Monday, November 18, 2013


.......... another dozen.

Just knee-jerk responses for the moment; a little talk later.

Photo #1a: Picacho Peak, NM, 1967.

Photo #2a: SW of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1967. {ignore the "Sun" at the top of the photo: I had to photo this from a glossy sheet and that's just light pollution}

Photo #3a: Location unlisted, probably White Sands area [This is a Blue Book photo stolen by Allen Hynek with the only label being that it is a Nunn-Baker {mobile telescope} tracking photo. This would likely place it in the 1950s and taken while observing a night launch or during the Moon Watch program.] ... for what it's worth, I believe that the "UFO" is the pill-shaped light form rather than the large burst which seems possibly to emerge from it.

Photo #4a: St. George, MN, 1965.

Photo{s} #5a: Insert: Lake Urmia, NW Iran, 1978; and Shiraz, Iran, a few years later {John Timmerman was boggled by the shapes and that these came to him from Iran from two very different sources. This oddity overcame his immediate perceptual biases, though few others of his CUFOS friends.}

Photo #6a: Honolulu, Hawaii, 1974.

Photo #7a: Alberton, South Australia, 1967. { the lower picture is a blow-up of the central area.}

Photo #8a: Ipameri River, Brazil, 1966. {I've cropped the "context" out here --- sorry --- the object hovers over forest beyond closer water.}


Photo #9a: Some location in Norway --- as often happens, Allen Hynek is not tidy enough in his labeling --- 1957.

Photo #10a: Lake Baskatong, Quebec, Canada, 1978.

Photo #11a: King Mountain, NC, 1968.

Photo #12a: nr. Holloman AFB, NM, 1957.

soooooooo........ knee-jerks, doubtless abound.

I'm still not ready to launch into specifics on these things {though I'll be happy to respond in comments}. Instead I'm going to do a little introspection.

Somewhen, "somebody" has gotten into my head and told me what a UFO should look like. I'm not saying that this is automatically helpful or harmful, it's just reality. Some of these photos match that imprinted visual better --- well let's phrase it "smoother" --- than others. I'm not good enough at self-analysis to explain all this subtlety which has gone on, but part of it resulted in this: when I say "UFO" I have a definition personally-formed and not necessarily like the person's that I happen to be talking to.

That definition is not so vague as to be {for me} utterly unhelpful and useless, nor is it so precise as to restrict growth through analysis and synthesis. "U" is unidentified. That's a no-brainer for me. "FO" however says to me: "object in this sense means material --- not gas, liquid, nor plasma", and "flying in this sense means technology". When I'm reviewing a potential UFO case, whatever possible evidence is presented is subjected to judgment of whether that evidence seems to be coherent with observation of some solidly material flying technology [whether WE can do it comes later], or is readily congruent with such a technology.

I'm not looking to see if there's just something odd in the air; the witches on their broomsticks, or the would-be dragons, pterodactyls, and moth men can have their airspace --- I'll put them in a different file folder. I'm looking for technology --- technology tough to identify. Others are free to look for whatever they want.

So, when a picture shows up, my mind says: does it look like it might be flying technology that I can't identify? .... and then the other prejudices come in? Is it LIKE the great pile of other cases that I trust? Does it have radial symmetry or at least SOME clean symmetry? How's it moving? Can I buy its behavior in the air? All that happens at once without words. The mind settles down to take some calmer time with the case... but the explosion of prejudice has happened.

I'll put up some more of this later.

Peace and calm and wise minds, friends.


  1. I suppose for me, the key is perhaps that the object look 'metallic'. The glowing spots don't do much for me (though they might do more in video form). I think, Professor, this is, like you say, identifying the object as 'technology'. A glowy spot can be many things from lens flare to stars to insects; a metallic object is either a UFO or a hoax (or a misidentified conventional aircraft, maybe). Now again, there's nothing that says UFOs must be metallic, reflective (indeed, many reports place them as matte), or anything else. Portholes/windows or antennae also indicate something in the photos-- again, 'real' object or hoax. Lights, BOLs, mothmen, etc., may (?!) be able to create forms and colors, but I have to draw the line at portholes or antennae, which clearly indicate workmanship more than a vague oblong/oval shape or light might do. Finally, I notice that almost all the selections this time around are disc-shaped with a raised center inasmuch as visible.

    1. To a degree the photos I chose must reflect whatever prejudices I was juggling when I decided to pick them. A part of that bias is my trying to present things of interest to everyone [so I didn't pick completely goofy things], and for the most part I tried to put up photos which might have a chance of being legit. [so I didn't put up Adamskis nor Walters nor admitted hoaxes.] And beneath those sort-of reasonable criteria my radial symmetry, kind-of mechanical, bias expresses itself. Still I fight it. And if available I read the investigations --- sometimes pushing an image far away.

  2. Prof I don't see why your calm level headed approach t'these things can't be the universal approach t'pretty much ev'rythin'.

    In the end it all boils down t'this someone presents data in the form of a professional or amateur anecdote or professional or amateur image etc etc etc after which assertions're made questions're posed then' anyone who wants t'take those assertions or questions further does so.

    Meanwhile anyone who can't see what the fuss's about goes off an' finds somethin' they do see what all the fuss's about.

    The end.

    If there's anythin' to my seeming interactions with my abstract angels where I had the sense they were dependent in some almost ecologically Miley Cyrus Lady Gaga kind o' way on my attention it may be all the highly extended hyper inflated fuss an' froth generated by the peevish interactions between so-called skeptics an so-called Forteans has actu'ly created Redfern's Gap [where golden age phenomena've been succeeded by piddlin' age phenomena] because the buggers no longer have to put in any kind of serious effort to place themselves to the fore of our thoughts.

  3. The Christmas-lights UFO over central CT is beautiful yet menacing to me...The Iran UFO and Lake Baskatong Quebec UFO both have me think they're legit because of they way they appear illuminated (don't know why that would even make a difference, but this is just subjective impressions of course).

  4. the pichaco peak photo, what is the concensus among UFO researchers ? is it deemed real or fake or another grey area photo ?

    1. To my ears this photo has elicited very little commentary at all.The reason seems to be that it has remained secretive --- anonymous witness, and no proper follow-up of any information at all by Coral. I put this non-status entirely on her until I get more information.

  5. prof , what is your take on the yacanto cordoba ufo photo in 1960 by argentine air force officer ?

    1. I'm an ignoramus on this photo. The "story" is a good one despite it being a single-witness case. I'm not sure who the UFO investigator on this was or if there even was one close to the time of the incident. I like the OZ factor in the tale, but the photo [as available] is pretty punk. [in that what you see is not greatly confirmative of the clarity claimed by the witness.] By much over boosting the contrast you can clearly see what he says is the diminishing cone-top protruding mainly away from the viewer but the shape still isn't convincing of a precise cone. Not that it makes much difference, but it nicer when a photo looks exactly like what the witness says without interpretation. The case rides on the integrity of the witness which people give him due to who he allegedly is.

  6. the holloman 1957 photo, has i been proven as natural or still considered unknown / unidentified ? i cannot even guess what it is.. a time elapse photo of some bright cloud ? or long exposure of some kind taken at night ? i tried to google the background of this photo but all i got mostly the holloman landings hoax stuff..

    certainly one of the best photo of all the photo you compiled for this post

    1. Coral Lorenzen claimed to know this lady who took that photo well, and was sure of her credibility. Coral's testimony for the witness here has been ignored, and the larger UFO community went on to assume that since someone said that this looked like an illuminated cloud, then that's all it was. I'm not sure what to make of the community's response, but what I believe has happened is that UFOlogists run so scared that whenever a situation arises where defense of position starts in a bigger than normal hole, they punt and throw the case away. I certainly make the same judgements all the time [the difference, perhaps, being that I don't throw it away, but rather just don't publicly feature such incidents in writings.]



Blog Archive