More Trent Circus Theater

The blog that I won't link to but everyone knows what I mean -- you know, those verbose guys who love to perform UFO street theater (albeit on-line, and in their blogs) -- have another post on the world famous 1950 Trent UFO sighting. (Yamhill County, McMinnville, Oregon.) This time the theory is the Trent UFO photographed was not a UFO, but a side mirror from a Ford. I can't stand it. (Comments are definitely worth reading.)

Related link:
Trent Trickster Three

This Just In: There Is No Bermuda Triangle

Image source: Gutenberg Project

     I always am curious when official entities come out with denials of the anomalous. In this case, it's NOAA who has given up the secret of The Bermuda Triangle. Which is, there is no touch thing.  (A recent example of authoritative voices alerting us to the realities: the latest explanation for Mothman.) Why now, what's the point? Automatically causes one to think along cover-up conspiracy lines. I mean, where else is there to go? And by the way, just who is this "most of us already suspected…" speak for yourself, official debunker shill.

Sun Sentinel - Bermuda Triangle just a myth, U.S. says: Now it's official: The Bermuda Triangle is a bunch of bunk.

For decades, rumors persisted that hundreds of ships and planes mysteriously vanished in the area between Miami, Puerto Rico and Bermuda because it was cursed or patrolled by extraterrestrials.

Most of us already suspected that was a myth. Yet, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just posted a story declaring the Devil's Triangle, as it's also known, is no different than any other open ocean region — and that foul weather and poor navigation are likely to blame for any mishaps.

Revisiting the Tempest in a Teapot: McMinnville UFO Photos Faked. Again.

UPDATES: lots of comments at the Bragalia blog, to be expected, but one thread I find interesting concerns the boy on the ladder photo. Which, according to some, was not taken by Trent... and so, this iconic story continues as the mystery it is. Nothing proven to debunk or that shows definitively, that the Trent photos were fake.

Were the famous McMinnville UFO photos fakes after all? The iconic snapshots nothing but a hoax? Does this mean it's curtains for the annual UFO Fest in McMinnville, Oregon? Speculation from The Bragalia Files: MAKE-BELIEVE IN MCMINNVILLE: FAMOUS 1950 UFO PHOTOS FAKED? says it could be so.

After all this time, it's almost impossible to determine if the photos are of a genuine UFO, or simply fakes. The evidence presented by Bragalia is only speculation surrounding the facts: a photo of the Trent's little boy, on a ladder under the wires where the spaceship was seen, and photographed. The fact the Trents were "repeaters" -- repeat witnesses. But that last bit; the "repeater" label, doesn't prove anything either way. Many UFO witnesses (myself included) are "repeaters." Some of us have had encounters going back to childhood. Granted, Bragalia comments: "As Jerry Seinfeld might say, “not that there’s anything wrong with that” but then puts a judgement on how a witness should respond to a sighting. Referring to Mrs. Trent, Bragalia writes:

...but when you combine her prior UFO interest and prior sightings, her later sightings, her family discussions about UFOs- with the fact that Mrs. Trent reported being the first to see the photographed UFO- it is Mrs. Trent who should have been given more attention when investigating the photos. Paul finally got his wife a photograph of one of her coveted UFOs. She was certainly one darn lucky “repeat witness.”

Then there's the note, sent to Paul Trent, with Bragalia's oddly gender specific observation that it's in "male writing." This note was no doubt written by a close friend, Bragalia tells us, since said friend used his initials. From that we are to infer note writer and Trent were close friends, and the note itself? Hints that the whole thing was a hoax.

Finally, we have the over the top classist assumptions about the Trents and the community of McMinnville in Yamhill County Oregon. Phrases like "farming folks", "farm boy" and this description of "simple farm folk" pulling one over on them there city slickers:

“Fun” during those times, in that kind of place, may have encompassed playing around with a new camera, wanting to outwit the city folks, involve the family in some UFO entertainment and satisfy a wife’s saucer interests.

The Trents never were paid for their photos, or anything else concerning the UFO images. When the Trents wanted the photos returned in the 1970s, this was because, Bragalia speculates, they wanted the "accrued value" of the images.

 This is not the first time Bragalia, as well as his associates, have attempted to expose McMinnville as a hoax. I wrote about that for UFO Digest in 2007. Revealing a third, "lost" Trent photo, we were promised, sort of, a revelation. Turns out the whole thing was a hoax. Er, that is, not McMinnville, but the third lost photo. McMinnville, at the time of the Trent sighting, was an active place for UFO sightings. More than fifty years later, that area is still a little hotspot for UFO sightings. Whether or not the Trent photos were fakes, well, we still don't know to this day. This recent speculation is just that, interesting, but certainly not proof in any way that McMinnville was a hoax.

Further reading:

• The Trent Tempest
• The Trent Trickster Three
• Still a Mystery, and a Big Question: The Trent Farm/McMinnville Oregon Case
McMinnville, Oregon UFO: Festivals and Hoaxes Saucer Gossip: A Bit of History and Silliness About the Trent Case

Mike Bara, Debunkers

Very much enjoyed last night's Coast to Coast interview with author of Ancient Aliens on the Moon, blogger, and Moon/Mars artifact investigator. I managed to stay awake for the whole interview for once, since I've had a few sleepless nights due to some Fall cold-crud keeping me awake. Naturally, I particularly appreciated Bara's telling it like it is with the debunkers and so-called "skeptics." One who even -- as I saw him running to the phone and dialing in my mind's eye as soon as Bara mentioned him by name -- managed to call in. And, in typical debunker faux skeptic mode, danced around the question -- the same question he put to Bara -- refusing to answer. What annoyed me about Noory, as is his style, was his insistence that, paraphrasing here, "we all have the right to our opinions." Yes well, that's a given, let's move on and deal with the real issue. And stop pandering and appeasing to these little debunker drones who persist in distracting from actually investigating and researching the UFO phenomena.

The Skeptic in All Those Shows...

I haven't seen National Geographic's Chasing UFOs yet, since it doesn't air until tonight. Only those in the "industry" got a preview. Responses from those who have seen the show seem to be miffed there isn't enough skepticism; while others are miffed the show exists at all. In most paranormal and UFO shows the skeptic is included. For "balance" it is said. Nope. It's for ratings and action; that American brand of competition. Everything's a contest. Anyway... With UFOs, we can debate forever about what they are, where they're from, what it is people are "really" seeing. (Wait, we are debating that.) Focusing on strictly observations of craft for the moment, what use is a so-called skeptic? A WITNESS SAW SOMETHING. Is that debatable? Skeptic, schmetic. What you need, always, are those who can help -- as in assist -- with observations. What wondrous and strange forms clouds can take. Astronomy. Aircraft. (Ours. That we know of.) I know, I know, the moon's been mistaken for a UFO, Venus has been mistaken for a UFO, pranksters like to float up night flying kites and balloons ... sigh. And while the strict observation of a craft is straightforward, there's more. The researcher has to take into account more than just the sighting. If the witness describes feelings of disorientation, anxiety, yipes, missing time even! -- that has to be taken into account. Has to. None of this means that the thing seen is an alien craft piloted by space brothers. That's assumption and while it could be true, we can't prove that. We can prove someone saw something. And we can prove, in many cases, the physical, emotional and psychological effects of a sighting. Aside from the idea that aliens exist and are, indeed, often responsible for UFO sightings, is another idea. One not often brought up; especially not by the "skeptics." That is covert human activity. I mean deep dark ebony black shadow human factions. Often the closet acknowledgement of UFOs being human made is an almost glib explanation that it's "just" military. Just? Not if that "just" is an insidious creation that, whether intentionally or not, causes adverse physical effects upon the citizenry. Or afffects the weather or envirnoment. Or is a cover for spy operations. Etc. Once it's shown that a UFO is now an IFO and a human made object, the job is not always over. Not in cases where a lot of strangeness has occurred.

Meanwhile, UFO sightings continue. Explaining one away, be it the moon, Venus, classified military or a producer's classist take on a witness ("red neck," "hillibilly," "hippie", ...) leaves thousands behind.

What is the beef, the thing that bugs, these skeptics when it comes to UFOs? (Oh and oh god, please "skeptics" that's a rhetorical question) Shows aren't doing the topic of UFOs any favors, except for Ancient Aliens, which, thankfully, has avoided the trap of having skepti bunkies on every two seconds to give their two cents. It's show biz, it's distraction, it's playing into the culture of "vs." And it keeps us spinning inside the wheel of nowhere.

Crop Circle Dream Memory: Beep!

A very strange dream last night, involving giant granite -- and specifically red granite -- structures, including a ten story statue, Buddha like, yet more samurai in appearance. At one point in the dream, I said to the people i was with "I could have sworn that stature moved!" and it turned out it had. The statue was living and the ruler of the realm. This realm was clean, mostly made of stone but not uninviting. Everything was large. Wide paths, high stone walls and large sprawling buildings. Everything made of stone. Not jewels, such as rubies and emeralds but granite and similar rock. Rough in appearance and even touch and yet there was a warmth to everything. Weird, strange, but a comforting feeling. It reminded me of this dream about Bigfoot. As in that dream, this dream was by water; large man made lakes and pools of beautiful water. Aside from the moving statue and so much more, there was a crop circle in this dream.

I woke up. Still in bed, I was remembering the dream. Trying to recall every detail. The dream was so ... weirdly cool. I was remembering the crop circle part of the dream. This is what I had dreamt:

There's a large, beautiful and intricate crop circle. We're all amazed and wonder at how it came to be. It literally appeared, not over night, but over a few minutes. One moment we were looking over at the large field where there was no crop circle. Turned our attention elsewhere for a few moments. Turned back, and there, was the crop circle. Huge and intricate.


Then a group of skeptics come along. They're loud and arguing and demand that we listen to them. The crop circle is a fake! They shout at us. And to prove it was a fake made by man to fool us, they throw little pods of dirt on the crop circle. These pods, the debunkers smugly tell us, contain a chemical that "exposes" the fakery, and bright yellow squares will show up within the crop circle. The yellow squares are proof the circle is a fake.  So they thrown the pods on the circle, and stand back, big stupid grins on their faces, waiting for the proof that will reveal how fake the crop circle is.

We wait and watch. At first, the yellow squares begin to pop up. The debunkers are overcome with joy. Ha! they say. But a few moments later, the yellow turns red, then other colors, then "over rides" the crop circle. In other words, the "proof" the skeptics  have shown us hasn't proved a thing. In fact, the "real" crop circle takes over, obliterating the debunker pods. 

The skeptics are mad and embarrassed. Most of all, they're baffled. Confused. They can't understand that the crop circles are real and have an as yet unexplained source that transcends prosaic explanations.

So I'm in bed, awake, savoring this dream and remembering it so I can write it in my journal. At the moment I get to the crop circle image and memory, I hear a loud, single, and very specific "beep" inside my head. It was so vivid, loud and not a "normal" sound (to be heard inside the head) that I sort of jumped. It was a definite mechanical sound.

I've had this beeping sound before, usually in the morning, when I'm awake, but still in bed. And in connection with ... anomalous things.

What this means, no idea. But as I've written before about this, and others as well, (like Daily Grail's and Dark lore journal's Greg Taylor) this beeping could be what we hear of the source of these manifestations that are of a metaphysical nature.

Previous posts:

On The Orange Orb:
• Beeping Connections
• On the Frequency: Owls, Beeping and Radio Voices
• Dark Magic and Crop Circles
• Nahua, Age, and My Green Electric Self
On my blog Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch:
• Beeping Creatures
  Responses to Beeping Creatures
  MoMo
  More About Beeping
• Bigfoot in Australia, Kind Of. . .
On my blog Mothman Flutterings:
• Mechanical Voices, Aliens and Mothman: Shared Source?
• Mothman on the Telephone
Outside links:
• Greg Taylor: Her Sweet Murmur
• My post on UFO Mystic: Mini Report From McMinnville: Chirps, Trills and Wasps

I Can't Take It Files: Billy Ray and UFOs

I don't know what to say, except the non-poetic and unimaginative "what the fuck?!" -- I mean ... it's ... uh ... um... you can't make this up... Billy Ray Cyrus is going to host his own show on UFOs. Yes, UFOs! AND, he's gonna debunk 'em! Hold me back, please. . . I can't take it. The world's gone mad. But we knew that already.

Anyway, Lesley Gunter says it well on her Grey Matters column for BoA:Redneck Ufology & The Best Hair on TV

...what exactly gives them any expertise as Ufologists or skeptics? Are they going to have real experts on or are we suppose to rely on their opinion? Seriously, it is totally ridiculous. What the fuck was SyFy thinking? Were they trying to make UFOs into an even bigger joke than the rest of the media already treats them as? What is next - ghost hunting with Heidi Montag or maybe Bigfoot hunting with Celine Dion?

I love that; "Bigfoot hunting with Celine Dion."  In the deep woods of her beloved Canada, searching for the elusive Sasquatch. Maybe she can wear these while she's out there: (hat tip by the way also to Lesley, who posted about these psychotic and disturbing er, "shoes" on her  Totally Girlie Blog.)

Career Advice From Uber Skeptoids

Oh for crying out loud: Requirements to be a UFO investigator by way of the JREF.

Not at all unexpected but head bashingly annoying all the same. Here's what the OP wrote:

My 12 year old nephew wants to be a UFO investigator, he asked me what qualifications he needs

I told him

1, you need the ability to believe in something with no supporting evidence

2, you need the ability to ignore facts and evidence to the contrary while inventing a reason for doing so

3, you need the ability to not be a critical thinker

4, you need a tin foil hat

5. you need to have zero credibility from your peers

There are many comments, well, all comments, that follow which are the usual batch of pathological debunking/jokey crap, but this one really got me for its typical and cheap fall back onto classism:

All you need to be a UFO Investigator are:


- A single-wide trailer.
- Electrical service.
- A fridge full of beer.
- An internet connection.
- A five-year old computer.
- A ten-year old CRT monitor.


It's that third one that eliminates him from the profession -- you need to be 21 in most (all?) states. 6th-grade grammar and spelling skills are useful as well, but not necessary.

Shermer's Gorilla Suit Man

Michael Shermer, uber-skeptoid and professional debunker, did an experiment at the recent 2009 Science, Technology and Research Symposium in Charleston to show that Mothman (which he admits to knowing nothing about), Bigfoot (to which he says he does) and other paranormal/Fortean/esoteric/anomalous phenomena are figments of over-active imaginations, but more than that,illustrations of why we lie:

We already know that people lie; that happens all the time. ... The more interesting question is why do people fall for it," he said.

In other words, people who speak of witnessing UFOs or other strange events, are lying.

Sure, people lie about their experiences. They elaborate, embroider, exaggerate and outright lie. They hoax and they pull pranks. They're delusional and mentally ill, they're alcoholics and drug abusers. Some people. And for some people in that category, they present to the world tales of UFOs, strange creatures, aliens and visits to Venus.

Those aside, thousands upon thousands more people without that baggage -- and even with some of that baggage, does not automatically exclude the experience of such phenomena or cause it -- have encounters with the weird that cannot be explained by tired exercises into so-called rationality. Such as Shermer's. (Warning: ad hom ahead. "Smirking Shermer" as I like to call him. Come on, the man smirks for crying out loud. He's so taken with himself.)

Shermer instructs an audience to watch a video of basket ball players, watching for:

the number of times six young people passing basketballs, three of them in white shirts and three in black shirts. He asked the crowd to count how many times the three in white shirts passed the basketball to each other.

Afterward, Shermer had the crowd call out answers. Then he played the video again, telling everyone just to relax and not worry about counting passes this time. And to the amazement of many, about halfway through a person in a monkey suit walked from out-of-frame into the middle of the scene, paused, gave a friendly wave and then promptly walked off screen.

This proves, says Shermer, that people see what they want to see. Er, that means we don't want to see a man in a gorilla suit at the Lakers game?

What it says to me is this: when something weird and unexpected happens, especially in the midst of a mundane event, like a basketball game, we don't notice it. Which then means , that the weird, the unexpected, like say, a Mothman or a Bigfoot, even a UFO, goes right by us. It literally can be in front of our noses and we won't deal with the strangeness. In fact, when something highly unusual is going on, and the one or two people who do happen to be aware of it point it out to others, most people refuse to even look to see for themselves.

Shermer had his own out of body experience. Under laboratory conditions, don't you know. Which proves that no such thing as astral projection and OOBEs occur, since it can be recreated in the laboratory:

Shermer said he once had an out-of-body experience successfully recreated under laboratory conditions. It had nothing to do with his consciousness actually leaving his body.

This is another standard, and very tired meme of the uber-skeptic: that because something paranormal/anomalous can be recreated in the lab, it doesn't exist. Rather, it doesn't exist paranormally; of course it exists, they just recreated it! (The same is said of hoaxes, as the recent hoaxed UFO lights showed: to the skeptoid, UFO hoaxes "proves" that UFOs don't exist.)

Why do we insist upon "believing weird things" as Shermer so often phrases this conundrum of human existence? It has to do with evolution:

As for the reason people believe strange things, Shermer said it is rooted in humanity's evolutionary history and its psychological drive to connect invisible causes to the events around them. That movement in the grass may be the wind or it could be a predator.

Or fairies! It's fairies!

If we think of the movement in the grass as a predator, we're good ... Shermer concludes that if we think the worst: "better safe than sorry" then we believe that forces control the things we can't explain. Like a lion in the grass? Huh?

Shermer's presentation didn't prove a thing, but of course, the choir he preaches to think otherwise.

Soure: Science vs. ESP: Skeptic Ponders UFOs, Mothman

Things

Snarly Skepticism
Lots going on at Snarly Skepticism. I had to change the comment settings after getting a few nasty comments (ah yes, the ad homs and the skeptic!) so sorry about that, but there's three, four at least new items up there.

Vintage U.F.O.
I have something about creepy clowns on Vintage U.F.O., which fits in a bit with my Trickster's Realm column on Binnall, which will be up sometime on Monday. That column is about "MIBs, Clowns and Helicopters," inspired mostly by Tim Beckley's The UFO Silencers, but also Chris O'Brien's Mysterious Valley books.

James Rich, Artist
I've been shamelessly promoting my husband's work everywhere. He's finally finished taking images of his paintings and finding a good art hosting site at Yessy.com. He has literally hundreds of paintings, so be sure to check it out regularly; he's putting up images daily.

Lulu.com: E-Books
So are, I only have one little thing up there; a collection of articles on the Trent UFO case and the McMinnville, UFO Festival. I'll more things up there in the weeks to come. You can see what's available on my Lulu Storefront.

Catastrophes and UFOs: It's Not a Contest

Recent catastrophes; earthquakes in China, cyclones in Myanmar,tornadoes in the U.S., have caused some to once again demonize UFOs, or at least, those who choose to explore the mystery of UFOs.

Why the two would have anything to do with each other is beyond me, but the supposed thinking of those who use these tragedies to support their peevish anti-UFO stance makes sense to them, obviously.

Skeptics of many varieties (including, paradoxically, those who acknowledge there are UFOs) don’t like most UFO researchers. That aside, they don’t like UFOs much either. They're always pissed off at them, because UFOS aren’t doing anything. The UFO phenomena’s continued behavior of remaining elusive is maddening, torturous in its contradictory, slippery manifestations. And yet, for all the years the UFOs have been around (centuries, really) for all the evidence, they haven't done anything. At least not in a grand, showy way; pulling off some mind blowing trick like turning mountains into ice cream sundaes or finally delivering those flying cars.

They haven’t fixed anything, saved anyone, cured any diseases, solved any of the world’s problems. They didn’t prevent the recent tragedies, or past disasters. They didn’t warn us. They haven’t stopped war. Racism, ageism, sexism, classism still exist, relgious hatreds and wars continue, people live in poverty. The aliens and UFOs haven't fixed any of it.

This makes some people downright mad. Instead of getting mad at a god, God, Jesus - they’re mad at UFOs. And they're madder still at people who study UFOs. The message seems to be that it’s somehow all our fault that tragedies happen. And if it isn’t our fault, exactly, and/or the UFOs, we’re still guilty by association just for seriously thinking about the subject.

I get the feeling these brands of skeptics (and beware; many of them insist they are not skeptics at all and are, in fact, in with the in crowd of UFO researchers) have a whole lot of expectations on what UFOs should do, and what they shouldn’t do. Which is ludicrous. They accuse us of being like children; frivolous children who chase after the fleeting, fragile UFO, when it’s they that are stuck in magical thinking.

Sure, I “believe” in aliens. Rather, I believe they exist. I believe aliens from other planets, as well as other entities, are all around us. I don’t believe in them, however. I don't pray to them or expect them to do anything.

I don’t believe every UFO is from outer space, piloted by ET.
I don’t believe ET, aliens, entities, Mothman, Bigfoot, or Lizard Man are going to save us, cure us, fix us, heal the planet, or teach me how to parallel park.

I don’t think only some should study UFOs, and others shouldn’t, and I don’t think anyone should, or, shouldn't, just because I said so. Or because anyone else said so.

I don’t care who’s who, or why, or what they do in their private life, (naturally there are some boundaries here, Christ people, use your common sense) if they party too much, or not enough, -- they “get to” delve into the mysteries of life as much as anyone. In fact, god knows, we need more people getting deep into this stuff!

Using the very real horrors of this world to bash UFO or Fortean research is dishonest. It’s disingenuous. It’s lazy. It distracts from both the world’s cruel realities, as well as anomalous research.

The two aren’t in a contest with each other; don’t make it one. Don’t pit one phenomena against the other as some sort of moral barometer of any given individual.

The Clowns in the "Sorry" State

A recent piece by Frank Warren inspired me to go off on one of my own favorite rants; that of the so-called “sorry state” of UFOlogy. As Warren says, underscoring Richard Dolan's point, the idea that there's a "state" of UFOlogy is inaccurate and misses the point. You can read Warren's piece here: What is The State of Ufology? Wrong Question!


I often rant against those who call for a “new UFOlogy.” What’s wrong with the old one? More to the point, what in the world makes those who want a “new” UFOlogy, a better or a different or a cleaner or a neater or a “more scientific” (oy) UFOlogy that anyone outside of UFOlogy cares?

Who says it’s “sorry?” Because we have the expected jokers around? The Raelians make the mainstream news, not the serious, interesting UFO cases that may also contain some evidence. (Other than anecdotal.) So?

What else do you expect from the mainstream media? They’ve always been cheesy, sleazy and exploitive, that’s what they do. I promise you, if we all got up some kind of serious, somber, clinical “New UFOlogical” whatever, no one would give a damn. We would, (some of us) but no one listens to us. And then there’s this: after a short time, it isn’t too long before this “new” UFOlogy will be perceived -- and possibly turn into -- a stodgy, rigid, snooty mini-infrastructure of scientism in its own right. Before that point thought, this "new" UFOlogy will be scrambling to be accepted by those they've decided long ago they need: mainstream science, academia, the media, politics. Wow, talk about idealism! But those institutions have turned their noses up at UFOlogy; a "new" UFOlogy will have to dance real fast and real well in order to be accepted. Which means, much of what makes UFOflogy the thing that it is will have to be discarded before this "new" state gets in the door. And at that point, of course, you don't have a real (authentic) UFOlogy, but you still have a very "sorry" state indeed. Irony!

Don't you find it ironic that a diverse,individual, subjective, elusive and contradictory phenomenon such as UFOs is persistenlty being forced into some kind of stable state where everyone agrees (pretty much) and the personal is silenced, or at least told to shush?

One thing wrong about screaming for a new UFOlogy or repairing its “state” is the belief we would do better without the clowns. First, we have to acknowledge that there is a clown like atmosphere to much of UFO and Fortean events, and it’s a natural part of the anomalous. There are many ways to deal with this, depending on the situation and where the clown antics fall on the UFOlogical clown scale. (New Age clowns, Contactee clowns, Bigfoot-UFO clowns, Abduction clowns, My Lizard Lover clowns, etc.)

We can ignore them. Call them on their stuff. Expose them for the lying clowns they are. But what if they’re not lying clowns? They could be clowns for a number of reasons, but not liars. At some point, it’s subjective. Trust comes in. Intuition. Meanwhile, we’re all distracted by trying to shove out these clowns, argue over who’s a clown and who isn’t, and the actual work isn’t getting done. We’ve been too busy chasing after those we’ve decided are clowns. Talk about a circus.

Then we get back to work, feeling smug and justified that we cleaned up the mess, only to realize more clowns have sneaked in. That’s the nature of the anomalous clown beast. You just can’t get rid of them. In fact, the harder you try, the more return. Like Sisyphus, once you roll that rock uphill, it just comes back.

The mainstream media and the pathological skeptics will never avert their attention from the clown side of things, for that would mean they have to admit there is something of value and truth to all this.

(Actually, the mainstream media at times slowly turns to the light; little bits of UFO reality get by and we experience a respite from little green men jokes by talking heads.)

We can learn from the clowns. Instead of chasing after them with brooms we can stop and just watch them for awhile. What are they up to, and why? Might turn out it was a waste of time, so what? Might turn out you learned something. Maybe that clown wasn’t just a lampshade on its head bore, but a true Fool leading you down a much neglected and magickical path. You could return from that journey with something of value to share with the “sorry state” of UFOlogy.


cut and paste if link doesn't work: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=46054

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.

Randi's "Hot News"

Oy. Must have been a slow news day for Randi,who, in his recent JREF newsletter, has an item captioned Hot News" on Uri Geller's name, as if this is some deep dark earth shattering revelation.

Scoffing Gone Too Far

From the recent entry on the UFO Iconoclast blog:

(Why no one has wrestled a flying saucer pilot to the ground or no abductee has punched one out while being kidnapped is grist for the passivity of human beings in dire straits, as was the case with Jews as they were being taken away during World WAR II, and in earlier pogroms.)

Speaks for itself. UFOlogy doesn’t need the kind of self-indulgent, faux Dadist exercise crap the writers of UFO Iconoclast (and a few others) revel in.

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.

On The Brink Of Hysteria. Really. They Were.

Among Big UFO News is the admission by ex-Governor of Arizona Fife Symington, who now says he saw a UFO that night of ‘the Phoenix Lights” in March ten years ago. (Former Arizona Gov. Admits UFO Sighting On Night of Phoenix Lights
By Jon Shanks
Mar 18, 2007)

And in a touch of irony, in typical Trickster fashion, it was Symington who was responsible for the pedestrian and lame “alien in a costume” stunt. Symtington publicly made fun of the whole UFO event, and in one bit of bozo like behavior, introduced an extraterrestrial, as being responsible for the lights. Har har. (The costumed individual was Jay Heiker, an assistant in the governor’s camp.)

As I’ve written before, one of the aspects of the PHoenix Lights case that always intrigued me was the lack of response, and interest, from authorities.

In the interview Symington says that he called the commander at Luke Air Force Base, the general in charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety to request an explanation. None of them had answers, and they, too, were "perplexed," he says.

Now, that’s the kind of response I want from our government agencies: weird things flying over our cities, and all they can offer us is that they’re “perplexed.”

When asked about his ridicule factor back then, Symington says:

He explains that Arizona was "on the brink of hysteria" about the UFO sighting at the time, and the frenzy was building. "I wanted people to lighten up and calm down, so I introduced a little levity. But I never felt that the overall situation was a matter of ridicule," he says.

Nice spin. But no cigar.

Of course, I wasn’t in Phoenix, Arizona during these sightings, and so I can’t say if the state was “on the brink of hysteria” or not. It does seem to me, from what I’ve seen and read from the media (I’ve been following this event closely ever since the first day) that people were more likely intensely curious, as well as frustrated with the non-response of those in authority. From their Governor, who publicly made a joke out of the whole thing, to the Air Force, etc. no one took the citizens seriously.

We can't be too hard on Symington. He is, was, a politician. Enough said right there. And look at the junk still flung around about Jimmy Carter's sighting, for example. He's come out now with it, that's something. According to him, he was seeking answers behind the scenes.

But as the author of The Heavy Stuff blog wrote, don't expect Anderson Cooper to come along and do a news story on this.

However, I've noticed that the Phoenix story, like its namesake, doesn't ever really die. There's hope yet.

The Trickster Visits McMinnville

I thought this would be the last of the ‘Trent Tempest’ that recently went on, (see notes below) but I’m inspired to write a bit more on this. One of my observations about this whole thing has been the Trickster aspect in this little affair.

The Trickster is everywhere in UFO and Fortean events, and I think this point is often missed by many researchers. As irritating as the hoaxes and hucksters are, and as bewildering as the surreal moments in UFOlogy are,these elements are a necessary part, an innate part, of the phenomena.

Often both UFOlogists and the pathological skeptics call for some sort of what I call a cry to "cleanse the cultural landscape of woo." Get rid of the hucksters, the embarrassing ones, the harmless pranksters -- all of them. On the pro-UFO side, a rational (usually) call for saner behavior is made. On the rabid, anti UFO side, there are those who want a crusade against anything “woo.”

Personally, I’d like the Raelians to go away, for a long list of reasons. Reluctantly, however, I realize they’re simply a part of the big UFO picture.

The Trickster in Brief
The Trickster is not a person. It’s not an individual, not a human. It’s not a cartoon character, or a comic book icon.

The Trickster is a manifestation of a phenomena, an element, an idea. It’s cross cultural. The Trickster goes by many names, and many guises, and many guises within any one culture.

The Trickster is both a specific character -- say, the Coyote as in many Native American traditions -- or it can be more of a concept. Humans can exhibit Trickster traits and behaviors for a short time.

The idea of ‘The Trickster” is an archetype. It’s an idea, a behavior, that presents itself both in events and in isolated moments within a person’s character.

When the idea of “Trickster” is brought up in UFOlogy, I mean both specific, individual characters, as well as manifestations of a concept. One or both can be present at any time.

One concept is the hoaxer or prankster in UFOlogy. One of the key issues in UFOlogy is proof: is the photograph real or fake? Does that video of a light in the sky really show a light in the sky, or is it a remote controlled, glowing frisbee thrown up in the air? Is that UFO really a triangle of unknown origin, or just Air Force pilots having fun flying in formation? Is that UFO researcher, who speaks at conferences and has published loads of books in reality a disinfo agent? Is that abductee really an abductee, or at least an individual with strange, unexplainable experiences, or an outright lair?

We rarely know. And even when we do, when it comes out that so and so was lying, or the photo was hoaxed, or the video showed pilots flying in formation having a bit of fun and not a flying saucer, we’re often left with endless questions, and the event is not so neatly solved after all.

There’s also a playful element in the Trickster. The Trickster thumbs its nose at society (which certainly UFOlogy and Forteana do), at “the rules,” at convention. Often those who don’t “believe” in this stuff will join in, just for fun. Festivals in towns where UFO events have occurred are an example. (Roswell, Aztec, Hopkinsville Kentucky, Nevada) For a short time, no one takes it seriously and everyone uses the
the event to let loose, to be silly, to meet others, to be anonymous if they wish. Or to come out completely with their experiences and beliefs in a safe place, knowing they can leave and go back to “normal.”

Trent Photos
The Trent photos, taken in 1950 in McMinnville, Oregon of a UFO, have been considered as genuine by many researchers.

On that day in 1950, Paul Trent took two photographs of a UFO. More than fifty years later, according to the bloggers at the UFO Iconoclast blog, a “third, lost” photo of the Trent UFO was found. This photo was sent to the bloggers from an unnamed individual allegedly in Arizona.

It turned out the photo was not a “third, lost” Trent photo at all, but one of a UFO taken in Germany in the 1970s. Meanwhile, a small flurry of comments were made on their blog, the bloggers generated some attention for themselves, and the whole thing seemed to have quickly died down.

I wrote a couple of items on this, and my intuition tells me, as it did then, that the whole thing was a hoax; meaning, there never was a “lost” photo sent to them, it was all a silly exercise. It isn’t necessary to ask what the point was, for the point is: the Trickster is simply at work.

Another way the Trickster has fun with the McMinnville/Trent UFO case is in the annual McMinnville Festival in McMinnville, Oregon. This is the “party” element of the Trickster mentioned earlier. People come from all over Oregon and beyond to have fun. There is even a typical Trickster inversion of the Blessing of the Animals in many religious celebrations with the “alien pet parade” part of the festival.

UFO Researchers on the Trickster
Colin Bennett, George P. Hanse,Jacque Vallee, and John A. Keel, are some of the UFO writers who have written on this Trickster element within UFOlogy.

A recognition of this innate Trickster element in UFO and Fortean phenomeana doesn’t have to exclude a nuts and bolts construct. Both can coexist. In fact, it seems more evident every day that they do. I used to think that the two were exclusive, but the reality seems to be that we can’t afford to be that limited. All this infighting over theories doesn’t take into account that the two can be related, and part of a larger picture.

The next time some irritating and seemingly pointless event occurs surrounding UFOs, it may be some small bit of comfort to remember the Trickster’s role in UFO and Fortean experiences.

Notes
Regan Lee, UFO Digest:
Still a Mystery, and a Big Question: The Trent Farm/McMinnville Oregon Case

One hint that this was all a hoax -- the blog's contention there was a third lost photo, not the Trent photos themselves -- is the timing. My Trent article on UFO Digest appeared right after (was inspired by) another article on the Trent case. Not long after, the idea of a "lost" photo appeared. (I could be wrong, so be it if that's the case. In typical fashion, I doubt we'll ever know.)

UFO Iconoclasts blog:
A Lost Trent Photo?
Regan Lee, UFO Digest:
A New Lost Trent Photo Surfaces? and:
The Trent Tempest

“Mock Them As Barflies From Venus and Mars”

Alfred Lehmberg, of An Alien View blog, has written another great piece, this one on the perception by chronic skeptics who spend large units of time sneering at abductees. No understanding, just the lowest and easiest form of attack. I also saw this piece as a metaphor for other issues, including non-UFO ones.

“Forget that the saucers still fly in your skies; forget the abducted, and pretend that their cries... are musings of idiots, cretinous loons who scratch at your wallet then howl at your moon. But it's you, not *abductees*, "out to lunch" here today! It is YOU, and not them, sopped in naiveté!”

What is so often missed in all this craziness and high strangeness, is what it does to all of us, and why. I don’t pretend to know the “why,” and often am unaware of it doing anything at all to me. We need these experiences, whether it’s us that’s having them, or someone else. Among other things, these abductees, and encounters with entities, and all the rest of it, are gifts. Not just for the individual experiencer, but everyone. These “gifts” are not often appreciated, wanted, or even good ones -- give it back! But they are gifts, of a kind, reminding us that it’s not just us solid citizens out here doing the hard core reality thing.

These events have been going on for thousands of years, and we’ve been trying to figure them out -- or suppress them -- for just as long. Doesn’t seem we’ve gotten anywhere, and insisting that those that experience the anomalous are money hungry, emotionally needy, lying fruitcakes with mental diseases is getting a bit tired.

More Skepti-ness: Randi’s “Challenge”

From the PsiPog.net blog, an entry on the author’s experiences with members of the JREF forum, (James Randi Educational Foundation) Randi himself, and an assistant.
Beware Pseudo-Skepticism I’m not at all surprised by what the author (who calls himself Peebrain) has to relate; it mirrors much of what I’ve personally experienced and observed through the years. And, as so many of us ask: why can’t people just be nice? Sheesh, such a prickly bunch. Far more important of course, and the real issue, is the lack of forthrightness on their part.