Thursday, February 24, 2011

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

Second segment of this group; cases # 81-85---entering an area of high strangeness now.
This set has a "5", two "4's", and a sleeper. The sleeper is the El Sauce, Argentina case. What I have on the incident conforms perfectly to the mainline CE2p case piles. [paralysis which leaves when object leaves; light burns; and what might be an OZ effect on the patients at the hospital]. But all I have is a short FSR piece and a HUMCAT entry. Admittedly Ted Bloecher and David Webb list Roberto Banchs as a resource on the case, and he has a good track record in that country as far as I can tell. So, this case is probably a lot higher than a "Two".

The "five" is Claremont NH. This thing has a technological disk hovering close to the ground making a buzzing sound. The case occurred shortly after another UFO was sighted in the same area, though that was unknown by the witnesses. A very wide lightbeam projected from the bottom of the craft; the male witness said that he felt that the lightbeam had a "solid" look to it. The CE2p effect in the case is not particularly spectacular: the couple's children were seen to be having a fitful sleep, and their dogs were whimpering throughout the experience. All of that could conceivably be related to the rising sounds that the object was making. Still, the fact that another person also witnessed an object at the same time makes this a strongly credible case.

Both of the "fours" are quite odd. Hemliden Mountain, Sweden: The director of a transmission facility in the mountains heard his alarms go off and looked outside as part of his investigation. There he was confronted by a 150' wide object with a "tunnel" in it. Around the thing were many four-foot-on-a-side fuzzy "cloud-colored boxes" apparently doing something. At this moment the director realized that he was paralyzed. 6 or 7 of the boxes then floated by him into his facility, apparently inspecting the place. In 5 to 10 minutes they came back out, entered the tunnel to the ship, which then shot off to the north. At that time the witness regained the ability to move. The reason that I rate this thing a "4" is that it was published in the Nordic UFO Newsletter, which I consider a small unknown gem in old UFOlogy. Things published there have had an aura of seriousness about them that I don't find in all publications.

Lastly there is the Strange-to-end-Strange case of "Dr. X" in southern France, a case which shook Aime Michel and overpoweringly influenced Jacques Vallee. To say the case is complex doesn't do it; you should read it in detail elsewhere. For our purposes we can leave it with this: A professional medical man sees two objects creating very bright light pulses. These two objects merge into one. This thing points a beam at the witness, then tilts in the sky and vanishes [one gets the impression that this is a very fast sort of vanishing rather than a "poof" vanishing]. The doctor finds that a leg injury is now healed, but he has a triangular discoloration at his navel. Astoundingly, he says that his young son also acquired the same mark, despite not having been where he should have been exposed to any beam. After the event and over much time, many paranormal claims come from this doctor, including poltergeist phenomena, recurring twinned triangles on his and his son's navel, patently impossible electrical flows through broken equipment, and the doctor levitating occasionally. Well, even open-minded me, would dump this thing in a flash if it were not for Aime Michel saying that this guy is a person known to him. But, since most of these later claims conveniently never happen when anyone can see them, I still have VERY large doubts. I can't get any handle on this one at all. In honor of Michel I compromise with a nervous "four". Below is a not-completely-fictional cartoon version of the UFO part of the tale.


  1. Hello, Prof.

    Fantastic cases. They scream 'advanced technology' to me. No 'trickster' aspect apparent here.



  2. Yeh, I agree---I still reserve judgement on Dr. X but the rest seem ET-ish.

  3. Hiya, one thing I've noticed over the years is how every case and researcher has a built-in flaw or weakness. It could be an outcome of the phenomena that perpetuates the mystery by always maintaining doubt? Certainly there are many people attributing that level of omnipotence to the enigma. In my own view, it's a possibility and one that's ultimately frustrating being as it implies no conclusions...ever.

    A more objective explanation could be the simple likelihood that researchers make mistakes and some people love hoaxing. Who can be sure? In this light, perhaps Aime Michel's support of the case was one of those errors that incubate doubt in the field? In Vallee's view, it would be the 'control system' at work. To others, the Trickster. To outsiders, it would be a doctor up to mischief.

  4. Yes, I'd entertain all those thoughts. My view is that the agents behind the core phenomenon are ET and they are the major reason that our "data" never reaches the status of virtual certainty---remembering always that "regular" science doesn't achieve complete conclusion on hardly anything either, so that in regular science we remain content with virtual certainty rather than absolute "Conclusion".

    On top of the deliberate spooning out of obfuscated incidents by "them", we have our own frailities which thoroughly muddy it up. My guess is that a lot of the changes in the expression of the phenomenon take our goofiness into account and make it part of the "play". This is a special intuition some of us have about the relative disappearance of the raft of good "physical evidence" cases we were once getting, which now do not happen either in quantity nor location. This is, maybe, because we finally got our own goofiness under control to be able to really lab-test those things.

    Specifically on Dr.X: I can't "conclude" even softly on his case. It just has a reek of "inaccuracy" about it. Flying around his rooms semi-regularly is a bit outside the parameters of "well-documented" UFOlogy. Whether that's lying or mental disorder, ...??

    As to personal frustration: I don't have any. UFOs to me are not the center of my life, nor as far as I can tell, the Universe. So, I'll go along for the ride wherever it leads. It has been my experience that persons who DO place UFOs closer to the center of their Universe become [naturally] unable to objectively assess anything about the field and, worse, began to adopt thinking processes that appear to get them more and more out of touch with reality [at least as the rest of us know it]. That level of "fixation" is fortunately uncommon, but we all know folks who seem to fall into that class. Who knows?? They may be correct....but I seriously doubt it.

  5. The doctor X case ties up the UFO phenomena to the psychic effect along with some physical effects. the mentioned incidents sounds more like the doctor and his kid are 'branded' or 'owned' for certain purpose. The involvement of A.Michel and J.Vallee are what interest me deeply in this case, and even they who know this person personally also feel doubts on some of the incident reported to them by the doctor. The electric poltergeist and the levitation sounds like spirit / poltergheist phenomena, the 'their view of life seems more calmer' feels like the usual contactee phenomena..

    if one see this case from the point of view of nuts-n-bolts UFO belief, then one will have problem since the only UFO thingy happening are only the initial incident and the rest is pure spirit/psychic phenomena. the OOBE, the levitation, the unreal reality (endless sunflower fields), the teleportation, premonition, mark on both doctor and kid...

    Modern science usually took the easy way and diagnose this as hallucination/psychosis but no, this case cannot be explained by logic and science , and may never be explained until end times.

    Link to PDF of Dr X article :

    PART 1 -,UFOs%201968,Dr.%20X,France,FSR-SI%201969%20N%203,UFO%20Percipients.pdf
    PART 2 -,UFOs%201968,Dr.X,France-2,FSR71V17N6.pdf



Blog Archive