The Morphing Insect Black Helicopter

One recurring UFO related dream is the morphing helicopter or plane image. The setting is anywhere, usually urban, usually night, but daytime and pastoral settings occur as well. I look up in the sky, sometimes it's quite active up there with plane and or helicopter activity, sometimes, blimps -- anyway, all man made, mundane objects. Then it becomes clear that one or two of these planes morph into UFOs. At that point in the dream, I realize the planes, helicopters and so on are not the harmless everyday objects we assume them to be, but UFOs, and worse, there is always a very sinister intent to these things. Sometimes the UFOs are operated by humans, yet at the same time, they're not quite human. Aliens in human disguise, or humans that have become traitors to humanity. What's interesting is that, while the intent is very, very clear -- aliens, their presence, their actions -- I can't see them. They are still invisible, still under cover, still hidden. Humans posed as "us," acting as a buffer or decoy, yes, but the aliens themselves remain, as always in my memory as well as my dreams, unseen.

So last night I have another one of these dreams. This time it wasn't so surprising at all; I just finished reading Nick Redfern's Real Men in Black, and was listening to Coast to Coast with guest Robert M. Stanley. (Close Encounters of Capitol Hill, Covert Encounters in Washington, D.C.) And, I've just started Colin Bennett's Flying Saucers Over the White House.

Night time, big city, like Portland. I'm with Jim. As dreams will, while we're in Portland, apartments, traffic, we're also at our house (Eugene, small, quiet) anyway, we are outside, and above our house/tall buildings, we see a black helicopter flying very low above us. It's a hundred feet or less above us, and it is so black! The color of this thing has an emotion -- it's not just a color, it's an energy, a being. And it's malevolent. I do not like it one bit; we're both scared to death. This black -- deep, deep energy crawling black helicopter -- is after us. The black helicopter is fuzzy, in parts, that's how alive the entire thing is, including, especially, the color. In fact, the helicopter is like a giant black wasp or insect. 


Jim and I dash into a cab, and as we're riding away, we can see the helicopter following us. As we watch, the helicopter morphs into a blimp. I have a moment of calm: "Oh, it's just a blimp, " and the fleeting idea that the helicopter was some kind of publicity thing for the blimp. Then the blimp appears, but something is off. It doesn't look quite like a blimp. The logo or company name isn't one I recognize, and the blimp looks weak, like a cheap imitation. It looks kind of flimsy and small for a blimp. Then I realize that it's not a blimp at all, just more camouflage. We get scared all over again. As soon as I realize it's not a benign blimp, it turns into a UFO. A massive, looming UFO with no good intent.

Original public domain image source:Helicopter by Peter Griffin

Chemtrail Connections

Are chemtrails "spiritual?" Victoria Hardy thinks so. Whatever you think about that, chemtrails exist, and people are astoundingly apathetic. What are chemtrials, and why the apathy?

Chemtrails exist, and this isn’t a piece about proving how they do exist, or debating, debunking, or anything else. They exist. They’re not “just contrails.” Like UFOs, they are. What they are -- and what they’re not -- is the question.

Over the years, as I explore the chemtrail mystery, I’ve come across some odd connections people have made, including myself, about the chemtrails.
Who would have thought to put chemtrails and Forteana together? But that’s exactly what Colin Bennett did in his excellent piece Chemtrails: A Fortean View
A New Look at a Mystery of the Skies :Chemtrails: What's Going On? (January 22 2005. By Colin Bennett)

I wrote a piece about chemtrails and black triangles; suggesting that some of the behaviors of the phenomena, and the mindset of observers as well as skeptics and researchers, are similar.

Victoria Hardy has made another connection, one that I hadn’t considered, in her article on American Chronicle; The Spiritual Nature of Chemtrail Belief. Don’t let the title turn you off; while I don’t agree with Hardy on that one point, which we’ll get to later, she has written a good article on chemtrails, and the apathy surrounding these things literally right above our heads.

When reading the title, I thought “Well, I don’t think UFOs are “spiritual” either (although there’s that element in all paranormal things) and I sure don’t see anything spiritual in chemtrails” but I read on.

Hardy describes the first time she realized something wasn’t right up there in our increasingly milky skies:

As I have stated previously from the first time I noticed a trail being unleashed across the sky my mind shifted into metaphysical thinking and looking back, it felt like I was witnessing a blurring of realities. As I stood in the yard that day, rather stunned, I felt an instinctual grip of fear in my belly and the sure knowledge that what I was witnessing was simply not right. And in the first weeks of my newfound awareness I couldn't´t help but wonder why others were not standing on the streets and pointing out the aberration. And even now, despite the trails showing up on commercials and television shows and despite the myriad of explanations, my mind still refuses to budge from the idea that the writing in the sky is telling us something important, something spiritual.

Exactly! I agree with everything she’s said, except for that last bit about “the sky is telling us something important, something spiritual.” But I am continually astounded at the lack of interest by the majority in what’s right above their heads. (They literally don’t see! Maybe, in some round about way, that is metaphysical.)

But the trails themselves as some kind of spiritual signage, akin to crop circles? I can’t go there.

Hardy however can, and does:

But for me, I believe we are seeing the signs spoken of by the ancient prophets.
Victoria writes that we’ve been taught since birth to trust authorities, not to question; no one would argue with that. I don’t see chemtrails as “signs spoken of by the ancient prophets” however.

Hardy has experienced what I have as well, when I was naive and silly enough to think you could actually have an authentic discussion with skeptics. Like her, I’ve been accused of intentionally panicking people. (Imagine dahlings! Me!):

Over the years I´I've heard chemtrail believers referred to as insane, ignorant or deliberately trying to instill fear in others and many months ago I created a survey attempting to understand the common thread that connects those who feel undeniable concern when witnessing the webs dripping in our skies

Victoria Hardy has done some research into those who “believe” (though I dislike that word when it comes to chemtrails, just as I do when it comes to UFOs) and her results are interesting. I’m not going to reiterate them here; I encourage you to read her article. There’s interesting information like religious beliefs, education, UFO witnesses, etc. but I found this personally interesting:

Many spoke of sadness, depression, fear and shock and several mentioned questioning their sanity because those around them did not seem concerned. A couple reported losing friends after speaking out about the subject.

Hardy asked individuals what they thought the purpose of chemtrails were; many responses, but this was caught my eye:

Several believed that the trails in the sky create a perfect backdrop for holographic imagery and will be used in Project Blue Beam.

That never occurred to me And, it’s not one I believe, although I do believe there has been, and will be, all kinds of things up with Project Blue Beam. I just found it interesting many do think this in relation to chemtrails.

While I don’t personally see the chemtrails as literal signs in the sky in relation to ancient prophecies, I enjoyed reading Hardy’s article, and appreciate her efforts in doing her own small research to add to the data. It’s always encouraging to come across others who look up, and really see what’s there, and actively wonder about what it is they're seeing.

Colin Bennett: Homophobic?

Bennett appears to be homophobic, so it seems. Too bad, since I really admire him. I like his political views for the most part, but more importantly, I love his take on Fortean matters and UFOs; and the skeptic world. He's about the only one out there saying what needs to be said about these topics. He's one of the few that even sees these things in such a way. Too bad he's also capable of being a dickhead when it comes to sexuality.

Which brings us to an interesting point, like actors, artists of all kinds, politicians, those we might admire, how far do we go in our admiration when it comes to knowing things about them personally? Remember how many people refused to watch Jane Fonda in anything because of her opinions on Viet Nam? Of course, that's hardly the same as being homophobic. Not even close.

(I keep hoping maybe Bennett's just being sarcastic and I don't get the joke.)

So do we stop reading Bennett because he's afraid of turning gay, or whatever it is about homosexuals that disgusts him so? No. I can admire his work on Adamski or skeptics or chemtrails, even while shaking my head at his paranoia and bigotry.

UFO Magazine Editor Nancy Birnes on Bennett and Lehmberg

Yeah, Nancy Birnes!

Nancy Birnes is editor of UFO Magazine. In her editorial in the current issue, Nancy addresses the issue of complaints she gets regarding the magazine’s writers. Two contributors that seem to get slammed a lot are Colin Bennett, and Alfred Lehmberg.

Those two, by the way, are two of my favorite writers.

And yet, there are many who dislike one, or both, of them very much. Nancy, thankfully, doesn’t share those views and happens to think very well of them indeed.

She begins her piece by discussing the things we “hate” and that it’s helpful to turn that around. If we “hate” something so much, what does that say about the individual who hates the thing? A cliché, but a lot of truth in it; we project. (I’m still trying to figure it out in regards to my own self . . .)

Nancy suggests we hate things we fear, at times, but also things that we haven’t dealt with, that we find irritating for what it calls up within us:

“We’ve barely learned to read and we don’t cotton to fancy turns of phrases. We can’t carry a tune, so nobody had better be crying on with a loud tune-box on a busy Monday morning. “

(That last one; at first it seems just rude to blast your music on a “busy Monday morning” and it is rude. But there is also this; we’re rushing around on a Monday, much preferring that we didn’t have to at all, while the lucky bastard blasting his music gets to avoid all that rat race stuff. Irritation flung his way, if out of proportion, might say more about my anger that I’ve chosen to work a 9 -5, M-F, while music blaster man doesn’t. Or, if he does, he doesn’t take it all that seriously. Which is very cheeky, and makes one even more irritated.)

What do the Lehmberg and Bennett “haters” fear? If you dislike Bennett, Birnes suggests you

“read a little more history and a few less newsletters and you’ll come to see how eloquent and spot-on he is. We are truly honored that he’s writing for us.”

As for Alfred Lehmberg:

“Before dismissing his prose, consider adding a dash of poetry to your life, preferably of the epic variety. If you think he’s ornate and far too enthusiatic, consider the topics he tackles. He’s the loneliest voice on he planet when it comes to the sad John ford story, and yet he keeps on. He is a loyal solider standing in the eh rain like a movie samurai, and he is well - armed with an arsenal of wit.”

And then there’s this idea: don’t read them if you don't like them.

Weather Modification

A bit clinical and not any of that fun juicy esoterica stuff but it’s worth reading for the facts of the thing:
EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SOON by Rosalind Peterson.

Bills on weather modification -- and it’s more than just making it rain more so the crops can grow.

The article addresses two new bills that don't answer to any oversight committees ... and mentions that there are over fifty weather modification programs in the U.S. right now. Peterson also mentions Dyn a mat, the company that can stop hurricanes.

Like UFOs, though of course there’s always a danger of sending this into kook land whenever one uses UFOs in the same arena as anything else, chemtrails are here. Look up! What they are, why they are -- those are other questions.

Some things I have no patience for, and don’t bother arguing, debating or “discussing” -- UFOs are one, chemtrails are another. Before I decide to expend my energy with another on these topics, we have to, at the very least, agree that they exist in the first place.

By the way, I’m not suggesting UFOs have anything to do with chemtrails, so don’t go there. (Although they share similarities, more of which I’ll write on later.)

It gets down to this: there are things up there that shouldn’t be, and they’re doing things they shouldn’t be doing.

As always, I refer you as well to Colin Bennett’s article
Chemtrails: A Fortean View on the topic of chemtrails.

Sunday Round Up of Self Promotion

A few new things at my Bigfoot blog Frame 352.

And at Mating Hedgehogs.

Not much elsewhere, the new UFO Magazine isn't yet out, but should be soon. Look for my article on Daniel Fry, as well as all the other great articles that will be available.

I'll be in Los Angeles beginning Thursday; family wedding. I'll have my laptop but don't know how much writing I'll get done.

However, I am working a lot of various things, as always, including something on chemtrails, referencing Colin Bennett's article on the subject,(Chemtrails and UFOs) for example. My trip to Los Angeles should prove interesting regarding chemtrails. Also: UFO Semantics, or the Semantics of UFOs, something like that. It's a lost cause but I get annoyed and rant about it anyway. You can't "believe in" UFOs, UFOs are not aliens, UFOs do indeed exist, etc. The most convulted "reasoning" about this was a thread on the JREF (James Randi forum) -- something about why are UFOs considered "paranormal?" Nothing of the Trickster like events within many UFO events, or any of that, but a surreal post about extraterrestrials could be out there, but UFOs aren't, no one's proven UFOs exist, ... I dunno. Is it just me?

Too Many Blogs . . .

And websites and books, magazines, podcasts, DVDs, TV programs and radio shows that deal with UFOs, Forteana and the paranormal.

This is not, as many cranky chronic skeptics spend their time reminding us, a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing. As with all things, there are the expected number of vapid blogs, etc. that deal with these topics. That obvious tidbit aside, most of them are actually very good, with individuals ranging from the experiencer or admittedly self-appointed pundit (not a bad or wrong thing) to the better known and published authors.

The only problem is, one can’t get to it all. It’s not that it’s “bad,” -- quite the contrary. It’s that there just isn’t enough time, unless one is retired or independently wealthy and has plenty of time to peruse the wealth of information in books and on the internet. Even then, as interesting as it all is, there are other things to do that have little to do with any of this UFO stuff: walk on the beach, for instance. I could spend all day walking on the beach.

I still have a large stack of books I’ve ordered recently on UFOs and related subjects. I’m still reading Greg Bishop’s Project Beta (very good, and everyone should read it to get an insight into mind control, disinfo, manipulation and obsession in a UFO context.) I started that book a long time ago. And still, mocking me on my nightstand, are Professor Daniel Wojcik’s The End of the World As We Know It: Faith, Fatalism and Apocalypse in America (and I’m even listed in the acknowledgments, and I haven’t read it yet, all these years later!) Frank C. Feschino’s The Braxton County Monster, on the cover-up of the ‘Flatwoods Monster,’ David J. Hufford’s The Terror That Comes in the Night, and many more.

Not to mention the MUFON Journals I haven’t quite finished yet, or the UFO Magazines. I’m still working on something from the issue before this one (on Colin Bennett’s “anti” MUFON article) and UFO Media Matter’s “Worst Person in the World” article taking Bennett to task. What to do? I admire both.

There are many unique blogs on The Daily Grail, as well as all the other blogs on Bigfoot, UFOs, metaphysics, etc.

No, there just isn’t enough time to read all the good and interesting material out there. So, while there are the bad, nasty, mean, stupid, pointless, silly and truly mega industrial wacked out blogs and books, it’s easy to identify them pretty quickly. We’re still left with lots of good stuff out here.

Mavens and Wags: Terms of Enjeerment

Semantics is not “just semantics” it’s a purposeful method. We use terms and words for specific reasons: to trivialize, to support, to cast aspersions in covert ways, to bring light to ideas. The sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious ways we shade our meaning with words has everything to do with what we’re saying, and why we’re saying it.

I do it. You do it. We all do it. For example, the reason why there are so many terms for the umbrella “skeptic” is that there are dozens of variations of the meta label “skeptic.” A Pelicanist is not always a skeptic, a debunker isn’t always a skeptic. There are chronic skeptics; in the same small ballpark as the pathological skeptics, skeptoids, etc. but they’re not always one and the same. A lot of people who use these terms are aware of these different notes in the music of description, and so, we have fun using them, and know why we use them. But, I’m not here to discuss skeptics. Well, I am, kind of. Those who have all kinds of terms for UFO researchers.

In this context, rarely are the terms “ufo researcher,” UFO investigator,” used with a straightforward intent. Instead, there are terms like “would be UFO investigator,” or “self-styled UFO investigator” which immediately does what it’s intended to do: trivialize the individual researching UFOs. By modifying the term “UFO investigator” or “UFO researcher’ with words that cast doubt, the individual UFO investigator is immediately cast as non-credible, something rather shabby and seedy. Don’t trust him/her, is the message.

Some of those who use these terms have hard ideas about who is, and who isn’t, a valid researcher. They hoard data and keep information to themselves, releasing in secret the holy UFO papers to only those that pass the test. (Assuming they really have what they say they have.) Or, they refuse to make public their years of study and research because it will be “misinterpreted,” and “fought over,” and the “unwashed masses” will get ahold of such sacred data. No doubt. So what? It’s a given in the fields of UFO, crypto, and paranormal studies. As I’ve argued in the past, it’s not only a given, it’s an innate part of what makes Forteana (including UFOs) what it is. It wouldn’t exist otherwise. So let them at it, and the good ones will bring to light the good stuff, and the others will do what they do: provide entertainment, distract, distort and eventually go away. Even if they don’t, it doesn't matter. We can choose to ignore them or spend time arguing about them. Their inevitable presence does not justify the withholding of information.


There’s the term “bona fide” researcher. Exactly what determines a “bona fide” researcher is unclear, other than the obvious: whoever they decide it is. I assume a “bona fide researcher” is someone who’s published books by a “bone fide” publisher, and done extensive clinically inspired investigations into various UFO cases. All the while studiously avoiding any mention of paranormal, supernatural, mystical, or Bigfoot/cryptid phenomena, of course. As soon as you bring up the subject of paranormal Bigfoot, you’re no longer taken seriously. (And that’s from within the small world of UFO/Fortean research. Imagine what it’s like outside this peculiar world of esoteric studies.)

Watching the National Geographic disaster, er, program, on Roswell recently, (The Real Roswell) the narrator mentioned something about a researchers “UFO campaign” as if the researcher was up to no good, out to recruit unsuspecting citizens into a cabal of UFO studies.

There are terms like UFO enthusiasts, as if we’re all rabid NASCAR fans. UFO mavens, which on the surface sounds okay, since “maven” means expert. Maven is also something of a quaint word, invoking an image of something homey and old fashioned; harmless, maybe even sweetly goofy, but not to be taken seriously. Sometimes this is prefaced with “self styled ufo maven,” which of course is patronizing. Like the “self styled UFO researcher” the modifier “self styled” is used to cast doubt on the researcher’s character and credibility.

There’s “UFO devotee” which brings to mind some sort of religious nut, or at least a dopey cult member. It puts the entire UFO phenomena into a religious (therefore, not serious) context, for anyone spending much time at all studying UFOs is a nut. A religious fanatic, a cultist, a kook.

We have “UFO buff,” which is like the “UFO enthusiast.” And vaguely illicit, you can’t help juxtapose buff with nude and naked, no matter how subconsciously the imagery. That’s how it works. So you have sex crazed UFO researchers running around, and that’s no good. This despite the fact UFO lore is rife with tales of sexual unions with strange beings, breeding, kidnapping and capture, nightly bedroom visitations, examinations involving genitals, ova, sperm and other intrusive probings, hybrid babies, and phantom pregnancies.

We have “UFO hobbyists'” which could be put in the same category as “enthusiast,” “maven,” and “wag.” A bit old fashioned, and conjures up images of a harmless, but eccentric individual, tinkering away in their garage or den, spending hours on such silliness as UFOs. Replace UFOs with stamp collecting or cataloging your Star Trek figurine collection and we have an image of a nerdy, slightly antisocial misfit.

There’s “UFO wags” which is a bit like “UFO maven,” bringing to mind some old dotting absent minded eccentric blithering away in his (or her) overstuffed library of ancient UFO books.

Of course there’s ‘UFO believer,” which is worse than the vague ‘UFO devotee,” since it implies that one believes in UFOs.

Sometimes flying saucer is used instead of UFO. I use flying saucer myself a lot but for different reasons. Like Stanton Friedman, who uses the term freely, the use is a political statement; take back the flying saucer! For the smugly skeptical, the term “flying saucer” is used to further trivialize and marginalize. No one uses flying saucer anymore in a serious context, and like “maven,” it’s a bit old fashioned. It paints the UFO, er, flaying saucer researcher as a nut, chasing after little green men in astounding machines from outer space.

Other words are used as well, “woo” is the ever popular favorite to describe everything from a “believer” in UFOs to people who say they’ve seen a Sasquatch. There isn’t much hiding here; woo is self - explanatory; it’s clear the meaning is “you’re an idiot.”

There’s also the “true believer” to denote those who, presumably are fanatical about their experiences -- believing the messengers, or insisting they have the truth. And the even less polite “true ‘bleever.” While there are those individual who’ve had anomalous experiences insist what’s happened to them is “the truth,” and their own interpretation is presented as the truth, there are countless others (like myself) who know two things for sure: 1. Something really damn weird happened, and 2. I have no idea what that damn really weird thing was. The use of the terms “true believer” and “true ‘bleever” as well as “woo,” and “woo woo” etc. don’t address the phenomena; they simply reject the individual and the experience. They’d love for us to shut up and go away. If we can’t, or won’t, accept their explanations, then we’re, at best, “woos” and worse, “true ‘bleevers.” (And “willfully ignorant.” )

The lines blur; you have someone with anomalous experiences, and you have religious fanatics, whether they’re Christian fundies who want creationism taught in schools, or the some other brand of religious fascism. To the “skeptic” however, it’s all the same: crop circles, UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. Use of these cute little phrases like “UFO fanatic” only shove the subject into the abyss, which, of course, is the intent.

Autumn Williams on Weird Bigfoot

LTWs and “Paranormal” Bigfoot

Loren Coleman and others call people with anomalous Bigfoot interactions “Bigfoot contactees.” That’s certainly condescending, and puts the whole thing into a George Adamski category. Which means, for most, a “we don’t have to give it any serious consideration since it’s too silly” vibe, and we’re done with such nonsense. (And don't be so quick to dismiss Adamski either. See Colin Bennett's Looking for Orthon.)

As readers of the OrangeOrb know, I am partial to the so-called “paranormal” Bigfoot idea. I’m not sure about using the word “paranormal” but the point is, I consider Bigfoot to be, as Lisa Shiel (author of Backyard Bigfoot) recently told me, “not just a big ape” but something much more. There’s a lot more going on here, like it or not, and it’s clear most Bigfoot researchers don’t like it.

I’ve just ordered Valley of the Skookum, Sali Sheppard-Wolford’s book. (Sheppard-Wolford is the mother of Bigfoot researcher Autumn Williams.)

On her site, Autumn writes about her thoughts on the those long term witnesses -- LTWs -- who’ve had ongoing contact with Bigfoot.

Now, on to the "stranger" side of these reports. What I found by interviewing LTWs is that many of them report other anomalies along with their Bigfoot encounters. Little lights in the trees. Underground rumblings. Lights in the sky. Gift exchanges (they leave food or items out for the creatures and receive natural items in return, sometimes displayed in a patterned formation). There are others, as well, that I won't go into here. What these witnesses describe is rather moot. The FACT that they are describing additional phenomena leads one to take a certain approach to these reports.

Williams writes that if we want to get to the truth, or at least a clearer, closer understanding, of what Bigfoot is, we need to be honest and incorporate these weirder reports in research:

Nor do I BELIEVE any one particular thing about the Bigfoot phenomenon. I've discussed this here before... BIGFOOT IS WHATEVER IT IS. It might be a garden-variety great ape, an animal, relatively stupid and unintelligent. It might be some sort of pre-human ancestor, gallivanting along on its own branch of our family tree. It might be something weirder than that. It might be smarter than us. The point is, I don't KNOW... and neither do you. But if you really want to know WHAT it is, at this early stage in the game you really have to allow yourself to keep an open mind and examine ALL of the evidence.

Remember I said earlier that many researchers avoid certain aspects of Bigfoot research because it doesn't fit in with what they BELIEVE bigfoot to be?

We differ in that respect. I don't CARE what Bigfoot is and I don't presume to know... I only hope to understand it in my lifetime.

Autumn makes it clear: she does not accept as a “belief” that these things are true. But there is enough anecdotal evidence to begin honestly looking into these reports and not reject them because they don’t fit into a preconceived notion of what Bigfoot is.

It’s a great piece and I encourage anyone interested in Bigfoot (and that includes self-identified Bigfoot researchers who, we assume, only want the truth) to read it.

You can read the entire articlehere.

Update to Skepticism vs. All The Other Kinds of Skepticism

'Crazyhoarse,' author of his (or her) blog over on The Daily Grail, wrote a piece on skepticism/pathological skepticism. SKEPTOPATHS, SKEPTOPATHOLOGY and O'HARE. In particular, Crazyhoarse addresses vehement skepticism in relation to the O'Hare sighting.

Skepticism vs. All The Other Kinds of Skeptoism

Hey, that’s it! Maybe. ‘Skepto’ to denote the rabid, pathological, fundie,mondo, irrational skepticism, and to separate it from normal, everyday, “real” skepticism.

While we do have skepti-bunkies, skeptoid, etc. that seems to offend those that wear those shoes (tough) and confuse some others.

I like Colin Bennett’s chronic and cultural skepticism terms, but that may be too esoteric.

Whatever term you use, and I’ll probably keep on using various forms of rabid-pathological-fundie myself, the point is: there is skepticism, and then there’s something else entirely hiding behind the goodly term of skepticism.

When it comes to UFOs, it’s not that I’m skeptical. As I’ve asked in the past, skeptical of what, exactly? That UFOs exist? Of course I’m not skeptical. That’d be stupid.

It’s illogical, and, well, pathological to hold yourself up proudly as a “skeptic’” and state that you “don’t believe UFOs exist.”

UFOs exist. People see them all the time. Whatever in the world is there to dispute, dahlings?

Personal interpretations of what those UFOs are, now, that’s a different matter. And stating, as fact, that they’re aliens from Mars, is not one bit skeptical. To be skeptical that UFOs are from other planets is a good and true thing.

This doesn't mean, however, that they couldn’t be from Mars. It’s possible. And in my opinion, it’s very likely they are. Or from somewhere. I suspect they are, and that’s my opinion. It’s not a fact, for no one knows. (Well, possibly “they” know, you know, “them” -- but they’re not telling.)

I’m very skeptical alien abductions are: A) carried out by aliens, and B) literal abduction events. I’m also equally skeptical alien abductions are merely road weariness or product of a sleep disorder.

As much as I respect and admire Stanton Friedman, and I do, I am skeptical of the veracity of MJ-12. I think he has been the ongoing target of a disinformation campaign, but I could be wrong. I hope I am. But the history of the source, or his leads, and of UFO disinfo itself, causes me to be skeptical.

Surprising as it may be to the anti-UFO “skeptic” there are skeptics within genuine UFOlogy as well. I remember many years ago, when I was involved in a local UFO study group. I voiced my opinion on abductions; how I think much of that is staged “MILAB’ stuff. I was almost run out of town on a rail. One person told me he didn’t want to be around me; he couldn’t bring himself to associate with someone like me who was “that paranoid.”

At a local UFO conference once, I was disinvited to speak, because I was too “negative.” My message? Beware the messenger. Too “negative” and they wanted to keep things upbeat. Christ, you would have thought I was talking about the Reptilian Overlords and vats of human body parts in Dulce from the way the conference facilitator carried on.

Anyway, I could go on and on, and I will at some point. Meantime, just know that there are those out there who are no mere skeptics, but a completely different breed altogether, wit no only a bias, but an agenda. There are levels and varieties to these types of course, from the hapless dupes who gladly grab onto the latest meme of anti-UFOism, to the intentional disinformation agents who put the latest anti-UFO meme out there for the dupes to pick up, gossip over, and pass along. There are the debunkers, and the pathological, the rabid, the irrational rationalists. There are the ones with the big egos who pride themselves on being educated and intelligent -- as they never fail to tell the rest of us , implying that many of us are not -- and carve out a niche for themselves as skeptics. Finally -- and this is based on my personal experience and observation -- those who are given to sarcasm and sneering ‘tudes, just for its own sake , seem to gravitate to the rabid skeptic side.

There are also those who I find particularly intriguing, though at the same time unctuous and nauseating, and that’s the mega-rabid anti-UFOist. So obsessed they are! They despise UFos, UFOlogy, UFO experiencers, UFO witnesses, UFO researchers, UFO “enthusiasts” so much, they write virtually daily on UFOlogy, and why it’s bad, evil, silly, stupid, dangerous, sad, pathetic, a waste of time. Why, they even lie at times! I know, it’s positively astonishing, isn’t it?

Well, I kind of went off there on a tangent, but nothing new there. Aside from my own brilliant insights into skepticism, there have been some very good entries on the topic by other bloggers as well lately. Greg Bishop, on UFO Mystic, and
Dustin of Odd Things. Dustin mentions Mac Tonnies; with a link to Wikipedia on Tonnies’ essay on Skepticism. Nick Redfern has also written something recently on UFO whistle blowers, and the need for skepticism.

One thing I’ve noticed about “skeptics” and UFO people -- and of course this is a generalization, based on nothing but observation - but it seems that the anti type of skeptic isn’t questioning. Unless, of course, they’re calling into question one’s sanity, character, and innate state of truthfulness. Compare that to the questioning of the UFO witness, or researcher. Most of us are doing nothing but questioning. The “true ‘bleevers” aside, most of us question quite a lot, while the fundie/rabid/pathological etc. “skeptic” does not. They believe there is nothing to question. They’re far from any honest, open “inquiry” they’re about denial, derision, and even a sort of cultural cleansing. Rid the world of “woo” -- in this case, flying saucer woo -- and let the questioning end, seems to be the goal.

Writing/Blog News

You Tube
As mentioned, I discovered YouTube!, which means more for you. More UFO clips. For the saucer obsessed, I ask you, what could be better?

OrangeOrb Newsletter
Also, as you can see on the menu on your right, you can subscribe to my OrangeOrb Newsletter. It's true. A little flying saucer gift, for free, in your mail box at the end of the month. So subscribe already!

"Okay, what do I get?" you might ask. Hey, it's for free! But you'll get highlights of the month's blog entries, a hep, cool, retro flash from the past - UFO wise -- links and highlights to other articles all in one place, and more. Try it. Just
email me and put "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

Recent Writings
Flying Saucer Kooks, and A Look Into Colin Bennett’s Looking for Orthon on The Book of THoTH website.

Also, my new column for Trickster's Realm on Binnall of America; It Doesn't Exist.

And on UFO Digest,Still a Mystery, and a Big Question: The Trent Farm/McMinnville Oregon Case

Playing
Another sign I'm having too much fun: the OrangeOrb configuration. You noticed, right?

SKEPTO REVAMPO: SKEPTICISM GOES HOLLYWOOD

source:http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Dec-31-Tue-2002/photos/chicago.jpg

Recently
CSICOP changed its name. From the ponderous CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal ) to the sleek and bright CSI. Yes, “CSI.” Not the TV CSI, but CSI for Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. CSICOP, er, CSI, has gone Hollywood. Slicker, shorter, brighter, juxtaposed with the hipness and scientifically aligned TV program of the same name, skepticism has gone Tinsel Town.

Will this name change garner a lawsuit from CSI, the TV franchise? That would be delicious; after all, we all know CSI, er, the skeptic CSI, not CSI the TV show, would sue in a heartbeat if they were pissed off enough at someone. Speaking of
sue happy skeptics, The Amazing Randihas had his fun going after participants of the strange; (if they’re not going after him.)

“Name change reflects growth, focus on science and reason” assures the blurb from their website. (Did any of us have any doubt as to the purpose of CSICOP?) Of course, given the scurrilous history of CSCICP in that regard, it’s no wonder they want a name change. There was never anything of a ‘scientific” inquiry towards UFOs, the paranormal or Forteana, (the

sTARBABY scandal proves that.) In fact, many of CSICOP’s/CSI’s media skeptics do not have a science background.

The new CSCIOP is no longer solely concerned with debunking UFOs or ghosts. There’s a higher moral imperative:

“Today there are new challenges to science,” Kurtz writes in Skeptical Inquirer. “Yet powerful moral, theological, and political forces have opposed scientific research on a whole number of issues.”

While that may sound rational and reasonable (no sane person believes creationism mythologies should be taught in a science class) that’s a hell of a scary statement. The danger here is the potential of cultural cleansing by the chronic skeptics of all they deign to be “unscientific.” (See: Colin Bennett: Skepticism as Mystique: A Fortean Essay in Rationalist Panics and Skeptical Dementia, UFO Magazine vol 21, No.10 December 2006 ,George P. Hansen:CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview, Robert Anton Wilson:The New Inquisition)

This journey has been a long one for CSCIOP/CSI. In 1997, CSCICOP held its first

”Council” in Hollywood. Hollywood was chided for airing “pseudoscientific” programs “almost every month.”

"Recently there have been programs on prophecies, astrology, psychic powers, creationism, Noah's Ark, angels, and alien abductions," said the Council. All of them posed, in some way, as being based on scientific fact."

The Council also criticized the many talk shows devoted to the paranormal in which claims in favor of the paranormal are given a platform but the scientific viewpoint is rarely allowed.“

Back in 1997, CSICOP/CSI
bought media stock in its efforts to quash hokey documentaries on UFOs and Bigfoot:

"In its latest effort in the battle against fringe-science TV, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and it's "media watch-dog" arm, the Council for Media Integrity (CMI), established the "Media Stock Fund." Aimed at providing leverage for CSICOP's response to the television industries lucrative commercial marketing of fringe science and psuedoscience, CMI is asking friends and supporters to help it aquire common stock in media conglomerate companies. The Media Stock Fund will allow CSICOP and the CMI to take part in shareholder meetings, where it can question the increasing infatuation with the paranormal in television programming."

"We are deliberately targeting each of the major television networks and well-known media conglomerates - Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC), NewsCorp (Fox), AOL/Time Warner (WB, Turner Broadcasting, CNN), and Disney (ABC)," says Paul Kurtz, chairman of CSICOP”

CSICOP/CSI has been working on joining the hoi poli and entertainment media for awhile now. Note the CMI:Council for Media Integrity, and the lack of the words "science" or "skeptic" within.

Other skeptic organizations have been been busily remaking themselves. The JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) forum has recently changed its look on its website and forum. I’m not sure how long ago it took place, but I noticed it a month or so ago. New look, new colors. Still serious though of course. Somber maroonish brown and bold black; veering on hip but still too classic to be considered at all edgy, it conveys what it's meant to convey: serious inquiry of non-serious things.

And now
Randi’s revised the infamous “Challenge.” (The challenge is an award of one million dollars to any claimant who demonstrates paranormal powers. No winners so far.)

The reason for the changes has to do in part with people flapping about the JREF offices, or laboratories, or wherever it is they test these hapless, optimistic entrants:

"We can't waste the hundreds of hours that we spend every year on the nutcases out there -- people who say they can fly by flapping their arms," says Randi. "We have three file drawers jam-packed with those collections.... There are over 300 claims that we have handled in detail."

This new Challenge will only take those with head shots. Meaning, JREF is going Hollywood as well, just like CSI. Applicants now have to have been on the news or have some other media oomph behind them before they’ll be allowed in to the Challenge. They’ll have to have press clippings and those press clippings have to be “backed up by academia.” Someone from a University (does the Community College count?) has to support the applicant’s claims.
Ah, but it can’t be just any moldy old academic.

"They have to get some academic to endorse their claims," says Randi. "And that academic is not the local chiropractor or some such thing."

Quite a Catch 22 there: really, what academic that “the Challenge” people would accept, would back a paranormal claim? As soon as one does such backing of such claims, such academic is kicked rudely to the curb by inhabitants of Randi Land. You can’t take those academics seriously! After all, they back claimants to “the Challenge!’

Randi and the JREF are nothing if not good citizens, altruistically protecting the rest of us from the evils of fake psychics. Which, in Randi World, includes all
psychics;

“Randi says he'll start actively investigating professional mind-readers and mediums for proof of criminal fraud, or opportunities for civil lawsuits. “

I see potential here for some sort of reality based SKEPTO program, in partnership with the sleek bright CSI (sceptic CSI, not TV CSI), where a strange hierarchy of skeptics, seers and paranormal claimants ar pitted against each other. Guest hosts Penn and Teller are sure to enjoy themselves when it comes to be their turn at mocking the weird. Maybe Donald Trump will add some cash to the Challenge’s coffers. (cue Billy Flynn singing ‘Razzle Dazzle”) Lights and music come one while the rainbow colored confetti swirls down among the skeptics, the audience, and the somewhat dazed cons tenants.

"We're going to pick people every year and hammer on them," says Wagg. "We're going to send certified mail, we're going to do advertising. We're going to pick a few people and say, we are actively challenging you. We may advertise in The New York Times.

Boy, sounds like fun.

Yes, they’re going for the glamour, the gold, the gusto for sure. Spending years sneering at those UFO book writers and TV psychics for making money off their stuff, the JREF and CSICOP (damn, I mean CSI) is now working towards doing the same thing.

It’s all just ‘Flim Flam.’

Razzle Dazzle
Artist: Richard Gere Lyrics
Song: Razzle Dazzle Lyrics
BAILIFF(Spoken)
Mr. Flynn, his honor is here

BILLY(Spoken)
Thank you. Just a moment.
You ready?

ROXIE(Spoken)
Oh Billy, I'm scared.

BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle

BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous

BILLY
Row after row will crow vociferous

BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em

BILLY
How can they hear the truth above the roar?

BILLY AND COMPANY
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

COMPANY(The same time as BILLY's)
Give 'em the old
Razzle Dazzle

BILLY
Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talent
Razzle Dazzle 'em

BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em

And they'll make you a star!

FURTHUR ORTHON

image source:
http://searchwarp.com/swa2005.htm

FURTHER ORTHON

A bit of More From Orthon; this time it’s synchronicity.

Ken Kesey, (author of Sometimes a Great Notion, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, etc.) lived around here. There’s a statue of him on the mall; lots of people who knew him, or say they knew him, all that stuff. Yesterday's item in the local paper, the Eugene Register-Guard, had
this little entry on Ken Kesey’s estate their efforts regarding “the bus:” I don’t know if this opening sentence is intentional:

Dreams of getting author Ken Kesey's original psychedelic bus, Furthur, back on the road again have hit a pothole.

But it is appreciated.

Then I pick up my copy of Colin Bennett’s Looking for Orthon (his book on Adamski) and am amused to read this:

“ . . . prototype hippies arrived to empty the larder and spend their time contemplating the infinite than work. This was the time of Ken Kesey of course; and if Adamski had not been of a different generation to him and his followers, perhaps lights and amplifier would have strewn the sides of Mt. Palomar.

But not even Ken Kesey had spaceman dropping in uninvited for dinner. - (Looking for Othon p 50)

Related item: the news that Carl Sagan smoked pot. I like what

Greg Bishop, on his UFO Mystic blog has to say about that, and asks the very good question: “why did Sagan remain such a “dick” about the UFO question?”

MORE FROM ORTHON: CLASSISM

I’ve just decided to up and post little gems from Colin Bennett’s Looking for Orthon,his book on George Adamski, as I come upon them. Which is a book everyone who considers themselves serious about UFOlogy should read. (I know, we all have our “must read UFO books list” right?)

One of the common folklore items about Adamski was that he was an immigrant hot dog vendor. This is often said in the same context as dismissing Adamski. Sure, he’s a lunatic, goes the thinking, but if you have any doubt about that, geez, he was just an immigrant hot dog/hamburger vendor.

The fact is, Adamski often worked with his wife in a restaurant operated and owned by his close friend Alice K. Wells. This restaurant (not simple ‘hot dog’ stand) was the stopping place for people going, or coming back from, the observatory up the road to Mt. Palomar.

Regarding the common and all too frequent meme that Adamski “sold hot dogs” (or the variant; “hamburger” vendor) Bennett cites Lou Zinnsstag, who couldn’t understand the need to dismiss Adamski, based on his alleged occupation. She wondered:

”why, in a democracy, this fact did so much to damage his image.”

It’s the American way, isn’t it? Work hard, the idea that manual labor is good, honest labor, that working at all is better than free loading. We're told that, or were, (I know I was, probably reality's beginning to set in now in these times, the further away we are from Post WWII era fantasties.) The opposite is true of course: you aren't any better off, and there is nothing dignified about living in poverty or working your bones bare til you drop.

Bennett writes, of the slams against Adamski’s occupation to “prove” that he was full of crap:

Perhaps the world still thinks as Shakespeare thought, that only those at the top of the social scale are capable of having intensely significant experiences. “

Maybe it irked the privileged classes on some level, those who prided themselves on being ‘educated’ and in a higher economic bracket, that these experiences didn’t happen to them. And that if they did, they don’t dare tell about it, for fear of being ostracized from their peer groups and their social class.

This notion that Adamski was a no account working stiff at a dead end hamburger/hot dog stand still exists. I’ve come across this snide dismissal from many an anti-UFO individual. As Bennett tells us, this kind of thinking was alive as recently as 1999:

Naturally enough, Adamski was always very sensitive about the “hamburger vendor” title some popular newspapers had given him. Even as late as 1999, the British X-Factor magazine condescendingly refers to his “hot dog stand.” From this remark, we assume that for sound philosophy, first-class restaurants are absolutely essential.”

(And that last line is one of the many reasons why I love Bennett.)

It doesn’t need saying (but of course I’ll say it anyway) that it’s become a cliché in our culture to make fun of the hick, the hillbilly, the trailer park occupant, -- the working class, the poor, the working poor, those without a higher education (or those who are assumed to not have a higher education,) the blue and pink collar workers of our country, and point to them and deride them when they tell us they’ve seen a UFO, or experienced some other anomalous event.

And yet, it is to this group of people that most often the anomalous occurs, it seems. If they do occur to the upper classes -- or those who would like to see themselves that way -- the elite, the ones with college degrees, the scientists and white collar professionals, they are keeping quiet for the most part.

There are exceptions of course; like commercial pilots, a lot of military people who’ve come forward, etc.

But the idea that it’s low life hicks and/or mere “hamburger” slingers that see UFOs or encounter the weird, is still around. Their stories are too fantastic to be believed, but we know that somewhere, it’s possible, it’s even likely, and so we tell ourselves that it’s only the unimportant in society that see these things to make us feel better. By negating the experiences of one class, we suppress the possibility of having those experiences ourselves.

__________

For more on UFOs and class, see:

Dr. Kinsey, UFOs and the Lower Class