Wednesday, April 17, 2013


Suppose a very credible witness came to us and reported that a light-in-the-sky was seen behaving most peculiarly. This light at one time moved a great deal of distance, but then stopped and with sharp motions "drew" a perfectly square "flight pattern" in the air. What would a honest person think?

Perhaps the witness was screwed up in some way. But the witness was a very credible person; no hoax, no lies, no drugs likely. What explains this LITS behavior? A plane? No. There are almost no planes anywhere which could even approximate that. A balloon? The flight was so "crisp" though, and the simpler part and the geometric part so unlike. Some real fine control had to be involved. Balloon-in-the-wind is very difficult to believe, even if the balloon could somehow be controlled. Atmospheric refraction tricks Donald Menzel would say: THAT at least we KNOW is complete poppycock for a case like this, if the linear distances are significant. Menzel would keep hollering it, but that is what lunatics do. Ah, it must be Ball Lightning. Disregard the fact that it neither looks nor behaves like any reported ball lightning; somehow, despite the 4-directions geometry of the flight, this must be it. How about luminous birds? The only thing stupider that these sorts of ideas is, obviously, the person who feels that it is sensible to make a sentence incorporating them. The BEST we could do is say, we have a mystery for which it is very difficult to say anything about. Fortunately, there is no such UFO case.

But of course, there is. In fact, there ARE. Above are most of the cases in my personal files for which the title SPACE GEOMETRICIANS could be utilized. There are a few more, but that's close to the lot. If one decided to loosen up a bit on criteria for putting cases in this category, there could be many more even in my pathetically small listings here in Kalamazoo.

What does that little list above indicate? It's saying, to me anyway, that sometimes a UFO will "park" itself in midair and do something quite unexpected. It will "draw" a square in the sky, or a triangle, or a cross. It will pick something and play "ring-around-the-rosy" with it. It will make angular moves when normal flying would have smooth curves which were quite efficient for getting from one spot to the next. It would perform in linear back-and-forth bursts right before our eyes.

"Right before our eyes".......................................................

If one looks carefully at what some of the UFO case witnesses are saying, even on "uninteresting" LITS cases, peculiar elements sometimes arise. Hynek got letters like the one above, describing a 1961 incident in Millville, NJ [note that I didn't even include it in the list above], where the witness is saying stunning things in a very measured way. He seems to be describing an object which moved "normally" for a while, then went bananas: it had nearly instant acceleration bursts, seemingly right angle flightpaths, exact reversal of course, coming "to a star" [apparent line-of-sight] and drawing a right-angled "box path" around it so as to not [in apparent vision] pass over it.

As John Lennon would say: "Most peculiar, Momma". I don't believe that Allen paid too much attention at all. He DID read the report though, and included the case in The UFO Experience as a type case for "nocturnal lights". Weirdly, in his book, he cut out all the strangest motions from the witness testimony.

Hynek was aware of odd doings in the sky of this nature though. He very much liked the Deadwood, SD 1966 "Box Drawer". It too was featured in the famous book. Strangely Hynek butchers the report there. He confuses it with the Bangor, ME case of 1970, and this causes him to make a foolish statement about the case being too late for the Colorado Project, when in fact it should have been right on time. The commentary by Hynek is mixed up enough that one suspects a colossal editorial blunder of some kind --- and for this reason, the only source which is close to primary is the description in the Page/Sagan book, UFOs: A Scientific Debate where Thornton Page gives good condensed versions of cases [probably recommended to him by Hynek].

The case reports two policemen witnessing high-strangeness "flight characteristics" of three objects, the larger of which at one point draws a square in the sky. The credibility of the witnesses was considered top notch, and the report finely detailed. It was a good Sky Geometrician. .... and you can see from the diagrams from the list above that there are at least a handful+ more. John Timmerman got two of these in his "Grass Roots" years, and another comes from Amish country in NEOhio. John also got a triangle drawer, but I have fewer of the other geometric forms than I do square-makers. Cross-drawers are also a reasonable bunch, including two by John and another from Amish country. The early cases from Belgium [1931 & 1949] add another odd element, but my file on those is marginal.

Angular Flight: Many of our UFOs seem to "like" to make angular flight moves rather than just cruise along normally. Oftimes these strange moves are just one "instant darting away" or one "right angled turn", but some UFO operators seem more high-on-life and just like the Geometric Jig. In the upper witness drawing, the UFO makes at least ten moves that could be called right-angled turns, where so far as we can tell, a nice straight line would suffice. [This case is the "Ottawa River, Ontario 1960 incident" for those who have Time Travel facilities and wish to see for themselves]. This case was reported to Blue Book by two members of the Canadian military establishment.

The middle case is from Butler, PA 1953. [I've redrawn it here from the witness' black and white line drawing.] The witness was a WWII veteran. This object, which the witness felt to be only a sharply defined ball of blue-green "fire", made several stops, shifts, stops, jumps as he watched. It, unusually, also made a noise, which the witness compared to a diesel train.

The third drawing is from the report by an ex-Marine, which occurred at Camp Pendleton, CA in 1957 [this one isn't in the "master list" either]. The marine, in the company of several others, witnessed a light go across the sky in darts and stops, the stops seemingly selected to "accompany" [in apparent line of sight] any handy bright star along the way. The Marine apologized to CUFOS for not having a better sighting, like a close encounter. Hah! A UFO which "stops" at each star in its flightpath isn't interesting enough, eh? Well, I guess I'm looking at this like a neanderthal, but this sort of thing says more to me than the majority of case reports.

Do We Really Have To Hit You Right In The Face With This?: The agency behind the phenomenon must lead the Universe in face-palming frustration, or raucous mockery. Almost no strange flight characteristic is missing from the UFO case files. We have objects which individually or in groups will dance a ring around a central point or central object, will come together from disparate locations to form a geometric figure, will make rapid linear left/right sweeps right in front of a plane, will jump up and down and then pendulum swing several times, fly in show-off geometry changing formations [just as Dewey Fournet knew they did way back in 1952, but couldn't get the Robertson Panel to even discuss his findings honestly]. And.... you name it. I'll bet it's there.

The above is Dewey's "handout" that he used at the Robertson Panel to support his view that high-credibility cases describing firmly geometric flight formations and behaviors were a strong indicator of human-level intelligence [or, of course, higher]. Hurrah, Dewey!! Smart, insightful man.

And we have seen all this sort of thing before, haven't we?? We've seen what are for me the stunning astro-alignments, ... the cases which demonstrate that who/what is operating the UFO flights knows EXACTLY where the observer is in order to create a privileged viewing-point display. "They Know Where We Live" --- not necessarily the most relaxing thought.

I want to add one further thought about the space geometricians: sometimes, in their high flying, they seem to .... what to say? .... "follow" something about the space, which .... hmmmm, this is hard to phrase "softly" enough .... we cannot see, but they possibly "use" in their movement. { If so, I think that it would be something that they, or their "drive" does to normal space, and which without the presence of their influence is not "naturally" there. Maybe it even involves some dimensional mixing together to produce a "half-here/ half not here" situation in their flight. This is raw BS but the aspects that I'll mention below have some feel of this }.

There are at least a handful of cases in my files wherein the UFO not only makes a right-angled turn but shortly disappears entirely. The Ayr case on the list does this, as does [more elaborately] the Lorain case. There are others I've seen, but the one which stuck with me was a case from John Timmerman. {This is VERY POORLY drawn by me as the Torpo case on the list}. Here were two LITS moving in the same straight line across the sky for some distance. They were separated by a significant gap, but one was definitely following the leader's path. Then, the leader hit a point in the sky and its motion went right angled with no slowing. The trailer did not flinch but continued its original path UNTIL IT HIT THE SAME POINT. Then it too was suddenly moving at the same right angle following the leader. The leader went on until it hit another point, whereupon it vanished. The trailer kept coming on until it hit the same point whereupon it too vanished.

Could it be that something about how these things "fly" creates a geometry in the sky? A geometry which facilitates an unexpected least path of resistance? .... Yeh, Out Proctor definitely..... but as long as you know how Out Proctor it is, there is no harm in mentioning it. In the Nash-Fortenberry case, the train of UFOs stopped and reversed as if hitting some spot in space and "bouncing" directly away. A case called "Nahant Coast Guard Station, MA 1952" has the same characteristic.

What the aggregate of these cases show me with no remaining doubt is that the UFO phenomenon is unexplainable by mundane current-knowledge AND that the agency behind it is highly intelligent and aware of its surroundings [including we the observers].

... AND they're definitely mathematicians.

ET or Little People?? I doubt that The Magonians want to bother learning math, so my All-The-Way-Fool guess is with the guys from Tau Ceti.

Pythagoras: It's all in the Triangles.

Blessings and Peace, folks.


  1. QUOTE: "What the aggregate of these cases show me with no remaining doubt is that the UFO phenomenon is unexplainable by mundane current-knowledge AND that the agency behind it is highly intelligent and aware of its surroundings [including we the observers]."

    Current-Knowledge ? you mean modern science. How about accumulated knowledge from the past , they have some pretty good and acceptable explanation for these theaterics. Using modern science (only) to investigate these phenomena is futile.

    :the agency/highly intelligent/aware: doesnt proof ETH at all. Unless one is already predisposed to the ET Hypothesis / Nuts-n-bolts UFO and trying to shove every case into ETH hole (while dismissing cases that do not support ETH).

    QUOTE: "ET or Little People?? I doubt that The Magonians want to bother learning math, so my All-The-Way-Fool guess is with the guys from Tau Ceti."

    Any reason you pick Tau Ceti ? As for magonian math skills, dont be to quick to judge them. For them it makes no difference creating illusion of Cities and flying Chariots back in ancient times into flying 'craft' and astronaut suits of modern era. Unless there are publicly available magonian math test scores.

    1. I view the above comment as insulting and wise-assed. I respond only for the benefit of other readers.

      A]. The "current knowledge" remark is the classification of the debunkers point of view and toolbox. The remark therefore supports the anomalistic nature of UFOs as something beyond conservative academia's view. This entire blog supports sympathetically the array of anomalies and not the constricted academic view unless they make any sense.

      B]. The remark about the phenomenon being directed by an intelligent agency is immediately connected in the posting to more than one hypothesis for such agency. Calling out the post as jumping directly from Intelligence to ET is astonishingly illogical and very poor reading of the text, and shows similar ignorance of a huge number of posts on this blog which strongly favor the reality of faerielore and spiritual entities.

      C]. "Tau Ceti" is a commonly used code for anything extraterrestrial/ETH. Any person who cannot get away from literal concrete interpretations of every word, or just chooses not to see the metaphors, seems dead set on just looking for something to gripe about.

      D]. Regular readers of this blog realize that as the posts get towards the bottom, they often allow the writer and reader to have a little fun by not taking themselves mind-constrictingly seriously, and letting a few wilder thoughts float out there. This is often prefaced by the "Out Proctor" code or the "All-the-Way-Fool" code. Get with the program or give us the peace of not having to listen to your elitest sarcasm.

      E]. Even with the All-the-Way-Fool environment, the Magonia/ no math idea is not simply a throwaway. Paranormal entities can operate without need for science and technology {PK} and their most famous tool: math. A little thoughtfulness on that might clear this idea up for someone actually seeking truth.

      Bottomline: here is a place for respect, inquiry, speculation, collegial interaction. This comment does not trend towards that friendly interaction, and I'm not interested in that combative approach, and will treat it tit-for-tat.

    2. sorry I intended to post my response here, obviously

  2. Well said Dear Professor! I love being privileged to see when you have taken time from your busy life, to share research done yourself, and that of others, you have put so much time, effort,and space into. I share and appreciate a lot of your views, gained from 53 years of anomalous phenomena experienced by myself, and of those near and dear. You're an interesting, intelligent, kind man, and should be treated as such!

    In 12 years of being 'online' this is the second comment I've made. I've said 'my piece' and will now slip back into lurker mode.


    1. Thank you for your kindness. At my stage of life I am trying only to have some nice experiences, share whatever I have with others, and, if possible give everyone a good time wandering this wonderful Universe we are blessed with. I've tried to limit my negativity only for those who have truly earned it [for instance the entire micro-community of intellectually-dishonest debunkers, who in my sight are cultural criminals]. Sometimes, unfortunately, others draw the not-quite-dead negative emotions out. This is saddening, but I think that for the most part we have a good time here.

      Please post again with comments or questions. I try to get to the latter when time permits.

  3. I observed this phenomenon in 1986 while viewing Halley's comet from a high desert location in southern California. The actions I observed the LITS take was quite similar to that from the Timmerman case described above: "the leader hit a point in the sky and its motion went right angled with no slowing. The trailer did not flinch but continued its original path UNTIL IT HIT THE SAME POINT. Then it too was suddenly moving at the same right angle following the leader."

    This astonished and disturbed several members of the viewing party, particularly scientists. Others became intensely curious about it. At least one has remained so these 20-some odd years on.

    Thank you for this interesting post.

    Oakland, CA

    1. Wow. What a wonderful witnessing. I very much appreciate hearing about it. Thank you.

  4. "Thanks for keeping this place so clean"
    and generally troll free, even semi trolls treated w/ respect ;)

    1. I'm trying to walk a proper line, probably a bit "heavy" on the scolding side, but it is the higher goal of making this place a joyful one rather than a "typically combative internet site" which in the end ruins our quality of life. As an aside, I'm beginning to pick up a significant amount of cleverly worded spam. I'll flush it regularly and as quick as I can. It's all part of the Wild Lands we have created here on the Net, but, although I have nothing against free enterprise as a concept, all these spammers are self-serving manipulators, and thereby just as culturally dishonest as the opponents of truth that we regret so intensely here. There is no respect in these people. In my "this is my home" analogy, spamming is exactly the equivalent of someone pounding an advertising billboard into your front lawn. Shame, it appears, is a rarer quality nowadays than Merpeople.



Blog Archive