Roy Wimmer Passes Away

I just learned from Brad Sparks that Roy Wimmer, one of the key witnesses from the 1953 Santa Barbara Channel case, passed away last week (on the 12th, I believe).

I may be wrong, but I think he was the last surviving witness.

The info on the case can be found here.

In his report on the incident for Lockheed, Wimmer, a top test pilot, wrote:

I was watching it all the time so I was able to see it for several seconds after the rest of the crew had lost sight of it. Right up until the time it disappeared it maintained its sharp outline and definite shape so I know it was not a cloud that dissolved... I am convinced this was a large object some distance away.

Of course, the United States Air Force, in one of their most bone-headed explanations ever (and that's saying something), concluded that what Wimmer and other top Lockheed personnel (including Kelly Johnson) saw that day was a lenticular cloud.

Yeah, right.

My condolences to Mr. Wimmer's family.

Paul Kimball

How is it that we can "see" Extraterrestrials?

While one can argue endlessly in favor of a literal extraterrestrial interpretation, a holistic approach leads us to consider that the UFO intelligence not only wants to perpetuate itself via dramatic encounters with ostensible "occupants," but intends to discredit its own machinations: it stages exciting UFO events that infect both the research community and the popular imagination, knowing that the phenomenon's inherent absurdity will eventually undermine attempts to arrive at an indictment.

Interesting stuff as always from Mac Tonnies.

One question that doesn't get asked enough by ufology is this: if the UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin, with all of the advanced technology that this would involve (memo to the ETHers: it isn't as easy as you think it is to travel between the stars), why do they allow themselves to be seen, as surely they must, given their technological prowess?

Are we the equivalent of rats in a lab experiment, with our reactions being studied by alien scientists? If so, how long does this experiment last? Shouldn't they be done with it at some point or another?

The typical answer - Stan Friedman uses it all the time - is that "they're aliens, so we can't presume to know why they're here, or why they do the things they do."

Which is no different than a religious person who, when asked why God lets good people die in horrible ways, answers, "well, it's God, so we can't possibly understand His will. We must just accept it."

The more you look at the various aspects of the Extraterrestrial hypothesis, the less likely it seems - both technologically and, perhaps more important, sociologically and anthropologically. Like the traditional mainstream view of God (i.e. the one drilled into the heads of kids at "Jesus camps"), the ETHers view of extraterrestrial life is more a reflection of their view of themselves than the potential reality - and complexity - of an extraterrestrial visitation.

Of course, as Jason Gammon and others maintain, ET could really be a form of AI. In that case, all bets are off, because who knows how sentient machines would behave.

Unless you think that human beings are really just meat-based machines... which brings us back to Mac, and his idea that the explanation for the UFO phenomenon may lie closer to home (like many other, non-ETH explanations). Who knows - it may well lie inside of us.

Paul Kimball

Best Evidence - The 1967 Malmstrom AFB Case

Clips from interviews I conducted about the Malmstrom AFB UFO case for the upcoming documentary "Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Cases", which ... all » premieres in Canada on Space on May 10, 2007.

Featured here are ufologists Stan Friedman and Richard Hall and Captain Robert Salas (ret'd), one of the USAF officers involved in the incident forty years ago, and co-author (with Jim Klotz) of Faded Giant.

Malmstrom is indeed on the top 10 list. Where? Well, you know how that works... :-)

Paul Kimball

Best Evidence - The 1980 Rendlesham Forest Case

Some clips from interviews I conducted for the 1980 Rendlesham Forest case for "Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Cases", which premieres on Space in Canada on May 10, 2007.

Included are UFO Review publisher Stuart Miller, UFO researcher / author / lecturer Stan Friedman, former UK Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope, and UFO researcher / author Richard Hall.

And yes, Rendlesham is somewhere in the Top 10.

"Where?" you ask.

You'll have to watch the film to find out!

Paul Kimball

Kaku: The Science of Sci-Fi

Great stuff!

Paul Kimball

Carl Sagan explains the Drake Equation

Part 1



Part 2



Fascinating stuff from a great communicator.

I'm not nearly as anti-SETI as most ufologists are - what's the harm in looking for radio signals? It's not like it costs that much money, and, as I said in a radio interview once, I think ufologists are just jealous that SETI has been more successful in engaging science and the public than ufology has.

But, whether you like Sagan or SETI or you don't, watching him do the calculations is interesting, especially if you accept the possibility that there may be millions of technological civilizations in the galaxy (a number that seems way too high to me; I would always go with a more conservative estimate, based on the principle that it's better to be pleasantly surprised than rudely awakened). It stands to reason, if that's the case, and if they manage to survive what Sagan calls their "adolescence", that they could - indeed, almost certainly would - develop the ability to travel between the stars, if not in person then at least in the form of advanced probes, probably using some form of artificial intelligence. From there it isn't a giant leap of logic to conclude that one or more of those probes, or perhaps even crews, made its way to Earth at some point, and took a look around. Perhaps they're still here. One can't prove that on the available evidence, but it's not an unreasonable hypothesis, even if there had never been a single UFO sighting.

Ironically, given that he was not a supporter of the ETH, Sagan's reasoning, using Drake's equation, should give comfort to those who are supporters of the ETH, and should give pause for thought to those who would dismiss the ETH out of hand.

Paul Kimball

To the Moon... and Beyond!

Pretty cool stuff. I hope I'm still around to see us get back out there!

Paul Kimball

Mac Tonnies: CTH or ETH... Which Makes More Sense?

Mac Tonnies explains why he thinks the CTH makes as much sense - or maybe even more sense - than the ETH

Here's the funny thing about the CTH brouhaha as it concerns the ardent ETHers - all of the criticisms they level against Mac's hypothesis are the same ones that can be levelled against the ETH, and have been for decades by mainstream science.

For example:

Average CTH critic - "The CTH is preposterous, because there's no evidence of this civilization, and there would surely be some because to become that technologically advanced they would have to leave signs, traces, and they would have travelled to the stars and established bases,etc., etc."

Average ETH critic - "The ETH is preposterous, because there's no evidence to support it, and the problems of interstellar space travel are insurmountable, or for all practical purposes insurmountable. Further, any civilization advanced enough to get here would have colonized the galazy by now, yet we see absolutely no sign of this, etc., etc."

Average CTH or ETH proponent's answer?

"Well, they're obviously more advanced than we are, so they can do things we can't understand, and that explains everything."

I'm not saying either hypothesis is right - indeed, the ETH still makes more sense to me than the CTH, at least what I've seen of it so far (I remain open-minded, however), and any discussion of just the two of them ignores all of the other possibilities. What I am pointing out is the inherent hypocrisy and irony of much of the knee-jerk criticism of the CTH by the ETHers, at least at this stage.

Paul Kimball

Four Rules for Ufologists

Here are the four major rules for many ufologists (not all, thank goodness, but an ever increasing majority):

1. What the public doesn't know, we certainly won't tell them.

2. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

3. If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It's easier.

4. Do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation. It's much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.

Rules #2 and #3 are collectively referred to as "The Jerry Clark Stratagem".

In terms of #4, you can count the number of ufologists who do actual research - you know, the kind that grad students would be required to undertake (as just one example) - on two hands. And I'm being charitable.

And no, searching Wikipedia doesn't count.

Meanwhile, speaking of Sir Jerome Snark, in a post at UFO Updates today he referred derisively to certain "self-identified ufologists", which is hilarious - are there any other kind, or is there some sort of accrediting body, like lawyers and doctors have, that hands out official "Ufologist" certificates? I must have missed that, in the same way that poor old Jerry consistently misses the boat these days.

Sir Snark, in a comment clearly directed at moi, also states:

"I realized that some nadir had been reached when I was attacked recently for being too concerned about the requirements of science and scientific inquiry."

Just to set the record straight, Sir Snark, you were called out for being too overeager to be seen as respectable by the scientific establishment. That's different than saying you're too concerned about the requirements of science and scientific inquiry, which, need I remind you (ed. - yes, you must), should be about keeping an open mind, i.e. not shouting down a hypothesis (er... perhaps like cryptoterrestrials) without actually having read the author's book, which has yet to be even published (and, for the record, I doubt Mac will convince me, but I'm willing to at least listen to what he has to say before I offer a critique).


Mac Tonnies briefly outlines his CTH in the clip above; somewhere Sir Snark is shaking his head in complete and utter disbelief at the effrontery of this midwestern hick.

I often wonder why guys like Sir Snark give a fig about what the scientific community thinks about them, because they've already established their own elitist ivory tower, with appeals to authority and calls from on high the currency of the realm. It reminds me of some of the dialogue that I wrote for Marat:

"We look up from the street
at the towers of the other estates
watching them as they reach
to the boundaries of Heaven’s Gate
All the gods and the goddesses
look down from inside
they spit
and it rains
they shit
and we stain."

Alas, in the case of most Ufological "gods and goddesses", they're impostors, who have been writing intellectual cheques that their talent just can't cover. They have the egos of the Gods, but that's it. Again, there are exceptions that prove the rule - and, again, you can probably count them on those same ten fingers, give or take.

The people really worth your time are the ones who will admit that they're just marking time, and that what the study of the UFO phenomenon truly needs to move forward are some of those Nobel Prize calibre folks that Brad Sparks is always on about (properly so, in my opinion).


Brad Sparks dishes out some hard truths for ufologists

Because the amateurs - myself included - have taken things as far as they can. From hereon in, we're just hamsters running around a wheel, getting nowhere (although it may be fun to keep on running). One could argue that it's been that way for years, decades even.

The goal should be to convince people further up the intellectual food chain to take a real interest, but it isn't, at least not with ufology, which is the poster child for the "big fish in a small pond" syndrome.

So long as the likes of Jerry Clark rule the roost, that will never happen (ahh... the irony).

Which is why the future study of the UFO phenomenon will have nothing to do with "ufology".

Paul Kimball

Paul Kimball: Deluded Fool, or Visionary?

Re: the title above - I'm neither.

Still, those were the broad strokes of the two stark choices on display today at the first session of the NSFDC's Business Issues forum, which I'm moderating today and tomorrow.

This morning, one of the speakers, who is far more successful than I am (although, to be fair, he had a 20 year head start), was bemoaning - in about as pessimistic a way as possible - the future of the Canadian film and television industry. Beware, he warned - technology is only going to concentrate power in fewer and fewer hands (is that possible??), and if you think the small and mid-sized producer will be able to compete, you're deluded.

Now, as moderator, I'm not really supposed to get into it with the featured speakers. But, if you're a regular reader of The Other Side of Truth, you know that I'm not afraid to state my opinion, especially when the other guy is so egregiously, one-sidedly, wrong.

So I did.

Needless to say, Ray Kurzweil got his moment, as I replicated his graph about technological progress and the exponential advances of the last fifty years, and the even more exponential advances likely to come in the next fifty. As I was winging it, I had to go old school, i.e. draw it on a poster board with a marker, but I got it right. Then I said something to the effect of "human history has never seen this kind of exponential change, so fast. It's changing everything." I then added a remark about how, when machines achieve self-awareness in fifty years (which I noted on the graph), we're all screwed anyway, so what does it really matter in terms of foreign markets and distribution deals (that got a pretty good laugh).

Anyway, being a historian, I returned to the podium, and used my bully-pulpit to put things in what I see as perspective. I reminded folks that, prior to the invention of the printing press, the Western world was basically run by the Catholic Church and the monarchial and noble elite. After that - because it made the dissemination of knowledge more accessible - the walls came crumbling down. Sure, perhaps not all the way - the Catholic Church still exists, and elites still exist - but within four hundred years (a drop in the universal time bucket), we had the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions, and the Industrial Revolution, changes that would have been unimagineable prior to the printing press, and the Gutenberg Bible.

Of course, I said, those changes are coming much faster this time, and the mechanism of change is the computer, and all that goes with it. It's changing the way that people communicate, and create, and think, in ways we barely compehend right now. It's definitely changing the industry I'm in, which is, after all, all about disseminating information of various kinds.

Oh, sure, the big conglomerates will no doubt adapt, and survive, just like the Catholic Church did, but they won't be able to dicate content, and conversation, anymore. Rather than something to be feared by small and mid-sized producers, the technological revolution were in the midst of these days is something to be embraced. It's liberating. It's the opportunity for new players to step up to the plate, and carve out their niche.

The people who understand this are the ones who will make their mark in the years to come, in ways and places that the establishment don't fully understand yet - indeed, they may never completely get it. Given the "vox populi" potential of new technologies (just check out YouTube, for crying out loud!), they may not want to get it.

But they won't be able to stop the increasing democratization of human thought, dialogue, and creativity. Some see that as "deluded" - I see it as a fact of life, and I'm not afraid to say so.

After I was done my amusing little rant (Kimball's Law - "If you're going to rant, always do so with tongue at least partially planted in your cheek"), things went back to normal, until the end, when, as moderator, I got the final word. I quoted one of my favourite "philosophers", Stan Friedman:

"Technological progress comes from doing things in different and unpredictable ways."

The same is true of business - including mine.

I welcome it, because where others see threats to the established order, I see opportunities.

Paul Kimball

O'Hare: If Photos or Video Exist, Will We See Them?

Rumours abound that video exists of whatever was seen over O'Hare airport on November 7, 2006, taken by a pilot, and that it may be released soon. But some are wondering if we will ever see any footage or photos.

Over at the UFO Mystic Blog of my pals Greg Bishop and Nick Redfern, for example, one reader, in response to a comment of mine, asked:

You have to wonder, though, if pictures were taken by the pilots, would they be willing to come forward with them given the poor reception UFO reports made by pilots have been given by the airline industry historically.

My response?

I don’t wonder at all - of course they would bring the photos, or video, forward, unless perhaps the photos or footage actually showed something mundane, which would indeed make the pilots (and a lot of other people) look pretty silly. After all, these guys have already come forward and offered their witness accounts (i.e. they’ve taken the most difficult step) - surely offering photos or video that would potentially corroborate those accounts wouldn’t be much of a leap at all (and might actually make them some money, if it was really sensational stuff).

Everybody wants to be vindicated, after all. It's human nature.

Further, to my knowledge, there has never been a pilot fired for making a UFO report, or putting forward pictures. Indeed, if a pilot or other employee was fired for doing so (when the FAA itself states explicitly that any UFO sightings should be reported to organizations like NUFORC, or the police) they would have a pretty good case for unjust dismissal, particularly where they’re unionized.

If photos exist, therefore, I expect we will see them - unless, as I said, they show something that might indeed make the pilots et al look foolish, like… well, nothing anomalous.

However, if video or photos do exist that show something out of the ordinary, then they will be made public, and fairly soon - at which point things could get really interesting.

Paul Kimball

O'Hare: The FAA "Cover-Up"

A commenter here on a previous post wrote:

The fact that bothers me the most about this case/sighting, is that the FAA denied anyone reported a sighting until threatened with a Freedom of Information Act request. Only then did they admit that the sighting had been reported, without the request being filed. Why? Did their files have a memory lapse?

This is not on the face of it an unreasonable question, until you realize a couple of things (that Peter Davenport et al won't tell you). It deserves an answer, before the "cover-up" meme runs out of control, and becomes part of the story that is inseperable from the evidence of the sighting itself.

First, government is not some monolithic entity. Often, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is up to, or what information it might have. The FAA is a large organization. To expect everyone within it to know everything that has gone on everywhere is unrealistic. Further, "government" is staffed not by infallible robot drones, but by people - people who make mistakes, just like you, and me.

I speak from experience, having worked for government in the past. I recall once where a phone call was referred to me at the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation (a much smaller entity, to be sure, than the FAA), and a question asked, and I said, "nope, we don't have that information." Sure enough, we did - the person in the office (i.e. the Director of Marketing) next to me had it. That sort of thing happens all the time. If, instead of trying the Director of Marketing the caller had launched a Freedom of Information request, he would have gotten the information - and, no doubt, if he had been like Peter Davenport et al, he would have accused me of being part of a "cover-up".

Further, look at the FAA reporting guidelines. They state specifically that UFO reports are not taken by the FAA, but rather are to be directed to civilian groups or scientific bodies that study this sort of thing. Here is their policy:

9-8-1. GENERAL
a. Persons wanting to report UFO/Unexplained Phenomena activity should contact an UFO/ Unexplained Phenomena Reporting Data Collection Center, such as the National Institute for Discovery Sciences (NIDS), the National UFO Reporting Center, etc.

b. If concern is expressed that life or property might be endangered, report the activity to the local law enforcement department.

It is not unreasonable, therefore, for an FAA employee to mistakenly assume that there was no call to them about a UFO.

Finally, and this is the kicker, if there really was this deep, dark cover up to which Davenport and others have begun to allude, do you really think a simple FOIA request by a reporter would be enough to shake the tree?

Hardly.

The simple answer is almost always the right one in cases like this - the FAA employee who answered the initial inquiry (which was probably not a high priority item) made a mistake, and then, when forced to do some more thorough internal checking, the FAA rectified that mistake.

That's not the "sexy" story, but it's the one that makes the most logical sense.

Paul Kimball

Photos from concourse C at O'Hare

Here is some pretty nifty time-lapse photography done at one of the gates (10, I think) on concourse C at O'Hare.



Too bad this guy wasn't at O'Hare on November 7, 2006!

Seriously, I hope someone did get a photo, because without it, all you've got is just another witness case, better perhaps than some (or even many), but not as good perhaps as others (Kelly Johnson, 1953, as an example), of which there are literally thousands over the past several decades, none of which prove anything definitive in terms of the nature of what UFOs may be, and none of which have gotten the study of the UFO phenomenon any further along today than it was almost sixty years ago.

Unless, of course, you believe that the sheer number of reports alone proves something, in which case you should probably start taking witness reports of "miracles" seriously as well, because there have been far more of those over the course of human history than reports of UFOs.

Paul Kimball

Where is the O'Hare UFO Photo - Vol. II

Besides being an ace cameraman, my good friend and colleague Findlay Muir is one heck of a photographer. Like most people these days, he always has some form of camera nearby - unlike most people, he gets really, really good shots (most people settle for average shots).

For example, when he and I were in O'Hare in November, 2005 (sorry, no UFO), Findlay had his camera at the ready, and got all sorts of nifty shots, including the one above on the tramway between terminals.

Here's another one, this time from Blackpool, England, when he and I were there on a day off from filming Best Evidence back in June, 2006. I can guarantee you that pigeons move fast (you would be surprised) - but Findlay was faster.

If Findlay had seen a UFO at O'Hare, or anywhere else for that matter, he would probably have a picture of it - especially if it was hovering before it zipped off.

Now Findlay is a professional, so maybe he moves just a bit faster than your average person. But one look at YouTube, or Google Video, or Flickr, should be enough to convince you that non-professionals can move pretty quick these days, and get the shot. Indeed, we live in the video era.

So, I ask again - where are the O'Hare UFO photos?

Peter Davenport has been all over the media trumpeting this story (good, no doubt, for NUFORC's profile, at least in the short term). Surely he asked the witnesses if they had been quick enough to take a photo (if it was me, this would be the first question I would ask)?

In the two months between when the story was first reported, and when it broke last week, surely Mr. Davenport, or someone else, thought that maybe there should be a photo, and that this would be important, one way or another?

Did it ever cross his mind, before he went to the press, that maybe he should hold off until the story had been properly investigated?

Did it ever cross his mind that perhaps it would have been best to wait, and make sure all the "t's" were crossed, and the "i's" dotted, before making this a big cause celebre? Apparently not.

The O'Hare story, for good or ill, will now define how the public views the UFO phenomenon for the next few months, maybe even years.

Let's just hope that Mr. Davenport hasn't sold us a pig in a poke.

Let's hope he, or someone else, finds that photo that should be there.

Update: Stan Friedman was on the X-Zone this evening (you can catch it in the X-Zone archives). Rob McConnell asked Stan about why there were no photos, and Stan responded - I paraphrase - that it would have been impossible to get a good shot of a relatively small object at a height of 1,900 feet or so (although that appears to be the height of the cloud cover it "shot up through", so "it" must have been hovering at a lower height than that).

This is patently absurd. You can't have it both ways - you can't assert that people can make a perfectly good sighting of an "object" at somewhere under 1,900 feet, and observe details such as whether or not the "object" was rotating, on the one hand, and then say, "but it was too high up to get a decent photo." Especially when the supposed "object" was just sitting there for a prolonged period of time.

Paul Kimball

Where is the O'Hare UFO Photo?

When I was in Rendlesham Forest back in June, 2006, filming for Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Cases, my DOP Findlay Muir and I were suddenly buzzed by an RAF helicopter (I presume it was RAF) - we heard it coming a few seconds in advance, but because it was so loud, and because things echo a lot in the forest, even today (it is actually a pretty spooky place, even in the daylight), we had no idea which direction it was coming from.

Nonetheless, I had my old (six years) digital camera out - it's hardly cutting edge technology, and there is a pause of a second or so when it takes a photo. Still, as the helicopter flew overhead, literally appearing from the treeline, I managed to get a shot before it flew off (it eventually came around again and again - they were seemingly conducting landing exercises on the nearby airstrip).

Findlay, who had his very large, unwieldy and heavy Beta Camera on his shoulder, also managed to get some footage of the quick-moving chopper.

Now, if we could manage this, where are all of the photos from the O'Hare UFO sighting back on November 7, 2006? Remember, unlike our helicopter, which was moving fast (we only has a few seconds to react), the O'Hare UFO apparently hovered for a while, in plain sight, in front of witnesses, at one of the world's busiest airports.

The story is all over the news. And yet not one photo has surfaced.

Perhaps one will - but until it does, I'll go with the official explanation, because if Findlay and I can get a good photo and footage of a fast moving object in the middle of a forest, I find it impossible to accept that no-one got a good, clear photo or footage of a hovering UFO at O'Hare International Airport.

Paul Kimball

The Alien Abduction Cult

I've met both David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins at different UFO conferences. They seem like nice enough people - witty, even charming, until you realize that they, and other "abductionologists" like them, have spent decades spouting absolute nonsense about "alien abductions", and in the process have caused very real trauma to very real people (and created, by the way, a nice little cottage industry for themselves).

Budd Hopkins has written [Witnessed: The True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions]:

"Everything I have learned in twenty years of research into the UFO abduction phenomenon leads me to conclude that the aliens' central purpose is not to teach us about taking better care of the environment. Instead, all of the evidence points to their being here to carry out a complex breeding experiment in which they seem to be working to create a hybrid species, a mix of human and alien characteristics."

All of the evidence?

What "evidence"?

Memories induced by hypnosis?

I've written about the usefulness of hypnosis as an investigative technique before, particularly when it's done by self-taught amateurs (see: The Abduction Phenomenon and Hypnosis).

Here's the uncomfortable truth - the abductionologists, feted at UFO conference after UFO conference, are the problem, not the solution. It isn't little green / grey men from some other planet that are causing pain to the people "studied" by Hopkins et al - the pain, the damage, is being caused by the "investigators" themselves, feeding questions, and then answers, to people who may have real problems.

Disagree with me? That's your prerogative, of course, but before you start wailing, and crying "foul", do me one small favour - show me the hard evidence that supports the claims made by the abductionologists.

How about a photo? Let's start with that.

I mean, we have UFO photos - most fake, but some, like McMinnville, perhaps authentic - so why not photos of an abduction?

How about witnesses to an abduction - not hypnotically regressed ones, mind you, but independent witnesses who actually saw an abduction happen.

Where are they? I mean, we have myriad UFO cases with multiple independent witnesses.

Why not abductions?

Kevin Randle, Russ Estes and William Cone got it right in The Abduction Enigma when they wrote, at p. 359:

"Here's what it all comes down to. There is not a single shred of physical evidence that alien abductions areaking place other than the tainted testimony of the abductees. The physical evidence to support the claims is nonexistent. What has been offered as proof has been eliminated through testing by objective scientists or additional research by unbiased investigators. The scars, the missing fetus, or the implants do not carry the proper medical documentation to make a strong case, and in fact, suggest something else altogether."

I'll go further than Randle, Estes and Cone, who confined their critique to stating that the abductionologists had simply not proven their case. In my view, this has become an Alien Abduction Cult (of personality), aided and abetted by some in ufology who should know better. The abductionologists themselves are beyond irresponsible - they are dangerous, causing real pain and suffering to people who in at least some cases no doubt need real help.

Perhaps it's high time that the proper authorities take a closer look, not at "alien abductions", but rather at those who claim to be investigating them, because, with one or two notable and courageous exceptions like Kevin, "ufology" has proven itself wholly unwilling to confront the creators and purveyors of the Alien Abduction Cult.

Meanwhile, the ultimate irony for anomalists is that, should there really be a paranormal element to a few of these "abduction" cases, the Alien Abduction Cult has so muddied the waters with their bunk that it will be almost impossible to ever chart a different course.

Paul Kimball

Clouding The Issue

You'll often hear ufologists dismiss out of hand the possibility that some UFO cases might be misidentifications of clouds. Indeed, on your average day, should you glance up at the sky, you'll see average clouds, and think to yourself, "well, no-one could ever mistake those for a UFO."

And you would probably be right.

But what about a cloud like the one pictured below, perhaps seen from a distance?

Lenticular clouds like this one (and others you can see at this really nifty site - a few remind me of Cylon baseships!) can indeed be mistaken for a UFO - particularly of the very large, slow moving "mothership" kind.

Does that mean that all UFOs are clouds?

Of course not. It just means that the idea that some UFO's are clouds is not as silly as it might at first seem.

Addendum: By the way, New Scientist had a short article with the same title, about the same subject, back in October. I didn't know that when I first posted this - a weird synchronicity.

Paul Kimball

November, the Midwest United States, Weather, Holes in the Sky, and UFOs

For those who have quickly dismissed the weather explanation for the November 7, 2006 O'Hare UFO sighting, that is all the rage these days in the world of ufology (and has even made a mark in the mainstream media), you might want to have a look-see at this, which was sent to me by a pilot friend of mine. You can see plenty of "fallstreak cloud" pictures here.

You can go here as well.

And here.

And here - scroll down to the question "how do holes form in clouds?" Note the answer, and then consider where the UFO was sighted on November 7th.

An interesting analysis can be found here (scroll down to January 3rd).

Again, I don't know if what the O'Hare witnesses saw was a weather phenomenon, but before one brushes aside official explanations in favour of aliens, or whatever, one should at least wait to hear from meteorologists and other experts, and examine all the evidence - including what appear to me to be sharply conflicting witness reports (6 feet in diameter to 24 feet in diameter, spinning / rotating vs. not spinning / rotating), which are always problematic.

Or is it too much to ask people to just calm down, and proceed rationally?

Meanwhile, I hear that Dr. Richard Haines is quietly investigating the O'Hare case, as opposed to popping up all over the media like Peter Davenport, making unsubstantiated claims of a cover-up. Indeed, all this media coverage is hardly conducive to convincing witnesses to come forward.

There is a right way and a wrong way to proceed with a proper investigation.

Paul Kimball

The Singularity & ET - Is "It", and are "They", near?

If even ten per cent of what Kurzweil predicts happens in our lifetimes, we're in for a wild, wild ride!

As it relates to UFOs, however, given where we may soon be going (or we may already be there), do you really think aliens hundreds, or thousands, of years more advanced than us are visiting Earth as biological entities?

It just doesn't make sense. AI? Possibly. Biological beings? Hard to believe.

In the end, it might not matter. But consider this - in terms of "contact", what if the "aliens" are simply waiting for us to take the leap - not into space, but into our own future, where we become like them?

The more one stops to think about it, the very notion of extraterrestrial biological entities visiting us borders on the ridiculous when compared with the prospect of some form of AI.

Food for thought.

Paul Kimball

2006 Zorgy Awards

"Being for the benefit of Mr. Kite, there will be a show tonight..."
- John Lennon & Paul McCartney

Ladies and gentlemen, aliens, extra-dimensional creatures, cryptoterrestrials, temporal travellers, and ultraterrestrials, welcome to the 2006 Zorgy Awards presentation ceremony.

The votes have been cast, over a two month period, and the results are in. Thanks to the hundreds of people who popped by to vote.

There were no hanging chads, and the Supreme Court of The Other Side of Truth (where Kal Korff has never testified as a witness) has certified the results. You, the people, have spoken. Without further ado, I know turn proceedings over to Rear Admiral Zorgrot.

Hello earthpeople - Happy New Year (well, it's a new year for you at any rate - back on my planet, it's the middle of what you would call summer).

I am proud to lend my name to these august awards... well, not really, but Earthman Kimball paid me, so here I am. After all, an alien explorer has to eat!

Here are the results:

Best UFO / paranormal website
[Magazine]

2006 Zorgy Winner
Sub Rosa - 251 votes (59%)

Book of Thoth - 98 votes (23%)
UFO Review - 76 votes (18%)

Best UFO / paranormal
website [forums]

2006 Zorgy Winner
Book of Thoth - 149 votes (65%)

Binnall of America Forums - 43 votes (35%)
UFO Planet - 36 votes (16%)

Best UFO / paranormal website [news summary]

2006 Zorgy Winner
The Daily Grail - 319 votes (76%)

The Anomalist - 57 votes (14%)
UFO Review - 41 votes (10%)

Best UFO / paranormal blog

2006 Zorgy Winner
Posthuman Blues (Mac Tonnies) - 69 votes (46%)

A Different Perspective (Kevin Randle) - 47 votes (32%)
The Orange Orb (Regan Lee) - 33 votes (22%)

Best UFO / paranormal radio show

2006 Zorgy Winner
The X-Zone (Rob McConnell) - 255 votes (58%)

Coast 2 Coast (Noory, Bell, Punnett) - 147 votes (34%)
Strange Days... Indeed (Errol Bruce-Knapp) - 35 votes (8%)

Best UFO / paranormal "Trouble-Maker"

2006 Zorgy Winner
Alfred Lehmberg - 91 votes (49%)

Nick Redfern - 62 votes (34%)
"Arthur" - 32 votes (17%)

Best UFO Podcast

2006 Zorgy Winner
Binnall of America - 96 votes (45%)

The Paracast - 87 votes (41%)
Jerry Pippin Show - 28 votes (14%)

Best UFO / paranormal publication (print)

2006 Zorgy Winner
Fortean Times - 104 votes (56%)

UFO Magazine - 49 votes (26%)
Saucer Smear - 33 votes (18%)

Best UFO / paranormal research website

2006 Zorgy Winner
The Black Vault - 79 votes (54%)

The Project Blue Book Archive - 58 votes (39%)
Project 1947 - 10 votes (7%)

Best Ufologist

2006 Zorgy Winner
Stanton T. Friedman - 122 votes (53%)

Linda Moulton Howe - 62 votes (27%)
Nick Redfern - 47 votes (20%)

The Pelicanist of the Year Award

2006 Winner
Michael Shermer - 50 votes (45%)

Rod Brock - 24 votes (22%)
John Rimmer - 15 votes (14%)
Aaron Sakulich - 14 votes (13%)
John Harney - 4 votes (4%)
Tim Printy - 3 votes (2%)

The George Adamski Memorial Award

2006 Winner
Richard C. Hoagland - 68 votes (40%)

Dr. Steven Greer - 46 votes (27%)
Michael Horn - 21 votes (12%)
Dr. Michael Salla - 21 votes (12%)
Dr. Richard Boylan - 16 votes (9%)

There it is folks - your 2006 Zorgy award results. Congratulations to the winners, and well-played by the rest of you.

I now return you to Earthman Kimball!

Quack!!!!

Zorgrot,
Rear Admiral

A few final thoughts:

The closest vote was for the Podcast award, between the early front-runner BoA, and newcomers The Paracast. I expect that both shows will be nominated again next year.

The folks at The Daily Grail / Sub-Rosa and the X-Zone are the Karl Roves of the paranormal world, i.e. they know how to get the vote out. Impressive.

Exopoliticians might get a lot of ufological press, but Hoagland, the "science advisor" for Coast 2 Coast, still rules. George Adamski would be proud (who knows - maybe George dropped off the robot head on the moon during one of his visits).

Alfred Lehmberg won the "Trouble-maker" award. Is that good or bad? Depends on how you define "trouble-maker", but for me it means the person who stirs things up, and gets under people's skin. You could easily substitute "agitator" for "trouble-maker". Regardless, Mr. Lehmberg is a deserving winner - and I mean that, more or less, in a good way!

And that's it, folks. Thanks again to everyone who voted, and we'll do it all again a year from now!

Paul Kimball