The illustration above is of two distant astronomical bodies accidentally offering us a striking alignment, which can't help but inspire in us some emotion and a sense that there is some "meaning" there. There is, of course, "scientific" meaning in such physical manifestations, and in the past, persons wished to assign personal or even cultural meanings [astrologically] to such things as well. But imagine if just one of those objects were at astronomical distances and the other close-by. If close enough, that geometrical arrangement could be seen in its "perfection" only from a very specific location on the Earth's surface. If it "performed" a bit, keeping its striking alignment intact, one might say that the moving object was performing just for you. That situation in the UFO case pile is what this post is about.
Some time back, in an 11/6/2009 post, I mentioned these sorts of UFO cases. My friend calls them "micro-displays". I use the term "astro-alignments". The case that convinced me that such things occur and are not random creations of just a very large number of reports, was the Lake Ronkonoma NY incident mentioned in that post. In that case, the UFO appeared to a group of astronomers [of all people] and seemed to deliberately and precisely circle the planet Saturn, then breaking off to half-circle the Moon. The tremendous difference in distance between The Moon and Saturn means that the object was not around both of them, and thereby was making an artificial alignment about at least one. The object's brightness and the fact that it was not reported by any other astronomers means that it was not around either astronomical object, and was in fact very close to the astronomers. It was, therefore, putting on a particular display, and almost assuredly just for them. To do that, it had to know exactly "where they lived" [i.e., where they were precisely and at that time], in order to do the trick. And the agents behind the UFO behavior had to know this precision from a large distance away since there was no "close encounter". This level of detailed knowledge at great distances is a bit disturbing, and it indicates a tool in creating full control of whatever the situation is that might explain a lot of "perfection" in their ability to manipulate each encounter without making give-away mistakes. 
The "excuse" for this post is that recently the same friend who created the nickname micro-display found another one ["Arizona 2011"] and coincidentally I stumbled into an old one ["Beverly Hills 1973"]. There might be as many as 30 of these things now in my files --- doubtless dozens more exist. The Beverly Hills case is an old-style "star-circler" type from the MUFON journal SKYLOOK. The witness felt a "presence" then looked up to see two "stars" but one began to move and made a circle about the real star before shooting off. The most interesting aspect of this is the feeling of presence or, in other words, "urge to look". Normally, this would be hard to chalk up to anything but coincidence, but now that we have cases which indicate that a distant UFO can be fully cognizant of your business at-a-distance, that possibility of making a mental [or other] contact with you at that distance doesn't seem as far-fetched. The Arizona case is more spectacular, but more worrisome evidence-wise. Here four big circular lights frame the inside edge of the crescent Moon, and, following that display, several small lights occupy the interior inside edge. Well, that's great for alignment. The problem is that some investigation must be done with whatever optical equipment this witness was using to check whether or not false light images can be produced inside it. If such investigation was done in a serious manner, and it was found that no reflections or whatever could duplicate the phenomenon reported, then the case hangs on the reliability of the witness. [and could, therefore be a good case]. The case would be especially impressive as a tightly organized display for an amateur astronomer.
These alignment incidents are significant to our understanding of UFOs, I believe. They are signs of how advanced the alien [or whatever-it-is] technology is, and why essentially no mistakes are made. They are signs as to how effective their sensing technology is at distance, and more bogglingly an apparent "communication" ability at-a-distance, as well. Some of this sounds like Psi to me, but not necessarily. [we need to admit to ourselves that the UFO we see may not be the only UFO in the encounter. The legendary NSA photo analyst, Art Lundahl, told Jim McDonald: The UFOs that worry me aren't the ones we can see, but the little ones that we cannot.] Creepy all around.
This was a surpassingly interesting post Professor (not that they aren't always interesting), to the point that it spawns a number of sorta incoherent thoughts on the phenomena (whatever we want to call it) so I hope you will bear with me.
ReplyDelete1) It seems to me that there has to be a, well, SOMEthing inside us, perhaps all of us perhaps only a seemingly randomized subset of the population, to allow such 'microdisplays' to occur; even our more grossly defined instrumentalities, such as GPS and laser triangulation require, I believe, such closeness to the subject ... although what you are describing seems much more fine-grained. Of course there is already an internal guidance system, evolutionarily speaking, inside every living thing and that the genome/DNA/RNA structure...and according to many academic sources, 97 percent of that structure has an unknown purpose. I HIGHLY recommend a book by Thiery Bardini called JUNKWARE which deals with this idea from both a high theory pov and a ,well, low theory pov , if you want to think of it that way.
2) In that book, Bardini makes the statement that " Any technology is, to a certain extent at least, a system of anticipation, and materializes a teleological worldview. But among the technologies, some are squarely so: the mantic (or prophetic) technologies." And this from a book which is most assuredly no 'New Age' title. 'The UFO,'whatever/whenever/wherever it is, seems to entail something like this anticipatory aspect, that is, it seems to illuminate the cultural space where extreme invention will occur -- before it occurs, an idea that has occurred to me more than once over the past years of reading about the phenomena. (I'm thinking also the cultural, and actual, place that the idea of a virus holds in culture. We're not even sure if it is living or dead and once it reaches an equilibrium in an organism almost ceases to appear -- even though it could reasonably be said that it is more powerful than ever, aka yr closing commment.)
3) Katy Perry's new hit song on youtube has passed the 36,000,000 viewing mark and is called ET. I would say the cultural is pretty much supersaturated right now and most of it is out of sight, like the largest organism in the world, a below ground rhizomatic mat of fungi which produces fruiting 'events' all throughout its multi-acre growing field.
Hiya Prof, are they deliberate features in these particular sightings or witnesses elevating an anomalous event into something personal? Out of the 1000s of reported sightings maybe it's inevitable that, sooner or later, the course of a UFO would appear to generate even greater significance? Also, if these concerns are valid, are we then applying yet another layer of mysterious significance?
ReplyDeleteI've read the original article for this post and have to admit that it's a lot to think about. Difficult. For a subject where we cheerfully speculate about possibilities (typically limited to the best sci-fi authors) most people have never dreamed of, it's a tough one to conceptualise. To what end is also anyone's guess.
If it's technology, perhaps whilst the Ronkonkoma folk were enjoying the light-show, a second object was behind them providing a sight-line...or wishing they'd move out of the way? One 'kinda' example that springs to mind is the account of Brazilian pilot Captain Armindo Souza Viriato de Freitas (p9 NARCAP Project Sphere 3.1.1). It's memorable (cinematic?) and open to interpretation...
'A very strong light shone, a white light. The emotion that I have even until today I get
confused with the certainty that he (the object) was listening in to our conversation over the radio. At the same moment that the ground control asked us if we were seeing the traffic and I answered, the object blinked, so to speak (to say): I am "here!”
Telepathy, technology or coincidence? Whatever it is; it’s intriguing.
@Robert C - Your final sentence is a prize-winner. :)
So a UFO made a ring around Saturn and a crescent around the Moon? And a ring around a star? Makes me wonder if there is an interesting planet orbiting that star. Are the stars identified in the star-circler cases?
ReplyDeleteAll you guys have interesting ideas but pushing the hypotheses past where I've left them in my head is beyond me right at the moment.
ReplyDeleteOne "complicated" thing: I'm about as sure that many of these alignments are not coincidence as I can honestly be. During the Moonwatch days, observers noted things of such striking geometry that they spontaneously reported them to Harvard, and the Moonwatch Center even set up a special file for them. Some of these UFO events were bogglingly "aligned".
And one simple thing: sometimes in the report the star circled is identified and sometimes not. There seems nothing particularly special about the ones circled and I know of no two cases where it is the same one. So I doubt that "they" are telling us where they're from.
And lastly, the anticipatory possibility of the aerial displays has been speculated ever since the 1890s airships were studied. But evidence for the sensibility of that aren't very convincing to me. I.E. our aerial development didn't take that direction in any serious way. The same thing could be said for disks, even though we tried.
This post makes me think of Harley Rutledge's book, "Project Identification," in which his two or three closing chapters talk about telepathy, and the sense he had that the UFO phenomenon was responding to him and his team of observers. For those who don't know of Dr. Rutledge, he was a physics professor in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, who responded to a UFO flap, in the spring of 1973, in the western part of his state by doing what is probably the only real field study (that I know of) of UFOs, using multi-observor triangulation and equipment to monitor radio and other electrical frequencies. It's a fascinating book, one of my favorites, and his conclusions in the final chapters are pretty "out there" for a physics professor who went into his field study as a skeptic. One thing he mentions is that he believes that UFOs are around us a lot of the time, but are moving at speeds to fast for us to see! And he struggles with the telepathy/coincidence aspect of his own sightings. He adds that the UFO intelligence, he comes to believes, already knows a lot about us and mimics are technology (i.e. aircraft). Yep, pretty "out proctor." I much recommended read, full of charts and math and data and time exposure photos, as he really tries to pin down the phenomena and add some validity to the subject.
ReplyDeleteI have always suspected that (at least in some cases) an outside observer who was observing the witnesses observe the phenomena would see something entirely different than what the witnesses were seeing.
ReplyDeleteThere is a very personal element to some UFO events that makes me believe this.
- Steve Muise
It DOES seem that sometimes we're dealing with a "Play within a Play" doesn't it??
ReplyDeleteI think that's because, in some cases, we ARE dealing with a "Play within a Play"...and then in other cases we're dealing with genuine ET visitors, and then in yet other cases there's another explanation, and so on and so on. I don't think that there's any single explanation for what gets lumped together under the UFO category.
ReplyDelete- Steve Muise
ok prof, you have a nasty habit of ending your post with bigger mystery. please elaborate on the NSA analyst statement to mcdonald ? did he see something on his photo analysis and then make that statement ? did NSA photo analyst have access to UFO photos from the military and why he said he is scared of the Unseen UFO ? the ones that always disguised as stars in the night sky ?
ReplyDeleteA). no one knows what Art Lundahl meant exactly, only that he said it;
DeleteB). almost certainly this had nothing to do with something that he'd seen in NPIC film analysis, almost by definition of the words in the remark.
C). NPIC had access to photos WHEN the military WANTED them to analyze something --- LATER things like CIA spyplane overflight pictures automatically came there but not initially.
D). a feasible theory as to why Lundahl said this is:
i]. he is absolutely convinced that UFOs exist and are astoundingly advanced technology;
ii]. he is in the spook community and thinks like one, especially oriented to the value of stealthy surveillance;
iii]. with the technology that he believes the "personnel" behind UFOs have, why not extremely miniaturized probes?;
iv]. if so, there is no defense against such security-breeching technology.
v]. posting extremely intriguing one-off mystery-enhancing ideas is not a nasty habit, but a joy-inducing one.