Monday, May 26, 2014

Digging To The Core, four

Distant object UFO cases... last set of thumbnails on these, though if you worked at it there could be plenty more incidents both believable and intriguing. As we get up towards modern times, my files become shallower and weaker as to both numbers and the levels of confidence that I had in those reports. Some of this is The Internet which facilitates non-discipline in both reporting and investigation. Some of this is just a drop-off of striking cases, as has been discussed several times here. Some of it was probably me just getting too tired to keep running after the fox.

Anyway, here are a few more....

This is an adventurous fascinating lot. A few remarks:

1). The level of strangeness is higher [smack-in-the-face-odd] for more of these incidents than the "simple" flying technology core of the early days;
2). This set contains two examples of what you know is one of my favorite types of cases: astro-alignment. [you will see that one of them was posted fairly recently]. When you consider the extremely tight geometry of these cases to achieve the "privileged viewing positions" necessary for the effect to take place, arguments that these are not directed displays demand a level of faith in coincidence that reduces those odds to the microscopic [even given the number of total UFOs ever reported]. I've heard enough casual wave-off debunking on stuff like this that it is clear that if one decides to buy coincidence, adding a dash of incompetence, one might as well stop thinking about any of this at all; {if I sound a bit irritated by this sort of "analysis", well, yeh, I am};
3). We still are fortunate enough to get a pilot case here and there, or the superb Ludington Coast Guard case, but "official" involvement is mostly connected with policemen;
4). Scandinavia shows up with some very good cases, a tribute to less impact on those cultures giving them prejudicial hang-ups, plus some well-organized investigative bodies. The Navelsjo case is an instance of what is to my intuition one of the most significant elements of the total mystery: a tremendous "OZ" or entering-into-a-changed-state-of-the-environment effect, manifest by cancellation of sounds;
5). The famous "Yukon Giant" case has been included because the debunking, which could be correct, is something that I need to see critiqued by someone not in the debunking community and who also knows what he or she is talking about. There needs to be a LOT of remanufacturing of the witness testimonies and some forcing of the time and placing of the satellite decay in the sky to make this work. Because the Giant is potentially an important case [it could say something about control of mass and huge air displacement effects] I'll not just throw this into the trashbin until I hear more and better analysis;
6). I include the Timmerman files cases because I knew John so well, and his friendly unthreatening demeanor got people to talk very frankly to him. Of the two cases above, the doctor's case seems strong, the other maybe not as much. But if that second case were true, it would be a mindblower;
7). Lastly Father Hesburgh's case: I graduated from Notre Dame and Hesburgh is one of the great men of the last 100 years. The only issue in the case can be if the reporter made the whole thing up, since, if he did not, Hesburgh and the two witnesses were of highest credibility. I must go with some "faith" here, as the article contained not only direct quotes, but a picture of the other two witnesses recreating the fishing scene [with drawing of the craft] at the lake. "On paper" I wouldn't normally include such a poorly documented thing, but my intuition says differently on this one.

So, we can move on from the distant object cases, What I believe that I found from them is a clear strongly documented core of advanced aerial technology, beyond our abilities at the time and even yet to manufacture and fly. Layered onto that core, I find clusters of cases demonstrating directed display behavior, as well as creepy control effects like "OZ". None of the "simple" distant object cases are by definition CE2s, so no such physical effects can be expected in this case cabinet. But we know that such cases exist in abundance in file drawers with different labels.

But, for now, advanced aerial technology beyond our means, which demonstrates a desire to display "locally" and control environments locally seems a large harvest of credible information to me.

I don't know how much of this "best cases in categories" I'll do, as it's more work than I thought, but sooner or later I'll get back to it and we can walk through the Forbidden Portal together to see what's on the other side.

Till then, peace friends. Kenneth Arnold, the General Mills balloon experts, and Kelly Johnson didn't see satellites decaying.


  1. the yukon giant is fascinating case and the multiple witness testimonies indicate something happened that night..

    while i dont mind people debunking UFO cases in intelligent way, i really dont like how the yukon giant debunkers propose a theory and then bend everything to support their theory while dismissing facts that didnt support their theory.. Even worse i read the website irondebunker or something and instead of intelligent and logical analysis of the case , i read a shallow analysis (of cisco grove case) based on the drawing of the alien and the absurdity of robots as reported by the witness.. These debunkers really are liars pretending to be scientific while they never do their analysis in scientifically approved methods..

    personally i think some of there 'profesional' debunkers (for example klass and oberg) are doing it because it is their job. just my BS opinion..

    1. One could make a case for Klass being "encouraged" to continue his UFO debunking in order that he, or Aviation Week [his employer], would continue to get occasional insider releases of aero-tech information. Klass certainly tried to defeat "colleagues" in his own office when they wanted to pursue a UFO interest. {this is known from frank personal comments heard by myself and a close friend.}

      Menzel was "assigned" to debunk UFOs by his academic boss, Harlow Shapley, at Harvard. This is documented. Menzel enjoyed doing it in a rather disgusting malicious way, and probably never needed intel community encouragement. Both Project BlueBook during Ruppelt's time and the Colorado Project thought that he was a jerk and his ideas nearly completely irrelevant to UFOs.

      Who knows about Oberg. When he began he was showing some objectivity, even editing a sympathetic newsletter for some organization. He fouled the waters so badly he was let go. He then became a satellite and rocket-booster decay debunker specialist, and slowly became a NASA darling which he likes.

      People like Shaeffer or Nickell or Printy just seem to be trolls who enjoy trying to pick feathers off live birds. I would not say that if they ever showed ANY instance of positivity to anything, but they do not. Karl Pflock claimed to be a UFOlogist but his behavior was the same --- only negative publishing. Because of his intel background it's vaguely possible that he was "encouraged" somewhat. Long-term UFOlogists VJ Ballester-Olmos and Eddie Bullard [both guys that I like] seem to be growing more and more negative as they age. Who knows where those trajectories will lead, but certainly not government pay-offs. The British Magonians just seem like varying degrees of jerks, some civilized, some almost entirely uncivilized --- the latter British analogs of Phil Klass.

      The bottom line here is: almost none of these people say much worth paying attention to beyond an honest scan of whatever their most recent brain burp is. If it seems potentially cogent, fine, examine the thought on our own. There is never a need to waste our time "getting back to them", because those conversations will go uncivil, derisive, "personal", and usually a "one trick pony" with nothing of depth to say. Their attitude is most like that of an internet troller who cares nothing about the subject that he takes cheap shots at. There are a few skeptics out there worth listening to, and they are almost all residents [for some time] of the UFO community itself. Even a super-sympathetic guy like myself "thinks" about every case. I've put several of them in the gray-basket much to the chagrin of my buddies [ex. Cash-Landrum, Dr.X, most of Hopkins/Jacobs, Andreasson, even Socorro.] I tend to soft-conclude that something strange happened in such cases [i.e. they are not "bunk", hoaxing, foolishness, and uninteresting] but they don't seem to me to be UFOlogy.] People are able to disagree, but I'll not waste space arguing about negatives here.



Blog Archive