Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Friedman on NASA
Stan Friedman discusses NASA, the space program, and space exploration in this clip from a pre-interview I conducted with him in May, 2001, for the documentary Stanton T. Friedman is Real.
I don't agree with Stan on much when it comes to UFOs, but we are on the same page when it comes to space exploration.
Paul Kimball
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Roswell
Lately, the Roswell case has been the subject of discussion at a number of places, most notably Kevin Randle's blog A Different Perspective and the UFO Iconoclasts blog.
Roswell is a subject that I've addressed here in the past, particularly in The End of Roswellism and the Creation of a Ufological Third Way, wherein I talk about why the fixation with Roswell by UFO researchers has had a negative impact on serious UFO research. My conclusion about Roswell, and Roswellism (i.e. crashed flying saucers, government conspiracy stories, and the like), has not changed. I wrote:
There is no harm in a continued discussion of Roswell; I just don't think it's particularly productive, especially when that debate usually remains focused solely on the crashed flying saucer(s) vs. Project Mogul positions, with no new research on either side being offered; rather, it's just a re-hash of old positions with which everyone is pretty much familiar. The one guy who is doing new research into the Roswell case, Nick Redfern, is almost never mentioned. It's like a bar argument between old timer Red Sox and Yankees fans - they don't care about the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, even though they're the team that actually made the World Series this year. The argument isn't about the actual fact or fiction of the Roswell case anymore; it's about the tribal instincts of each camp of followers, whether Mogul or alien. The questions that pop up are ones like: "who was the bigger liar, Charles Moore or Jesse Marcel, Sr.?" What both sides miss is that neither Moore not Marcel are very credible sources, but then their "debate" is not really about credibility, which would imply that there is an actual search for the truth involved. Rather, it's about defending their well-established positions. It is the intellectual equivalent of trench warfare.
So what is the answer when it comes to Roswell? It may be Mogul, but there are a number of flaws with that story. It may be aliens, but there are even more problems with the crashed flying saucer story than Mogul. Nick may well be on to something with his "third way". Although I think the witnesses presented in his book "Body Snatchers in the Desert" were problematic in many respects, he could well be right that the answer to Roswell lies in an explanation that comes from terra firma, but which represents a shameful secret that the United States government would still work to cover-up over sixty years later. You can follow his work at his blog, Darkness in the Desert.
The real answer, however, is that even if the truth was revealed, many people would still reject it. Roswell has become the stuff of legend, and arguments between fans of "this" theory or "that" theory. The truth doesn't really matter anymore; perhaps it never did. Perhaps what really matters is the telling of the story, and what it says about us and our capacity for creating our own "truths".
Paul Kimball
Roswell is a subject that I've addressed here in the past, particularly in The End of Roswellism and the Creation of a Ufological Third Way, wherein I talk about why the fixation with Roswell by UFO researchers has had a negative impact on serious UFO research. My conclusion about Roswell, and Roswellism (i.e. crashed flying saucers, government conspiracy stories, and the like), has not changed. I wrote:
What ufology needs, and has started to get in the past few years, is a “Third Way” of its own. My own version of this Ufological Third Way – which marks the end of Roswellism – is as follows:I also addressed Roswell, and Roswellism, seven years ago in my documentary, Stanton T. Friedman is Real:
1. Roswell is but one case. There are many others which provide more compelling evidence that the UFO phenomenon is real, and worthy of serious scientific, historical, journalistic and political attention.
2. Roswell remains unsolved, but is worthy of continued objective investigation until an explanation is finally proved.
3. The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is a very plausible explanation for the UFO phenomenon, and is worthy of serious scientific consideration, but remains unproved. Further, other possible explanations, including time travel, extra-dimensional travel, and the prospect that UFOs are terrestrial phenomena and devices of which we may or may not be aware, also deserve study and consideration.
4. The American government has not released all information it has pertaining to the UFO phenomenon; this is not proof, however, of a conspiracy of silence / Cosmic Watergate to keep the “truth” about extraterrestrial visitors / crashes from the public.
There is no harm in a continued discussion of Roswell; I just don't think it's particularly productive, especially when that debate usually remains focused solely on the crashed flying saucer(s) vs. Project Mogul positions, with no new research on either side being offered; rather, it's just a re-hash of old positions with which everyone is pretty much familiar. The one guy who is doing new research into the Roswell case, Nick Redfern, is almost never mentioned. It's like a bar argument between old timer Red Sox and Yankees fans - they don't care about the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, even though they're the team that actually made the World Series this year. The argument isn't about the actual fact or fiction of the Roswell case anymore; it's about the tribal instincts of each camp of followers, whether Mogul or alien. The questions that pop up are ones like: "who was the bigger liar, Charles Moore or Jesse Marcel, Sr.?" What both sides miss is that neither Moore not Marcel are very credible sources, but then their "debate" is not really about credibility, which would imply that there is an actual search for the truth involved. Rather, it's about defending their well-established positions. It is the intellectual equivalent of trench warfare.
So what is the answer when it comes to Roswell? It may be Mogul, but there are a number of flaws with that story. It may be aliens, but there are even more problems with the crashed flying saucer story than Mogul. Nick may well be on to something with his "third way". Although I think the witnesses presented in his book "Body Snatchers in the Desert" were problematic in many respects, he could well be right that the answer to Roswell lies in an explanation that comes from terra firma, but which represents a shameful secret that the United States government would still work to cover-up over sixty years later. You can follow his work at his blog, Darkness in the Desert.
The real answer, however, is that even if the truth was revealed, many people would still reject it. Roswell has become the stuff of legend, and arguments between fans of "this" theory or "that" theory. The truth doesn't really matter anymore; perhaps it never did. Perhaps what really matters is the telling of the story, and what it says about us and our capacity for creating our own "truths".
Paul Kimball
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Friedman on Sagan, science and UFOs
This is a clip from the pre-interview I did with Stan Friedman in May, 2001, prior to the making of the documentary Stanton T. Friedman is Real. In this part, Friedman discusses Dr. Carl Sagan, science, and UFOs.
Paul Kimball
Kimball on UFOs and Filmmaking
I appeared on the Eastlink program Aperture Atlantic this past season to discuss my career, filmmaking, and so forth. It seems I can't do an interview without the subject of UFOs coming up - this clip shows that segment, along with some remarks about the YouTube generation and UFO filmmaking.
Paul Kimball
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Some Sage Advice
The late Karl Pflock, in an interview I conducted with him on September 9, 2001, talking about what's wrong with UFO research.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Ghosts, UFOs and the Holographic Universe
In a post at his must-read blog UFO Mystic, which he co-writes with Nick Redfern, my good pal Greg Bishop has this to say about the UFO phenomenon:
If ghosts exist - and I am still far from convinced that they do - I suspect that they have far more to do with the kind of phenomenon that Greg is talking about, than the traditional idea that they represent the spirits of the dead. I am also open to the theory of residual hauntings, i.e. that an event has been recorded which at a particular place which plays itself back to people in the present day, so that an "impression" remains, but not of a person's consciousness.
Paul Kimball
In Michael Talbot’s seminal book The Holographic Universe, we find a clue to secrets about the UFO problem which mainstream Ufology has ignored. Talbot, looking at the work of physicists like Alain Aspect and David Bohm, posits that reality, the universe, and everything is akin to an infinite hologram, in which all things contain complete information about all other things.Greg has raised the point in a comment on another post here that this same theory may apply to the phenomenon we call "ghosts". In some ways this ties in, as Greg noted, with my idea that ghosts may represent a form of "time travel", or at least a kind of temporal remote viewing.
What physicists call the “quantum field,” is also the “collective unconscious” of Jung, where archetypes arise, and where spontaneous and simultaneous events occur, independent of distance. Western occultists are convinced that this realm is where everything we experience (both in waking and dream states) resides, but we are only seeing and sensing a small piece of what it truly “is.” This “dimension” is not bound by time, space or our attempts to understand and more importantly, to explain it. Language traps us in a conceptual web of illusions, at least as far as this symbolic realm is concerned. We may imagine that our reality could be a sort of shadow or epiphenomenon of this holographic dimension, looked at through a mental web of expectations, sensory input, and our illusory flow through time.
I would like to suggest that this is where the intelligence behind the UFO phenomenon “resides.” Perhaps this intelligence is dependent on the observer for its form and appearance. Maybe the ufonauts are implicit in this realm or hologram or idea-space, and need only other sentient intelligences to bring them into being. The interaction becomes the existence. What I am trying to get across here is that at least part of the UFO “problem” may be in our heads. Most of us, through cultural conditioning and input from our senses look at the physical universe as parts or pieces of some sort of infinite “machine.”
If ghosts exist - and I am still far from convinced that they do - I suspect that they have far more to do with the kind of phenomenon that Greg is talking about, than the traditional idea that they represent the spirits of the dead. I am also open to the theory of residual hauntings, i.e. that an event has been recorded which at a particular place which plays itself back to people in the present day, so that an "impression" remains, but not of a person's consciousness.
Paul Kimball
Friday, January 23, 2009
Ghosts and Time Travel
Assume for the moment that ghosts are real, in the sense that they represent an anomalous, paranormal phenomenon (or at least some of them do). As with UFOs, that begs the question: what are they?
Again, as with UFOs, there may well be myriad answers. The one that most people latch onto right off the bat is that ghosts are the spirits of deceased people who remain in touch, somehow, with our plane of existence. The other popular answer that I hear most often is that what we think of as ghosts are, in at least some cases, demons of some sort.
Perhaps. But what if ghosts are something else? Could it be possible that what we see or experience as a ghost represents a break in the continuum of time? In other words, if we view time as not a linear construct, but rather a wave, or even a loop, could we be looking backwards (or perhaps even forwards) in time when we observe a ghost, or similar phenomena? The person we see or experience, assuming that they are from the past, is in all likelihood dead (although if it's the recent past they may well still be alive, in our time), but as we observe them it is as if through a portal, fleeting though it may be, to the past - in short, they are still alive when we are looking at them, at least in their time.
This strikes me as just as plausible an answer for ghosts than the "spirits of the dead" idea (although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Religious scholars have always spoken about some manifestation of an "eternal now" (Henry Alline, who I studied in college, was one; Paul Tillich was another - see here). Scientists now openly speculate that human-initiated time travel in some form or another might be possible. But what if the "time travel" is occurring naturally, as opposed to the human-created forms we usually dream about?
Maybe, just maybe, when we see a manifestation of someone dressed as if they were in the 1890s, they really are still in the 1890s... even as they are, for a moment in time, also in 2009.
Paul Kimball
Again, as with UFOs, there may well be myriad answers. The one that most people latch onto right off the bat is that ghosts are the spirits of deceased people who remain in touch, somehow, with our plane of existence. The other popular answer that I hear most often is that what we think of as ghosts are, in at least some cases, demons of some sort.
Perhaps. But what if ghosts are something else? Could it be possible that what we see or experience as a ghost represents a break in the continuum of time? In other words, if we view time as not a linear construct, but rather a wave, or even a loop, could we be looking backwards (or perhaps even forwards) in time when we observe a ghost, or similar phenomena? The person we see or experience, assuming that they are from the past, is in all likelihood dead (although if it's the recent past they may well still be alive, in our time), but as we observe them it is as if through a portal, fleeting though it may be, to the past - in short, they are still alive when we are looking at them, at least in their time.
This strikes me as just as plausible an answer for ghosts than the "spirits of the dead" idea (although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Religious scholars have always spoken about some manifestation of an "eternal now" (Henry Alline, who I studied in college, was one; Paul Tillich was another - see here). Scientists now openly speculate that human-initiated time travel in some form or another might be possible. But what if the "time travel" is occurring naturally, as opposed to the human-created forms we usually dream about?
Maybe, just maybe, when we see a manifestation of someone dressed as if they were in the 1890s, they really are still in the 1890s... even as they are, for a moment in time, also in 2009.
Paul Kimball
Monday, January 05, 2009
The 2008 Zorgy Awards
The polls are now closed, and the results are in - here are your winners, and everyone else:
Top Podcast (378 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award winner
Binnall of America - 196 votes (52%)
Others
The Paracast - 114 votes (30%)
Strange Days Indeed - 42 votes (11%)
Radio Misterioso - 20 votes (5%)
Culture of Contact - 6 votes (2%)
Paul Kimball's pick
Strange Days Indeed
Top Troublemaker (179 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
David Biedny - 88 votes (49%)
Others
James W. Moseley - 37 votes (21%)
Alfred Lehmberg - 20 votes (11%)
Jeremy Vaeni - 18 votes (10%)
Rich Reynolds - 16 votes (9%)
Paul Kimball's pick
James W. Moseley
Top Publication (285 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
Fortean Times - 133 votes (47%)
Others
UFO Magazine - 65 votes (23%)
Fate - 44 votes (15%)
Alien Worlds - 26 votes (9%)
Saucer Smear - 17 votes (6%)
Paul Kimball's pick
Alien Worlds
Top Podcast (378 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award winner
Binnall of America - 196 votes (52%)
Others
The Paracast - 114 votes (30%)
Strange Days Indeed - 42 votes (11%)
Radio Misterioso - 20 votes (5%)
Culture of Contact - 6 votes (2%)
Paul Kimball's pick
Strange Days Indeed
Top Troublemaker (179 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
David Biedny - 88 votes (49%)
Others
James W. Moseley - 37 votes (21%)
Alfred Lehmberg - 20 votes (11%)
Jeremy Vaeni - 18 votes (10%)
Rich Reynolds - 16 votes (9%)
Paul Kimball's pick
James W. Moseley
Top Publication (285 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
Fortean Times - 133 votes (47%)
Others
UFO Magazine - 65 votes (23%)
Fate - 44 votes (15%)
Alien Worlds - 26 votes (9%)
Saucer Smear - 17 votes (6%)
Paul Kimball's pick
Alien Worlds
Top Paranormal Researcher (557 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
Loren Coleman - 275 votes (49%)
Others
Stanton T. Friedman - 95 votes (17%)
Nick Redfern - 82 votes (15%)
Jeff Belanger - 70 votes (13%)
Nick Pope - 35 votes (6%)
Paul Kimball's pick
Nick Redfern
Top Messageboard (613 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
Above Top Secret - 448 votes (73%)
Others
The Paracast - 65 (11%)
Binnall of America's USofE - 49 votes (8%)
Book of Thoth - 43 votes (7%)
Department 47 - 8 votes (1%)
Paul Kimball's pick
Department 47
Top Blog (205 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
UFO Mystic - 107 votes (52%)
Others
Posthuman Blues - 49 votes (24%)
Entangled Minds - 25 votes (12%)
A Different Perspective - 14 votes (7%)
aboutSeti - 10 votes (5%)
Paul Kimball's pick
Posthuman Blues
Top Paranormal News Service (420 total votes)
2008 Zorgy Award Winner
The Daily Grail - 301 votes (72%)
Others
The Anomalist - 75 votes (18%)
The Debris Field - 25 votes (6%)
Alien Worlds - 14 votes (3%)
The Keyhoe Report - 5 votes (1%)
Paul Kimball's pick
The Daily Grail
And so it goes. Winners are entitled to proudly display the 2008 Zorgy Award Winner seal, which is forthcoming this week. Thanks to everyone who popped by to vote - see you again next year!
Paul Kimball
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Original Shag Harbour UFO Story
Ray MacLeod was a reporter for the Halifax Chronicle Herald in 1967, and was the man who initially covered the Shag Harbour UFO incident. His recollection of the events, his reportage, his thoughts on why he was pulled from the story, and his original article, can be seen at MacLeod's blog "Ray's Place".
Part 1
Part 2
An excerpt:
Interesting stuff from the first guy to cover the story.
Paul Kimball
Part 1
Part 2
An excerpt:
I arrived early Sunday night to start following leads on the Shag Harbour story. I was told management (above the managing editor level) had taken me off and arranged for Bentley to do all follow-ups “because we feel we can handle it better on dayside.” On the quiet, I was told David would have specific instructions and direct supervision. The next day, I ran into Bentley as the shifts changed. He drew me aside and apologized profusely, saying it wasn’t his idea and he didn’t like the smell of it. I asked him why he had not followed up some of my contacts, including RCAF Squadron Leader Bain in Ottawa whose comment had been used for my headline. Bentley stared at me and said Bain did not exist. I was never sure how to take that.More information on his editor at the time, David Bentley, can be found here.
Interesting stuff from the first guy to cover the story.
Paul Kimball
New Menzel / MJ-12 theory
Well, not new exactly... something I noticed about three years ago, that might have a bearing on whether Donald H. Menzel could have been a member of the alleged UFO cover-up group MJ-12, as Stanton Friedman has long maintained was the case.
Check the number of letters in Menzel's full name:
Donald - 6
Howard - 6
Menzel - 6
Donald Howard Menzel = 666!
The number of the beast!! Not only was Menzel a member of MJ-12, he was apparently also the anti-Christ!!
I'm shocked that Friedman missed this. Shocked.
Paul Kimball
Check the number of letters in Menzel's full name:
Donald - 6
Howard - 6
Menzel - 6
Donald Howard Menzel = 666!
The number of the beast!! Not only was Menzel a member of MJ-12, he was apparently also the anti-Christ!!
I'm shocked that Friedman missed this. Shocked.
Paul Kimball
Friday, December 26, 2008
2008 Zorgy Awards
This year Rear Admiral Zorgrot and I have decided on the nominations ourselves (as we did in 2006), but as always we leave the voting to you! The polls will close on January 4, 2009.
Let the voting commence!
Paul Kimball
Sunday, November 30, 2008
"Hunting" UFOs
History matters. We can learn a great deal from the past, and anyone who thinks otherwise would be well served to keep the famous quote by Santayana in mind: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
On the other hand, one can spend too much time looking for answers to present problems in the past. The worst kind of general is the one who assumes that a current war is going to be fought like the last one - millions of men died from 1914 to 1918 because their leaders made assumptions like that.
So, where does that leave the study / investigation of the UFO phenomenon, which seems mired in the past, as UFO researchers continue to debate cases that are decades old? Is there a way to move forward, while at the same time building on the work that has come before?
Maybe, but the first thing that people are going to have to recognize is that the old model of after-the-fact investigation is inherently flawed, and will never lead to real answers. This method is based on eyewitness testimony which, while useful to a point, just doesn't provide enough reliable information upon which one can build a solid, working hypothesis, much less draw an irrefutable conclusion. No matter what UFO researchers will tell you, eyewitness testimony is always questionable. Stan Friedman likes to say that people are good observers, but poor interpreters of what they saw, but that's not true - most people aren't good observers, including pilots and police officers and military personnel, the three most oft-cited professions of quality eyewitnesses. There are exceptions, of course, such as the Santa Barbara Channel case of 1953, where you had two groups of very good witnesses seeing the same thing independent of each other, but these kinds of cases are rare.
What is needed is measurable data. What makes the RB47 case from 1957 so valuable is that you have not only eyewitness testimony, but multiple corroborative radar and electronic monitoring data. It still won't tell you what the UFO involved was, but it makes it impossible for anyone but the most fundamentalist of debunkers to claim with a straight face that there was nothing anomalous about the case that is worth investigation and consideration.
The problem is that UFOs don't appear on command. For sixty years the pattern has pretty much been that a sighting happens, i.e. people see something, and then investigators of varying degrees of competence show up after the fact to talk to them. Roswell epitomizes this flawed methodology in the worst possible way, given that the investigation didn't actually start until 30 years had passed.
UFO researchers can't rely on the government for their data either.
So where do they get it from?
I would suggest that the serious researcher take their cue from people who investigate ghosts and hauntings. I've worked with some good ones recently, and I'm engaged in investigations myself as we film our ghost investigation series. We're not trained scientists, but we can still gather data by actually going to the allegedly haunted site and setting up cameras and audio recorders and so forth. Upon review of one case we recently investigated, we discovered multiple instances of anomalous audio data that seems to corroborate an eyewitness story we were told, as well as what at the moment appears to be some very interesting video data which we're still analyzing.
A haunted house is a bit easier to cover than UFOs, of course, because it's one specific location, but the same general methodology could be employed in any area that is known to experience UFO sightings. MUFON, for example, could direct its resources towards the equipping of a rapid response field research team that could travel directly to an area in the United States (and perhaps Canada) that is in the midst of a UFO "flap" or "wave". Or it could set up a team in the New Mexico desert for a month or so to monitor the sky for any anomalous events. With alleged alien abductees, surely someone could set up a monitoring system over a prolonged period of time to see if anything really was happening. And so on.
There are plenty of bright people interested in the UFO phenomenon. If they really want to get some answers, however, it's time they re-thought the way that they approached the investigation of the enigma. In short, it's time they stopped fighting the last war, with outdated tactics, and looked to new ways of gathering useful data which may actually yield some answers.
Paul Kimball
On the other hand, one can spend too much time looking for answers to present problems in the past. The worst kind of general is the one who assumes that a current war is going to be fought like the last one - millions of men died from 1914 to 1918 because their leaders made assumptions like that.
So, where does that leave the study / investigation of the UFO phenomenon, which seems mired in the past, as UFO researchers continue to debate cases that are decades old? Is there a way to move forward, while at the same time building on the work that has come before?
Maybe, but the first thing that people are going to have to recognize is that the old model of after-the-fact investigation is inherently flawed, and will never lead to real answers. This method is based on eyewitness testimony which, while useful to a point, just doesn't provide enough reliable information upon which one can build a solid, working hypothesis, much less draw an irrefutable conclusion. No matter what UFO researchers will tell you, eyewitness testimony is always questionable. Stan Friedman likes to say that people are good observers, but poor interpreters of what they saw, but that's not true - most people aren't good observers, including pilots and police officers and military personnel, the three most oft-cited professions of quality eyewitnesses. There are exceptions, of course, such as the Santa Barbara Channel case of 1953, where you had two groups of very good witnesses seeing the same thing independent of each other, but these kinds of cases are rare.
What is needed is measurable data. What makes the RB47 case from 1957 so valuable is that you have not only eyewitness testimony, but multiple corroborative radar and electronic monitoring data. It still won't tell you what the UFO involved was, but it makes it impossible for anyone but the most fundamentalist of debunkers to claim with a straight face that there was nothing anomalous about the case that is worth investigation and consideration.
The problem is that UFOs don't appear on command. For sixty years the pattern has pretty much been that a sighting happens, i.e. people see something, and then investigators of varying degrees of competence show up after the fact to talk to them. Roswell epitomizes this flawed methodology in the worst possible way, given that the investigation didn't actually start until 30 years had passed.
UFO researchers can't rely on the government for their data either.
So where do they get it from?
I would suggest that the serious researcher take their cue from people who investigate ghosts and hauntings. I've worked with some good ones recently, and I'm engaged in investigations myself as we film our ghost investigation series. We're not trained scientists, but we can still gather data by actually going to the allegedly haunted site and setting up cameras and audio recorders and so forth. Upon review of one case we recently investigated, we discovered multiple instances of anomalous audio data that seems to corroborate an eyewitness story we were told, as well as what at the moment appears to be some very interesting video data which we're still analyzing.
A haunted house is a bit easier to cover than UFOs, of course, because it's one specific location, but the same general methodology could be employed in any area that is known to experience UFO sightings. MUFON, for example, could direct its resources towards the equipping of a rapid response field research team that could travel directly to an area in the United States (and perhaps Canada) that is in the midst of a UFO "flap" or "wave". Or it could set up a team in the New Mexico desert for a month or so to monitor the sky for any anomalous events. With alleged alien abductees, surely someone could set up a monitoring system over a prolonged period of time to see if anything really was happening. And so on.
There are plenty of bright people interested in the UFO phenomenon. If they really want to get some answers, however, it's time they re-thought the way that they approached the investigation of the enigma. In short, it's time they stopped fighting the last war, with outdated tactics, and looked to new ways of gathering useful data which may actually yield some answers.
Paul Kimball
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Wishful Thinking
Assume for the sake of argument that the Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis is correct, and that at least a few UFO sightings are the result of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth.
Are they friendly?
Many ETH advocates would say "yes, of course they're friendly" - they run the gamut from the more serious types, like Stan Friedman, who talks of the day when we may qualify for some benevolent "Cosmic Kindergarten" of higher awareness, and the less serious types, such as Steven Greer and most of the exopols.
They usually base this second assumption on a line of reasoning that goes something like this: aliens are obviously more advanced than us, in order to be able to get here from "there", so they must have survived their own nuclear age, or equivalent, which means they must be peaceful.
This kind of wishful thinking has pervaded "ufology" ever since the days of the original Contactees, and their pals the Space Brothers.
But why would an advanced civilization necessarily be benevolent, or peaceful?
Perhaps they did indeed survive their nuclear age, but for a different reason - they fought a nuclear war, and someone won. It could have happened here. Oh, sure, it wouldn't be a win for the people at the time, but in the long term, depending upon who your leaders are, maybe it would be a win in a strategic sense. Wipe out the rest of the Earth, and wait it out underground for a while, or something like that. There are people who would see in that scenario a victory, and in the long run, say a thousand years or so, maybe they would be right.
Or maybe that advanced civilization is a technologically-based fascistic society, where human (er... alien) rights have been slowly done away with, not by war, but by the same kind of slow erosion that we sometimes seem to be dealing with today.
Or maybe they had their equivalent of a Second World War, and the bad guys won. It could have happened here.
Or maybe their species is just plain bad, or at the very least amoral, as far as we would be concerned.
Or... well, you get the picture.
Ufologists aren't the only ones making this inherently naive assumption - anyone sending a signal out into the galactic ether looking for contact is making the same assumption, based on the same wishful thinking... and someday could be in for the same rude awakening.
For those who think I'm too pessimistic, I can say only that I've found it wise to live my life by the following maxim: better to be pleasantly surprised than rudely awakened.
Paul Kimball
Are they friendly?
Many ETH advocates would say "yes, of course they're friendly" - they run the gamut from the more serious types, like Stan Friedman, who talks of the day when we may qualify for some benevolent "Cosmic Kindergarten" of higher awareness, and the less serious types, such as Steven Greer and most of the exopols.
They usually base this second assumption on a line of reasoning that goes something like this: aliens are obviously more advanced than us, in order to be able to get here from "there", so they must have survived their own nuclear age, or equivalent, which means they must be peaceful.
This kind of wishful thinking has pervaded "ufology" ever since the days of the original Contactees, and their pals the Space Brothers.
But why would an advanced civilization necessarily be benevolent, or peaceful?
Perhaps they did indeed survive their nuclear age, but for a different reason - they fought a nuclear war, and someone won. It could have happened here. Oh, sure, it wouldn't be a win for the people at the time, but in the long term, depending upon who your leaders are, maybe it would be a win in a strategic sense. Wipe out the rest of the Earth, and wait it out underground for a while, or something like that. There are people who would see in that scenario a victory, and in the long run, say a thousand years or so, maybe they would be right.
Or maybe that advanced civilization is a technologically-based fascistic society, where human (er... alien) rights have been slowly done away with, not by war, but by the same kind of slow erosion that we sometimes seem to be dealing with today.
Or maybe they had their equivalent of a Second World War, and the bad guys won. It could have happened here.
Or maybe their species is just plain bad, or at the very least amoral, as far as we would be concerned.
Or... well, you get the picture.
Ufologists aren't the only ones making this inherently naive assumption - anyone sending a signal out into the galactic ether looking for contact is making the same assumption, based on the same wishful thinking... and someday could be in for the same rude awakening.
For those who think I'm too pessimistic, I can say only that I've found it wise to live my life by the following maxim: better to be pleasantly surprised than rudely awakened.
Paul Kimball
Thursday, July 24, 2008
What The Public Doesn't Know... Vol. I
This blog is over three years old now. In the early days, when a lot of my research into Wilbert Smith was published, there weren't more than a few dozen readers per day; the numbers have increased significantly since then. I've decided, largely as a result of Stan Friedman's accusation in his latest book Flying Saucers and Science that my views on Smith are nothing more than character assassination, to re-publish those old columns as an ongoing series under the title "What the Public Doesn't Know...", based on one of Friedman's four rules for debunkers (what the public doesn't know, don't tell them), which he himself employs on a regular basis. Friedman misrepresents my views and research (as well as the research of Brad Sparks), and then labels it as character assassination, instead of confronting the facts that he doesn't want you to know about. I figure you should hear the other side of the truth, as it were.
If after weighing all of the evidence, people still want to accept that Smith was the recipient of legitimate super-secret information about flying saucers from Dr. Robert Sarbacher, and that he really did run a super-secret flying saucer program in Canada, as Friedman would have you believe, that's fine - everyone is entitled to their opinion. But unlike Friedman, I'm a big believer that it should be an informed opinion, where all of the evidence is looked at in context.
So here is part 1 of the facts that Stan Friedman doesn't want you to know about when it comes to Wilbert Smith.
Wilbert Smith & the Department of Transport in 1950
(originally published 17 June, 2005)
I think it's important for people to understand just where Wilbert B. Smith fit in the governmental pecking order in 1950 when he met with Dr. Robert Sarbacher and was supposedly given information that was classified even higher than the H-Bomb.
On the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words, and because some ufologists have to be both led to the water, and then made to drink (and, in some cases, told what the water is), here is an organizational chart I put together of the Canadian Department of Transport in 1950, showing exactly where Smith fit in.
Note that this chart does not include all of the various civil servants from the other sections, like Meteorology or Canal Services, that would have been further up the proverbial food chain than Smith.
Now, I admit that we do things a bit different up here in Canada than our cousins in the United States, but not so differently that we would put someone like Wilbert Smith, a mid level (to be generous) civil servant in the Department of Transport, in charge of our flying saucer study. The fellas in the Department of Defence, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (in charge of foreign and domestic intelligence) would have been, to say the least, a little "miffed."
So, one more time, here is what the pro-Smith ufologists are saying - Wilbert Smith, senior radio regulations engineer, was "in the know" about the biggest secret out there, while hundreds of senior American generals, admirals, scientists and officials were not.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing...
Wilbert Smith & The Department of Transport - Expenditures, 1950
(originally published 17 June, 2005)
As the old journalistic axiom goes, if you want to find the truth, follow the money.
If the question relates to just how important Wilbert Smith's work for the Department of Transport was in 1950, therefore, one should take a look at the Departmental expenditures, and see how much was devoted to Smith's section.
Here are the relevant figures from the Department of Transport (Canada) Annual Report, 1950 - 1951 (for the fiscal year ending 31 March 1951):
Total Department Expenditures - $ 78,901,296.55
Total Air Services Expenditures - $ 33,557,017.95
Total Telecommunications Division Expenditures - $ 10,458,484.61
Total Administration of Radio Act and Regulations Expenditures - $ 867,095.11
So, from the above we can see that the section in which Smith worked (Radio Act and Regulations) received the following:
- 1.10 % of total department expenditures
- 2.58 % of total section expenditures (Telecommunications Division being part of the Air Services Section)
- 8.29 % of total division expenditures (Radio Act and Regulations being a subsection of Telecommunications Division)
Contrast these expenditures with others that were far greater:
- $ 4,248,357.51 for Canal Services, Operation and Maintenance
- $ 4,064,678.03 for Aviation Radio Aids, Operation and Maintenance
- $ 1,216,860.25 for Telegraph and Telephone Service, Administration, Operation & Maintenance
- $ 6,413,037.11 for Airways and Airports, Construction and Improvement
- $ 1,087,573.81 for Departmental Administration
This is not to suggest that the work Smith's section did was unimportant; however, it does show that it was just a very small part of a very big operation. And remember - Smith wasn't even the head of the Radio Act and Regulations subsection.
Just the Canadian to whom I'd reveal the U.S. government's UFO secrets...
Paul Kimball
If after weighing all of the evidence, people still want to accept that Smith was the recipient of legitimate super-secret information about flying saucers from Dr. Robert Sarbacher, and that he really did run a super-secret flying saucer program in Canada, as Friedman would have you believe, that's fine - everyone is entitled to their opinion. But unlike Friedman, I'm a big believer that it should be an informed opinion, where all of the evidence is looked at in context.
So here is part 1 of the facts that Stan Friedman doesn't want you to know about when it comes to Wilbert Smith.
Wilbert Smith & the Department of Transport in 1950
(originally published 17 June, 2005)
I think it's important for people to understand just where Wilbert B. Smith fit in the governmental pecking order in 1950 when he met with Dr. Robert Sarbacher and was supposedly given information that was classified even higher than the H-Bomb.
On the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words, and because some ufologists have to be both led to the water, and then made to drink (and, in some cases, told what the water is), here is an organizational chart I put together of the Canadian Department of Transport in 1950, showing exactly where Smith fit in.
Note that this chart does not include all of the various civil servants from the other sections, like Meteorology or Canal Services, that would have been further up the proverbial food chain than Smith.Now, I admit that we do things a bit different up here in Canada than our cousins in the United States, but not so differently that we would put someone like Wilbert Smith, a mid level (to be generous) civil servant in the Department of Transport, in charge of our flying saucer study. The fellas in the Department of Defence, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (in charge of foreign and domestic intelligence) would have been, to say the least, a little "miffed."
So, one more time, here is what the pro-Smith ufologists are saying - Wilbert Smith, senior radio regulations engineer, was "in the know" about the biggest secret out there, while hundreds of senior American generals, admirals, scientists and officials were not.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing...
Wilbert Smith & The Department of Transport - Expenditures, 1950
(originally published 17 June, 2005)
As the old journalistic axiom goes, if you want to find the truth, follow the money.
If the question relates to just how important Wilbert Smith's work for the Department of Transport was in 1950, therefore, one should take a look at the Departmental expenditures, and see how much was devoted to Smith's section.
Here are the relevant figures from the Department of Transport (Canada) Annual Report, 1950 - 1951 (for the fiscal year ending 31 March 1951):
Total Department Expenditures - $ 78,901,296.55
Total Air Services Expenditures - $ 33,557,017.95
Total Telecommunications Division Expenditures - $ 10,458,484.61
Total Administration of Radio Act and Regulations Expenditures - $ 867,095.11
So, from the above we can see that the section in which Smith worked (Radio Act and Regulations) received the following:
- 1.10 % of total department expenditures
- 2.58 % of total section expenditures (Telecommunications Division being part of the Air Services Section)
- 8.29 % of total division expenditures (Radio Act and Regulations being a subsection of Telecommunications Division)
Contrast these expenditures with others that were far greater:
- $ 4,248,357.51 for Canal Services, Operation and Maintenance
- $ 4,064,678.03 for Aviation Radio Aids, Operation and Maintenance
- $ 1,216,860.25 for Telegraph and Telephone Service, Administration, Operation & Maintenance
- $ 6,413,037.11 for Airways and Airports, Construction and Improvement
- $ 1,087,573.81 for Departmental Administration
This is not to suggest that the work Smith's section did was unimportant; however, it does show that it was just a very small part of a very big operation. And remember - Smith wasn't even the head of the Radio Act and Regulations subsection.
Just the Canadian to whom I'd reveal the U.S. government's UFO secrets...
Paul Kimball
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Vallee interview
Greg Taylor of the The Daily Grail, which has just re-published Jacques Vallee's classic book Messengers of Deception, has a new interview with Vallee available that makes for very interesting reading. My favourite quote, which could be applied to the remaining defenders of MJ-12 is Vallee's observation that
You can read the rest of the interview here.
Paul Kimball
"Many erstwhile ufologists don’t want the deceptive reports exposed, just as the Catholic Church long denied instances of abuse in its ranks... the best way to gain the respect of the intellectual community is to expose hoaxes, sloppy research and manipulation whenever we encounter them."A few more choice bits:
"The evidence for an “undercurrent” of deceit behind some alleged UFO cases only becomes visible when you spend time in the field interviewing witnesses and tracking down the evidence. It became annoying to me because it represented a waste of time and a distraction from studying genuine observations. Researchers who collect reports only through books or media accounts would not necessarily encounter this level of the phenomenon and would understandably resist the suggestion that the belief in extraterrestrial intervention is being manipulated to serve political or cultist goals."You don't have to adhere to Vallee's particular conclusions about the nature of the UFO phenomenon to admire his way of thinking, and to appreciate his observations not just of the phenomenon (or "phenomena"), but of the people who study it as well.
"If we do not establish a high standard for the data we publish, the entire field suffers. Then it becomes easy for skeptics to claim that the phenomenon only appears before “cranks and weirdoes,” as astrophysicist Stephen Hawking recently stated in England. This is exacerbated by the increased credulity of the public and its blatant exploitation by the media. It seems that people – including some highly educated folks – are ready to believe almost anything they see on the Internet or on Larry King."
"I don’t believe a UFO observation makes anyone “psychic,” to use the popular terminology, but the phenomenon comes in an environment of manifestations that include heightened awareness of synchronicities, paranormal sounds and lights and occasionally absurd coincidences similar to those described in the poltergeist literature."
You can read the rest of the interview here.
Paul Kimball
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
David Cherniack's UFOs: The Secret History
I caught the world premiere of Canadian documentary filmmaker David Cherniack's new film UFOs: The Secret History, on The History Channel here in Canada tonight. The film is must-see viewing for anyone interested in UFOs, but at the same time its accessible to the general public whose only real exposure to the UFO phenomenon has been The X-Files. A compelling, and at times lyrical, examination of the history of the UFO phenomenon and our relationship to it as a species, UFOs: The Secret History is an example of a documentary that manages to convey information in a compelling and entertaining manner, and which raises more questions than it answers. In short, it is superior filmmaking.
The film is not without flaws. Dr. Jacques Vallee and others like him are dismissed in a minute or so - Jerry Clark refers to Vallee's approach to the UFO phenomenon as "debunking with a more pretentious name", and Cherniack in his narration largely dismisses it as a result of the fascination with Eastern mysticism that arose in the counter-culture of the late 1960s. Cherniack makes a few factual errors as well - he refers to Dr. Edward Condon, for example, for example, as an astronomer, when in fact Condon was a physicist and a pioneer in quantum mechanics. I also dispute Cherniack's contention that Close Encounters of the Third Kind was the first great UFO film, and a turning point where UFOs left the scientific realm and became firmly ensconced in pop culture, a conclusion that ignores a long and rich history of UFOs as part of pop culture, from Orson Welles' War of the Worlds to The Day the Earth Stood Still to Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A Space Odyssey.
These are relatively small things, however, when compared with what the film gets right. It details the history of the UFO phenomenon from the late 1940s to the present day in just an hour, and manages to hit most of the high and low points along the way, from the founding of NICAP and the work of Dr. Jim McDonald on the one hand to the "swamp gas" and alien autopsy fiascos on the other. Cherniack shows how the United States Air Force and other government agencies, notably the CIA, have not been completely forthcoming about the UFO phenomenon, but he does so without the kind of rampant conspiracy theorizing that seriously marred Richard Dolan's otherwise useful book UFOs and the National Security State. Indeed, in the second half of the film, Cherniack shows how the descent of ufology into the fringe world of crashed flying saucer stories, conspiracy theorism, and the abduction phenomenon, has obscured the reality of the UFO phenomenon in the past thirty years, with the result that there is no real hope for a serious scientific inquiry into UFOs, and the UFO story gets ignored by the mainstream media now as being inherently silly.
Cherniack spends very little time on Roswell, for example (Stan Friedman gets less screen time here than he did in the ABC News documentary Seeing is Believing a couple of years ago), because at best it is inconclusive, and at worst it has proven to be a huge distraction from the search for the truth. Cherniack devotes more time to showing how Roswell led inevitably to the fraudulent MJ-12 documents than he does to the case itself, and we get to see rare clips from the legendary UFO Cover-Up Live program that featured Jaime Shandera and Bill Moore, as well as "Falcon", and stories that the aliens like Tibetan music and strawberry ice cream. That is where crashed saucer tales and things like MJ-12 have led ufology, and Cherniack wonders whether the UFO phenomenon has been deliberately manipulated to cover up what was really going on, whether extraterrestrial visitation or top secret US government testing programs.
But Cherniack is no debunker - he shows the absurdity of the US Air Force's Project Mogul explanation, for example. In one of the better segments, he also demonstrates what a pivotal moment the Colorado Project was for the serious study of the UFO phenomenon, and how it was a complete and utter scientific fraud foisted on the general public by the US Air Force and Edward Condon - much to the chagrin of many of the people who actually investigated the cases for Condon, including Dr. William Hartmann, who found the 1950 Trent photos case compelling (Hartmann appears briefly in the film).
At its core, however, UFOs: The Secret History is as much about us as it is about the UFO phenomenon. Whether UFOs are real or not isn't really the issue, he seems to be saying. It's our need to mythologize the phenomenon that's truly fascinating, and he delves into that aspect of the story with an expert hand, as he notes, for example, that whether abductions are real or not, "they were touching upon something deeply mythic". But Cherniack is not just about this angle either - like me, he is clearly convinced that there is an objective reality to the UFO phenomenon. Although he isn't quite sure what UFOs are, the hundreds of excellent cases that remain unexplained, and which feature multiple witness accounts and hard data like radar hits and other physical evidence, are impossible to ignore.
Like a great figure skater or gymnast, Cherniack completes his "routine" with a perfect ending. The version of contact that we have imagined, he says, is a myth that we have created to shield us from a reality that we have little hope of understanding, given that we may well be dealing with civilizations or intelligences millions or even billions of years more advanced than we are. As long as we are focused on crashed flying saucers, and conspiracies, and other fringe elements with no real evidence, we are truly missing what could be a very important story.
Cherniack's film demonstrates how we have held ourselves back in terms of our understanding of the UFO phenomenon through our own self-imposed perceptual limitations, and the "noise" we have ourselves created. At the same time, however, Cherniack shows us that there is still a "signal" out there worth looking for, if only we have the courage and the intellectual open-mindeness to try.
UFOs: The Secret History, is a profoundly rich and thought-provoking film, well worth repeated viewings. Here's hoping that it gets the attention that it deserves, and that people embrace a nuanced film that refuses to fall into either fundamentalist debunkery or died-in-the-wool believerism.
Paul Kimball
The film is not without flaws. Dr. Jacques Vallee and others like him are dismissed in a minute or so - Jerry Clark refers to Vallee's approach to the UFO phenomenon as "debunking with a more pretentious name", and Cherniack in his narration largely dismisses it as a result of the fascination with Eastern mysticism that arose in the counter-culture of the late 1960s. Cherniack makes a few factual errors as well - he refers to Dr. Edward Condon, for example, for example, as an astronomer, when in fact Condon was a physicist and a pioneer in quantum mechanics. I also dispute Cherniack's contention that Close Encounters of the Third Kind was the first great UFO film, and a turning point where UFOs left the scientific realm and became firmly ensconced in pop culture, a conclusion that ignores a long and rich history of UFOs as part of pop culture, from Orson Welles' War of the Worlds to The Day the Earth Stood Still to Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A Space Odyssey.
These are relatively small things, however, when compared with what the film gets right. It details the history of the UFO phenomenon from the late 1940s to the present day in just an hour, and manages to hit most of the high and low points along the way, from the founding of NICAP and the work of Dr. Jim McDonald on the one hand to the "swamp gas" and alien autopsy fiascos on the other. Cherniack shows how the United States Air Force and other government agencies, notably the CIA, have not been completely forthcoming about the UFO phenomenon, but he does so without the kind of rampant conspiracy theorizing that seriously marred Richard Dolan's otherwise useful book UFOs and the National Security State. Indeed, in the second half of the film, Cherniack shows how the descent of ufology into the fringe world of crashed flying saucer stories, conspiracy theorism, and the abduction phenomenon, has obscured the reality of the UFO phenomenon in the past thirty years, with the result that there is no real hope for a serious scientific inquiry into UFOs, and the UFO story gets ignored by the mainstream media now as being inherently silly.
Cherniack spends very little time on Roswell, for example (Stan Friedman gets less screen time here than he did in the ABC News documentary Seeing is Believing a couple of years ago), because at best it is inconclusive, and at worst it has proven to be a huge distraction from the search for the truth. Cherniack devotes more time to showing how Roswell led inevitably to the fraudulent MJ-12 documents than he does to the case itself, and we get to see rare clips from the legendary UFO Cover-Up Live program that featured Jaime Shandera and Bill Moore, as well as "Falcon", and stories that the aliens like Tibetan music and strawberry ice cream. That is where crashed saucer tales and things like MJ-12 have led ufology, and Cherniack wonders whether the UFO phenomenon has been deliberately manipulated to cover up what was really going on, whether extraterrestrial visitation or top secret US government testing programs.
But Cherniack is no debunker - he shows the absurdity of the US Air Force's Project Mogul explanation, for example. In one of the better segments, he also demonstrates what a pivotal moment the Colorado Project was for the serious study of the UFO phenomenon, and how it was a complete and utter scientific fraud foisted on the general public by the US Air Force and Edward Condon - much to the chagrin of many of the people who actually investigated the cases for Condon, including Dr. William Hartmann, who found the 1950 Trent photos case compelling (Hartmann appears briefly in the film).
At its core, however, UFOs: The Secret History is as much about us as it is about the UFO phenomenon. Whether UFOs are real or not isn't really the issue, he seems to be saying. It's our need to mythologize the phenomenon that's truly fascinating, and he delves into that aspect of the story with an expert hand, as he notes, for example, that whether abductions are real or not, "they were touching upon something deeply mythic". But Cherniack is not just about this angle either - like me, he is clearly convinced that there is an objective reality to the UFO phenomenon. Although he isn't quite sure what UFOs are, the hundreds of excellent cases that remain unexplained, and which feature multiple witness accounts and hard data like radar hits and other physical evidence, are impossible to ignore.
Like a great figure skater or gymnast, Cherniack completes his "routine" with a perfect ending. The version of contact that we have imagined, he says, is a myth that we have created to shield us from a reality that we have little hope of understanding, given that we may well be dealing with civilizations or intelligences millions or even billions of years more advanced than we are. As long as we are focused on crashed flying saucers, and conspiracies, and other fringe elements with no real evidence, we are truly missing what could be a very important story.
Cherniack's film demonstrates how we have held ourselves back in terms of our understanding of the UFO phenomenon through our own self-imposed perceptual limitations, and the "noise" we have ourselves created. At the same time, however, Cherniack shows us that there is still a "signal" out there worth looking for, if only we have the courage and the intellectual open-mindeness to try.
UFOs: The Secret History, is a profoundly rich and thought-provoking film, well worth repeated viewings. Here's hoping that it gets the attention that it deserves, and that people embrace a nuanced film that refuses to fall into either fundamentalist debunkery or died-in-the-wool believerism.
Paul Kimball
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Kevin Randle on Skeptics vs. Debunkers
I posted this some time ago, but it's worth looking at again so that everyone can remind themselves why Kevin Randle is a good UFO researcher, who understands the need to be skeptical but open-minded, as opposed to someone like Kal Korff, who if he still has any mind left has closed it off a long time ago.
Of course Randle has made mistakes over the years - Frank Kaufmann being perhaps the biggest one. But unlike Korff, Kevin is never afraid to admit when he's been wrong - indeed, when I pointed out to him that Stan Friedman had found legitimate documents which refuted one of Kevin's long-time criticisms of MJ-12, namely that ranks such as Brigadier General would not be short-handed in an official document prepared by a military officer to "General", he graciously acknowledged that Stan had proved his case with respect to that particular point (but not, it should be noted, a host of other MJ-12 flaws which Stan tends to skip over - but I digress).
UFO research needs more Kevin Randles, and fewer Kal Korff loons (be they fundamentalist debunker type or died-in-the-wool believer types), if it is ever to be taken seriously by the mainstream.
Paul Kimball
Of course Randle has made mistakes over the years - Frank Kaufmann being perhaps the biggest one. But unlike Korff, Kevin is never afraid to admit when he's been wrong - indeed, when I pointed out to him that Stan Friedman had found legitimate documents which refuted one of Kevin's long-time criticisms of MJ-12, namely that ranks such as Brigadier General would not be short-handed in an official document prepared by a military officer to "General", he graciously acknowledged that Stan had proved his case with respect to that particular point (but not, it should be noted, a host of other MJ-12 flaws which Stan tends to skip over - but I digress).
UFO research needs more Kevin Randles, and fewer Kal Korff loons (be they fundamentalist debunker type or died-in-the-wool believer types), if it is ever to be taken seriously by the mainstream.
Paul Kimball
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Studying the Betty & Barney Hill UFO case
By far the best look at the alleged Betty and Barney Hill UFO abduction case is Encounters at Indian Head, which was edited by Peter Brookesmith and the late Karl Pflock. It contains essays from several different authors that canvass a wide range of views on the case, from Pflock, who was convinced that the Hills really were abducted by aliens, to Robert Sheaffer, whose essay's title - "There Were No Extraterrestrials" - speaks for itself. Unlike other books on this classic case, Encounters at Indian Head offers a balanced perspective from all sides, which allows the reader to make his or her own judgment about what really may have happened to the Hills in September, 1961. As the late Marcello Truzzi wrote in "Judging the Hill Case" (pp. 70 - 90):
Whether the future confirms or denies the Hills' claims, research into such cases seems likely to contribute to our overall knowledge. And that alone should make further examination worth our while.The result of a symposium held in September, 2000, Encounters at Indian Head is a largely overlooked classic of UFO literature, and provides an invaluable template for how serious discussion about the UFO phenomenon should be conducted.
Paul Kimball
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Dr. James McDonald on the Farmington Armada
Here are the comments Dr. James McDonald made at the hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the U.S. House of Representatives, 19th Congress, 2nd Session, July 29, 1968, with respect to the Farmington "Armada" case from 1950.
1. Case 9. Farmington, N.M., March 17, 1950
1. Case 9. Farmington, N.M., March 17, 1950
In the course of checking this famous case that made short-lived press headlines in 1950, I interviewed seven Farmington witnesses out of a total that was contemporarily estimated at "hundreds" to "over a thousand." It became clear from my interviewing that the streets were full of residents looking up at the strange aerial display that day. It was not only a multiple-witness case, but also a multiple-object case. My checking was done seventeen years after the fact, so the somewhat confused recollective impressions I gained are not surprising. But that unidentified aerial objects moved in numbers over Farmington on 8/17/50 seems clear. One witness with whom I spoke, Clayton J. Boddy, estimated that he had observed a total of 20 to 30 disc-shaped objects, including one red one substantially larger than the others, moving at high velocity across the Farmington sky on the late morning of 8/17/50. John Baton, a Farmington realtor, described being called out of a barber shop when the excitement began and seeing a high, fast object suddenly joined by many objects that darted after it. Baton sent me a copy of an account he had jotted down shortly after the incident A former Navy pilot. Baton put their height at perhaps 15,000 ft. "The object that has me puzzled was the one we saw that was definitely red. It was seen by several and stated by all to be red and traveling northeast at a terrific speed." Baton also spoke of the way the smaller objects would "turn and appear to be flat, then turn and appear to be round," a description matching an oscillating disc-shaped object. No one described seeing any wings or tails, and the emphasis upon the darting, "bee-like" motion was in several of the accounts I obtained from witnesses. I obtained more details, but the above must suffice here for a brief summary.
Discussion. -- This once-headlined, but now almost forgotten multiple-witness case has been explained as resulting from the breakup of a Skyhook balloon. Skyhooks do shatter at the very low temperatures of the upper troposphere, and occasionally break into a number of smaller pieces. But to suggest that such fragments of transparent plastic at altitudes of the order of 40-50,000 ft. could be detected by the naked eye, and to intimate that these distant objects of low angular velocity could confuse dozens of persons into describing fast-moving disc-shaped objects (including a large red object) is simply not reasonable. However, to check further on this, I contacted first Holloman AFB and then the Office of Naval Research, who jointly hold records on all Alamogordo Skyhook releases. No Skyhooks or other experimental balloons had been released from the Holloman area or any other part of the country on or near the date of this incident. A suggestion that the witnesses were seeing only cotton-wisps was not only unreasonable, given the witness accounts, but was in fact tracked down by a local journalist to comments casually made by a law enforcement officer and overheard by another reporter. From my examination of this case, I see no ready explanation for the numerous disc-shaped objects moving in unconventional manner and seen by large numbers of Farmington residents on 3/17/50.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Proving your UFO case by debating
Victory in debates between people who study the UFO phenomenon about certain cases or theories are touted by some ufologists, most notably Stan Friedman, as part of their case that they are right, and their opponents wrong. This is ridiculous.
Debates in and of themselves prove nothing, particularly when the "outcome" is determined by a popular vote of everyone who listened to the debate. There are any number of factors that can skew the results.
For example, if you are debating Seth Shostak or James McGaha on Coast to Coast, and you take the pro "some UFOs are alien spacecraft" position, not only should you "win" the debate in terms of the popular vote, but you should do so by a wide margin, given the fact that the audience for Coast to Coast is already predisposed to accept your point of view.
Then there is the factor of the quality of the debater. So far in his career, Stan Friedman has been well-served by having some pretty poor opposition - no-one is ever going to confuse McGaha or Shostak with Martin Luther King when it comes to his oratorical skills, for example. A good salesman can get away with peddling faulty merchandise sometimes, and when it comes to selling, Stan is both good and experienced - but that doesn't necessarily make him right. However, against a good debater and public speaker, in a moderated setting (especially in cross-examination format, where Stan would be open to frequent questions), with a more or less neutral audience, I have a feeling that Stan would have a much tougher go of it that he usually does.
All of this is moot, however, because when it comes to matters of provable fact and unprovable conjecture, public opinion is worthless. George Bush and his posse convinced an overwhelming majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including Senator Hillary Clinton. As everyone now knows, Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Using Stan's logic, however, where winning a debate at a particular time is deemed important, perhaps even definitive, Bush would still be right, because he could cite opinion poll after opinion poll from back then that showed a majority of people thought he was right.
Anyone who trumpets wins in a debate, whether on Coast to Coast or at Oxford, is trying to gull you into thinking that it matters. Don't be fooled - it doesn't.
What really matters are the facts, the data and the evidence, and the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from them - not a single individual's well-honed ability to move a crowd at a particular moment in time. Science isn't a popularity contest, and neither is serious UFO research.
Paul Kimball
Debates in and of themselves prove nothing, particularly when the "outcome" is determined by a popular vote of everyone who listened to the debate. There are any number of factors that can skew the results.
For example, if you are debating Seth Shostak or James McGaha on Coast to Coast, and you take the pro "some UFOs are alien spacecraft" position, not only should you "win" the debate in terms of the popular vote, but you should do so by a wide margin, given the fact that the audience for Coast to Coast is already predisposed to accept your point of view.
Then there is the factor of the quality of the debater. So far in his career, Stan Friedman has been well-served by having some pretty poor opposition - no-one is ever going to confuse McGaha or Shostak with Martin Luther King when it comes to his oratorical skills, for example. A good salesman can get away with peddling faulty merchandise sometimes, and when it comes to selling, Stan is both good and experienced - but that doesn't necessarily make him right. However, against a good debater and public speaker, in a moderated setting (especially in cross-examination format, where Stan would be open to frequent questions), with a more or less neutral audience, I have a feeling that Stan would have a much tougher go of it that he usually does.
All of this is moot, however, because when it comes to matters of provable fact and unprovable conjecture, public opinion is worthless. George Bush and his posse convinced an overwhelming majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including Senator Hillary Clinton. As everyone now knows, Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Using Stan's logic, however, where winning a debate at a particular time is deemed important, perhaps even definitive, Bush would still be right, because he could cite opinion poll after opinion poll from back then that showed a majority of people thought he was right.
Anyone who trumpets wins in a debate, whether on Coast to Coast or at Oxford, is trying to gull you into thinking that it matters. Don't be fooled - it doesn't.
What really matters are the facts, the data and the evidence, and the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from them - not a single individual's well-honed ability to move a crowd at a particular moment in time. Science isn't a popularity contest, and neither is serious UFO research.
Paul Kimball
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)