Orange Orb Moves

I'm posting the Orang Orb over  on WordPress now. So please, check it out! I'm not gone, or have been abducted (not recently) just over on another platform. Links and mentions welcome.

Orange Orb Blog, on Word Press. 

The UFO Trail: Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility

Jack Brewer on his UFO Trail writes on ethics, trust, Hopkins, Jacobs, abductees, witnesses, and so much more. All in one post. Important and sadly, on-going. It seems to me -- has seemed so since Emma Woods exposed David Jacobs for the sloppy and unhinged individual he's become -- that all this, this, unethical bullshit, isn't brought out enough.

The UFO Trail: Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility: This blog has previously explored issues central to the ethics of UFO research. They include how abduction researchers have dealt with in the past and continue to deal with witness confidentiality. The story of the leaking of Larry Warren's audio-taped session(s) to Charles Halt continues this exploration. Let's begin with a summary of some of the players and what was stated on recent podcasts. (Jack Brewer, The UFO Trail)

Besides all that, is this interesting bit about Bigelow, a nefarious player in UFO Land, one that I've never trusted. How he is lauded by some, including George Knapp, who I do respect, is beyond me.

… a series of events during the 1990's in which John Carpenter, a Missouri social worker, hypnotist and MUFON director of abduction research at the time, provided data from case files of some 140 possible abductees to controversial ufology philanthropist Robert Bigelow. The 140 subjects were neither asked nor informed about the transactions that included a reported $14,000 in cash payments made to Carpenter. (Brewer, UFO Trail.)

I don't know the whole story and all the ins and outs -- who does? Who really knows? I'm not taking sides, (not much, David Jacobs doesn't count) for example, Peter Robbins part in what Brewer writes about. Always so damn difficult when you respect someone in this realm, and hear other things that conflict with your own values …



And we're not talking about theories here, ideas and philosophies on what UFOs are, if Reptilians really exist, if abductions are literal events or if there is a UFO-Bigfoot connection. Those things matter of course, very much so, but those don't carry the same onus of responsibility. Theories are speculation, ideas pulled from personal experience and or study. Treating witnesses as only grist for researchers is reprehensible.



Witnesses come first. They (we) are to be respected. Everyone cries out for "credibility" but what about the credibility of the researcher?

UFO Hunters on Rendlesham

UFO Hunters on Rendlesham

The first few moments of this episode got groans from George and myself; “Oh no, not another show on Rendlesham!” But it quickly turned out that it wasn’t just rehashing; for one thing, the little recreation of the lighthouse -- showing that what they saw could not have been the lighthouse -- along with the news that the light never faced that way in the first place, was pretty good. (As if anyone needed any more on the lighthouse theory; that’s right up there with owls and swamp gas.)

My thoughts are that what the witnesses saw that night were some kind of psy-op thing -- a staged event by humans, not ET. (A version of that theory holds that it was psy-ops. alongside ET, working cheerfully together to cause confusion among the masses.)

A Scofftoid Looks at Rendlesham: The Persistence of Skepticism vs. The Persistence of High Strangeness

Aaron Sakulich, resident collegiate scofftoid of the Iron Triangle college paper at Drexel University, writes on/against UFOs and related topics. A favorite phrase of his is “UFO enthusiast.” (Use of such a term attempts to ensure that any study of UFOs and related phenomena remain trivialized.) He mocks, he pontificates, he rants. Free country, we’re all entitled.

But in his recent piece: Story of 'British Roswell' lacks verifiable evidence” he misses the point. Well, he’s missed the point about a lot of things, but that’s to be expected with chronic skeptics.

It’s a given there isn’t any “verifiable evidence” with any of all this stuff; so let’s move on. Of course, it does beg the question of just what is “verifiable evidence?” Students of the esoteric know that chronic skepticism does not allow for anecdotal evidence to be considered evidence. Not even data. Well, sheesh, dahlings, if you’re going to go that far, whatever is there to talk about?

Anyway. Rendlesham.

Sakulich shares with all persistent, irrational rationalists the premise that there’s no "there" in UFO Land, and so, open mockery and silliness is not only acceptable, but expected. He opens with:

England is an exotic land of mystery. The English eat parts of animals I'd never consider putting in my mouth. Some of their groceries are named specifically after genitalia and their secret agents are continually impregnating the women of the world. Americans prefer broken beer bottles at the bar; they prefer top hats and pistols at dawn. Yet, our two countries have something in common: UFO enthusiasts seize on the flimsiest evidence and hold it up as proof that space monsters from beyond the moon are visiting the earth.

I have nothing against the English (so much) and I hope to visit there someday, but I don’t think of England as being “exotic.” And I for one, being a “UFO enthusiast” don’t think aliens come from “beyond the moon” but actually from the moon.

Of Rendlesham, or the so-called “British Roswell,” Sakulich says there are “enormous holes” in the story. That’s a fascinating statement, given that we don’t know what happened. If we don’t know what happened, how can we say there are ‘holes?” We're dealing with the anomalous, the weird, the highly unusual; "holes" are to be expected, if by "holes" one means Things That Don't Fit.

He goes on to describe what happened; the flashing lights, the weird sounds, the triangle shape observed by one of the soldiers, the burn marks and impressions in the ground from something heavy, and so on.

Sakulich's first error -- either from an honest glitch in thinking, or disingenuousness - is in assuming what “UFO enthusiasts” think. He does this all the time, sharing with all persistent skeptics the need to make sweeping assumptions on what "UFO enthusiasts" think:

The next day, returning to the site of the supposed landing, men found triangular impressions in the earth and "burn marks" on the trees. Therefore, the UFO community came to one conclusion: a mechanical spaceship had been out and about in the forest that night wreaking all sorts of havoc.

I for one never thought the UFO that landed that night was from outer space, piloted by aliens. No, this “UFO enthusiast,” dahlings, thinks it was a military (or industrial/technological-- or combination of ) object, intentionally sent, staged, to gauge the reactions of the humans on duty that night. Possibly it was a mistake; the thing wasn’t meant to be seen, but seen it was. Either way, whatever the thing was, I don’t think it was from outer space, and there are a lot of UFO researchers who agree.

Besides which, the “UFO community” is far from being a cohesive group that comes to consensus. Der.

Of the lights seen, Sakulich writes that witness Penniston was “petulant” in his disagreement that the light (s) he saw weren’t beacons:

When asked if this could be the source of the lights, Penniston petulantly replied that no, he could tell the difference between this beacon and the mystery lights.

I’d be “petulant” too, if someone insisted I saw something different from what I saw, especially if they weren’t there, and I was. What, suddenly we’re to believe Penniston can’t distinguish types of lights?

It’s old news; this lighthouse beacon stuff, and enough already. But here Sakulich almost surpasses the infamous “mating hedgehogs” explanation for crop circles, in explaining away the marks left in the ground from an object:

The third problem is the supposed physical evidence found at the scene: the triangular landing gear marks and the burn marks on the trees in the areas. For this one, investigators didn't have to go much further than the locals. The marks made by alien landing gears were actually rabbit holes, perfectly normal and plentiful in the forest.

(And I just can’t let go the cheap easy “laugh” when Sakulich stoops to classism and culturalism when he comments:

I like to imagine that these locals laugh a little to themselves at the city-slicker UFO enthusiasts mistaking rabbit holes for landing pad impressions as they wait in line for their monthly allowance of eel pies and plaid wool trousers.)

He drones on, but the point is this: something weird enough happened at Rendlesham to mess with witnesses heads, which seemed to be the point of the whole thing. The incident isn’t any different from countless others in UFOlogy; and this glaring fact utterly escapes people like Sakulich.

It’s easy to be glib, and easy to be lazy. Call everyone who doesn’t openly mock and ridicule UFOlogy a “UFO enthusiast,” make wild assumptions, such as they/we all believe the same thing, and that same thing is a warm and fuzzy ET space brother. Call the people who’ve experienced the weird and shared their stories nuts and lunatics, and there it is: a name for yourself, a reputation as a “critical thinker” when no such thing has taken place. Meanwhile, the anomalous continues to manifest, despite what we say about such things.

A “Keelian Attitude:” Nick Redfern on “The Crossover Problem”

A lot of good things in the current (February 2007) issue of UFO Magazine. Nick Redfern’s monthly column View From A Brit, discusses the uneasy and often opposed fields of UFOlogy and Cryptozoolgy. As he writes

“UFOlyg and cryptozoology make for strange bedfellows.”

The Crossover Problem, UFO Magazine, February 2007.)

Redfern addresses the issue of flesh and blood/nuts and bolts researchers vs. the “Keelian attitude” towards UFOs and Bigfoot, Nessie, etc. This is a topic very dear to my heart. and I’ve commented here and elsewhere (Trickster’s Realm, etc.) on the bigfoot-UFO relationship. I often ask myself why this split is so fierce; I can understand it a bit more from the flesh and blood Bigfoot side more than the UFO side of the Fortean fence, but it still doesn't seem sensible to me. As Nick points out, the investigation of one realm by a researcher of another would mean that

“both camps are in dire need of an overhaul, in terms of what is really going on.”

True. Also, and more alarming, in Redfern’s views is that by ignoring the weirder data, it will be lost. I absolutely agree as I’ve been saying since I’ve had this blog, the stories exist: deal with them!

Nick shares information about Rendlesham Forest, home of the 1980 Rendlesham UFO event. A really juicy bit of Forteana that I didn’t know about is revealed here about the area’s Fortean history, including crypto creatures, that predates the 1980 UFO event.

Nick writes that these “crossover” events (UFOs, Bigfoot, and other cryptids)

“are not going away any time soon!”

The Big Thicket terrain in Eastern Texas (Piney Woods area) has a delightfully rich history of Fortean and crypto stuff, and Redfern shares some of his investigation into this area in his column. H recommends a intriguing sounding book; In the Big Thicket, by Rob Riggs.

As Nick writes, these cases that include both UFOs and cryptos

“make many people within ufology and crypto zoology cringe.”

The majority of the time, this is sadly true. I agree completely with Redfern:

“Both camps need to realize that neither has the answer to their respective mysteries, and both should treat the crossover cases in the same fashion -- and as rigoursly -- as they would any other encounter. If we fail to look at all of the evidence - whether it sits well in our belief systems or not, it’s truly our loss.”

It was refreshing to read Redfern’s words on this topic. One thing both camps also should realize is that this “crossover” aspect doesn’t necessarily negate ET, or nuts and bolts UFOs, or flesh and blood Bigfoot. In this seemingly never-ending realm of Fortean weirdness doesn’t it seem quite sensible there’s room for all of it? That the possibly is pretty strong for layers upon layers, constantly shifting, sometimes mimicking, sometimes standing alone, sometime merging? Why do so many have a problem with this idea?

Threatened credibility is one reason, and understandable. Trying to prove to the world that Bigfoot exists is difficult enough without dragging in UFOs and dematerializing, telepathic Sasquatches. The same for UFOs. But, while I’m sympathetic to that reality, it’s time to move past that.It takes some courage, but losing data due to rejection of what makes one uncomfortable isn’t contributing to research, as Redfern points out.

I think there are ETs (very probably) as I’ve said many times. But for me, that’s certainly not the end of things. One may or may not have anything to do with the other. We'll see, maybe, if we’re lucky. Either way, as Redfern says, the reality of the stories exists, and we just can’t afford to ignore them.

You can read more about this, where the discussion and more info continues, on Nick Redfern's and Greg Bishop's blog UFO Mystic:
http://www.ufomystic.com/the-redfern-files/thicket-encounters/

Notes:
John A. Keel: The Complete Guide to Mysterious Beings (revised version of Strange Creatures from Time and Space),

Regan Lee:
Bigfoot and High Strangeness, Trickster’s Realm/Binnall of America , Novemeber 2006

Fairies, Bigfoot and Hauntings Trickster’s Realm/Binnall of America May 2006

Nick Redfern:
The Crossover Problem, UFO Magazine, February 2007
Lake Monsters, Giant Cats, Ghostly Devil Dogs, and Ape-Men Para View Pocket Books, March 2004.

Rob Riggs, in the Big Thicket: On the Trail of the Wild Man: Exploring Nature’s Mysterious Dimensions, Paraview Press 2001.

(image source:image source: http://www.creepy.tv/season3_e7.html)