a bit more likely to read-and-write now that life seems to be moving again.

b]. A good British colleague, "Dr. Beachcombing", has sent me one electronic book on Faerie [a mutual interest], and has arranged for a publisher to send me another one as a review copy. As the existence or not of "folkloric entities" seems to be one of the things that continues to interest me, these two books might result in blog postings in the future. I'm hoping so.

Now on to a small bit of Anomalia....

What I might do for a little while is post a few short bloggings about coincidences that I stumbled across during the big scanning project. These posts are going to be "short subjects" but hopefully mildly amusing. Depending how one responds to coincidences, some might even be thought-provoking.

This first foray involves a case from Bangor, WA [at a Naval Submarine Base] in 1989. The case is OK. Although it involved two young boys, it was reported quickly to Bob Gribble and a very good researcher, Don Johnson, did the casework. Don did the first contact just one day after the encounter.

The kids were playing at the Base's playground swings equipment, when they saw "a big circular object" hovering over the nearby house, shine a beam down towards it, then move over their own heads [altitude only around 20-40 feet over the house; a little higher for them.] The thing then shown a beam directly down at them. The "craft" had windows/doors in which the boys saw two beings quite clearly and in detail. It stayed there a few minutes and then moved away. The boys then broke their fascination and ran frightened back inside one of their homes.

The mother had the boys draw what they had seen immediately, both craft and beings. When the other boy went to his home, his Mom did the same there. Details continued to match. Johnson's investigation uncovered the additional item that the downward beam seemed to be applying some lift to the swing set upon which the boys were sitting. It seems to have been a "solid light" beam.

Above is the composite sketch of what the boys said that the occupants looked like. Hip followers of UFO cases probably know what I thought of when I looked at this drawing. 

These are the earliest sketches of The famous Kelly-Hopkinsville beings from the 1955 encounter in Kentucky. Kelly-Hopkinsville has always stood as an outlier to me due to the quite different appearance of the beings reported at the time [and there's no UFO]. "They don't fit." But they are quite a bit like the Bangor WA incident. ... and that is, of course, the coincidence.

The meaning? Too much to ask. But for me it slightly disturbed my UFO Universe, because I have never considered Kelly-Hopkinsville a UFO case. I've for years thought of it as a Folkloric Entity case, and in my own reveries refer to it as "Kelly-Hobgoblinsville."

But now this darned Bangor thing with a very UFO looking craft hanging around.

The boys described the beings in what seems to be taller terms that the 1955 group, but not really definitively so when you read both cases. Bangor seems over six feet, whereas Kelly seems more like 5+ feet. Both sets of critters were very big-headed, very large pointed-eared, naked, and significantly smaller as you went down the bodies. The boys said that they thought that their beings had "greenish fur" [quite short according to the sketches], while the Kelly creatures have been described as having a glowing light green aura about them. Bangor was in the day, Kelly at night.

... so, confusion for me. The easiest thing would be for me to either reject Bangor [I find it hard to just toss Kelly out], or keep Kelly as folkloric and Bangor as an outlier UFO encounter whose beings are "just a coincidence."

What to do?

Agatha Christie is, of course, sane and wise. Keep the "coincidence", it can't hurt if you don't take it too seriously. Maybe the Universe IS speaking curiously to us. Maybe the UFOnauts know all about Kelly and decided to do what they do best: muddy the waters. Maybe it's the Trickster at it again.

Well, at least we know it's not this guy....


  1. Anonymous AstronomerJuly 12, 2014 at 5:40 PM

    What has always set the Hopkinsville case apart for me was the behaviour of the creatures rather than the absence of a craft. I don't recall any other case where beings have displayed such animosity towards humans.

  2. After 20+ years of interest and research into the UFO phenomenon, I've come to the conclusion that, in the vast majority of cases where CE III type "alien" entities are concerned, that what is perceived, especially in regard to what appear to be "humanoid-style" beings being observed and reported by witnesses, is that such "entities" are most probably _not_ what they appear to be, but are rather more likely to be, as Vallee defined them, synthesized or "staged displays" with an intended anthropomorphic form keyed to the perceptions, cultural expectations, and intellectual acumen and biases about such "ET's" the witnesses have been previously exposed to or can conceptually relate to or psychologically understand on some level.

    In other words, the appearance of "the other" is created, calibrated, and acts as a kind of cultural influence mechanism, perhaps as a kind of subtle and sub rosa informational interface of sorts, for various possible reasons, with the requisite variety of humanoid forms for essential plausible deniability embedded within such incidents.

    The visual appearance of these "aliens" should, it seems to me at least, not be taken literally as to how they appear. No, it's more of a kind of "avatar" concept -- the great, green steaming head of Oz, after all, was not what was real, it "only" was intended to be _perceived_ as such -- while behind the "curtain" something else (and not very likely a gentle, or kindly old mustachioed wizard or a Hopkinsville goblin) is what is actually pulling on the gears and levers of our belief systems. I.E., the scenario is created for at least some degree of familiarity with an anthropocentric orientation.

    Of course, this too is speculation. But it's a more coherent, logical theory than that the risible "grays" or other "57 varieties" of humanoid being actually real. Unless you believe in convergent evolution between divergent star systems. I do not.

    The historic details of the best UFO cases on record do suggest some form(s) of advanced non-human intelligence is probably involved, but I would posit that intelligence is so far from human or humanoid form as to be nearly incomprehensible. Ineffable. Incommensurable. Whatever. Just... not like us.

    It would not surprise me in the least that whatever "the others" may be, "they" can take on virtually any form and staged appearance needed to accomplish whatever it is they intend by making their existence, at least, known. Don't want to scare the natives too badly, after all. Wouldn't be... productive, don't you know? Just enough to create an indelible impression.

    And that's no coincidence, either.

    1. Thank you for your interesting views.

      Most of this I could entertain quite "peacefully." However I could hardly disagree more with the rejection of convergent evolution and humanoid form [for the "original" evolved bioforms in the historical past of these civilizations.] I've studied and written on this somewhat extensively, partly stimulated by Vallee's arguments about hypothetical non-prevalence of humanoid bioforms and the non-ability to breathe atmospheres.

      If one wishes to postulate that the current UFOnauts are evolved beyond their biological past to the extent that they are no longer bioevolutionarily limited, and perhaps even mechanical, then I'll agree that no one knows enough to argue that point either way.

    2. Perhaps. However, manipulation of whatever genome the putative creatures may possess would let them appear and behave is required. They might just be expert biologists.

    3. At what point does the ineffable go off the scale and become simply invisible, imperceptible, unless it chooses to reveal itself? But Revelation in caps always has a point to make, is meaningful. Jokes and pranks are of a different and perhaps lower class.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Some ass just posted a jerk comment mocking me that I have deleted. It contained no substantive information and was equivalent to an immature troll remark. I will probably have to put up with this ass several times more as trolls "enjoy their highschoolish work". Once again we are treated to the non-collegiality for which UFOlogy is widely known. The mystery associated with this is why people believe that their time is best wasted wasting others.

    2. Admit it, Mike. The ilk of your ilk lack the wit to outwit this wit, than whom no one is more witful, as witness his multiple witty pseudonyms, which he as wit finds wittily witty.

      And here you thought that, with your knowledge, intelligence, and education, you could outwit the mighty Kurt Peters, mutilator of millions who lack his keen, and manifestly superior, understanding of anything you've ever turned your so-called intellectual attention to. I'll bet you even thought that Kurt Peters had gone on to make-believe-name heaven, or wherever he ended up (I claim no authority on the subject, though I have my suspicions).

      But really, sir, in all seriousness: how can an idea as dumb as Kurt Peters ever die? And in even greater seriouserness:

      Aren't we all, in our heart of hearts, Kurt Peters?

  4. In the August 1983 issue of "Flying Saucer Review" there was an article called, "Rat Faces in Italy" concerning similar UFO occupants.

    1. Yes, thank you. This is one of those "where's the line" sorts of things. I know that Chiumiento [the researcher] felt that the creature in the Italian case was similar to Kelly, but for me it crossed the line into "that's not quite close enough". The Italian critter allegedly had a rather demonic look about it with extended "vampirish" canine teeth. Its eyes were much more sinister as well.

      What would be necessary to suggest that all three of these cases were of the same entity would be to postulate that it was the human psychological differences which "colored" the impression the things gave the witnesses, and powerfully enough to significantly alter prominent features. Possible, I suppose. The little kids seeing a friendlier "elf." The old Italian man seeing a demon. The Kentucky country folk just seeing what was actually there.

  5. It should also be noted that there may be a more prosaic explanation for the "coincidence" between what form of "aliens" were reportedly seen in the 1955 Hopkinsville incident and the similarity in morphology to the entities that the two boys in Bangor allegedly saw in 1989 -- they could have been previously exposed to or read about the Hopkinsville case, and seen an illustration or graphic recreation of those earlier semi-humanoid forms, and possibly superimposed, confabulated, or even hoaxed what form of beings they reported observing onboard their "craft" almost 35 years later.

    Or, going entirely "out Proctor" here, and employing the concept of Vallee's "staged display" idea, perhaps the non-human intelligence orchestrating the scenario were lazily re-using the relatively rare model 18-7b Hopkinsville "goblin" format for enhanced plausible deniability. ;-)

    You know, a little "cosmic joke" -- one can never completely dismiss the possibility of the "trickster" element, now can we?

    1. As we know, as Dr. Who said: "Anything's possible --- well almost." But I have a fair difficulty buying into the 10 year old boys knowing about Kelly-Hopkinsville. If someone wanted to imagine them seeing some movie, kids book, or TV show about goblins or Disneyish friendly elfin critters, OK, I'll entertain that. So, I'm "happy" with prosaic here. {I actually brought this one up because the case investigators liked the "coincidence" themselves. I'm much more comfortable with the Albuquerque Flying Wing.}

      As to Out Proctor, I practically live there, and I can tell you that it's Trickster Central.

  6. As I remember the Kelly-Hopkinsville case, the only "animosity" the ufonauts displayed was in repeatedly coming back after being shot-at (and knocked over by it). The implications are that (taking it that they were materially there) they either were mechanisms, or had "force field" protection against contact shock waves from bullets and shot-pellets (the latter might be needed by robots, too). In either case, the total appearance they had would have much to do with the technology warding off damage.

    Frank John Reid