From The Superplex: "Rh Negative Folkore"

Sue Entity at The Superplex isn't shy about sharing her opinions on the UFO lore regarding Rh Negative blood. She begins:

The Superplex: Rh Negative Folkore: We all know the UFO field is intellectually crippled (present company excepted of course), and the rain of inanities that continues to fall from the lips of UFO pundits about the Rh negative blood factor as being somehow linked to manifestations of the phenomena is just more proof of this. I admit to getting exercised about this issue; the whole Rh neg thing gets my panties so twisted that I doubt even Dr. Jacobs could straighten them out into one of his books. It’s a sad statement about the intellectual desert that UFO/phenomena studies finds itself in that even the people I hold to be the most informed and interesting thinkers in the area make themselves sound like idiots when talking about the Rh blood factor. (Sue Entity; The Superplex)

It is true UFO Land is full of the Rh factor motif: that those with Rh negative blood are in someway tied even more so to aliens than the rest of humanity. Sue Entity thinks not. I'm not arguing for or against that but I would have liked to have known more on why she thinks the lore is bunk.



She makes interesting points about culture and racism and how, in putting ourselves into categories of specialness, we also put ourselves above others. Better. More deserving of whatever gifts the gods/aliens have to share. (Personally, I don't think they're sharing much of what I want; the world seems worse off than ever.) I see her point but it is one that annoys me in context of the UFO (and other paranormal realms) -- that those of us with these experiences want to set ourselves up as special, different, separate.  Hell no, I don't put myself in those categories.  But I'm not going to keep quiet either. It is what it is -- I put it out there. I am what I yam.

So if the Rh negative factor has anything to do with the phenomena, well, there you go. If it doesn't, fine. For whatever reason it's become a part of the lore, and needs to truly explored.

By the way, folklore as a term doesn't mean, (just as with the word myth) true, or, not true. Another one of my Sisyphean activities: trying to change the perceptions of the words lore, folklore, and myth, just as I am with UFO. Which should really be U.F.O. as in the vintage years. Unidentified Flying Object.

Sisyphus, (Titian 1548-1549) oil on canvas

I am, myself, Rh negative. Also Cherokee, an educator, red hair (okay, that part comes from a box) and an artist. I fit into many of the UFO lore indicators for big time alien contact. Not to mention the life long sightings and encounters.


The question is, do these bits of data have anything solid to do with the phenomena, or not?

The Cycle of No There There: 'UFO enthusiasts admit the truth may not be out there after all'

Once again, we see an item on how there's nothing to UFOs. Not from the overt and pathological skeptic crowd, but from the meh realm. UFO enthusiasts admit the truth may not be out there after all - Telegraph

This is not news. Oh, I don't doubt the debunkers and "skeptics" will jump all over this to support their ludicrous opinions on the UFO phenomena. It'll be juicy news for their disingenuous little black hearts.

We've seen this meme many times over the past few years. A few items here and there on how: UFO sightings are down, reports are down, UFO "enthusiasts" have given up, UFO organizations have closed their doors, and so on.

These fluffy little pieces circle around like black helicopters.

Feh.

Leah Haley on the Abduction Mythology

I've been following Leah Haley's story for years. So naturally I am keenly interested in her current stance regarding UFOs and abductions. Which is, as Jack Brewer at The UFO Trail relates:

Former self-described alien abductee Leah Haley has revised her perspectives about her experiences of high strangeness to conclude that no alien abductions ever took place in her life. She now completely attributes her remarkable perceptions to having been an involuntary research subject. Commenting on literal alien abduction from her home in Pensacola, Florida, Haley stated, “It doesn't happen.”

Now I'm really interested! I haven't experienced anything close to what Leah Haley has experienced, but, given my own two (possibly three) missing time episodes, and life long UFO/paranormal/high strangeness encounters, the abduction scenario has always been a part of this history. Like an unwelcome, sometimes embarrassing relative or friend that insists on being a part of your life no matter how diplomatically you tell them to just go away, the alien abduction scene persists in inserting itself. I've never thought I was literally an "abductee" -- and, in fact, don't think alien abductions are literal events or even, (maybe) related to ETs. Still, there is much weirdness afoot, and that weirdness is  from outside ourselves. (Mostly.)  These experiences (with some exceptions) are not due to psychosis or pathologies or la de fucking dah. They are real, and they of the "other." Of course, that opinion/belief rests on the assumption that the rest of us accept this "other" which of course, most don't. Worse, some do indeed accept that premise but pretend that they don't. That's the insidious side of all this. Some may call that view paranoid. Me, I'm being practical. It's real, it's insidious, it's part "other," it's part human. I've long suspected that humans are involved in much of this stuff: manipulating events, capitalizing on the dregs "they" leave behind or allow us to play with. Dark, paranoid, bleak. Sure. That's not all of it, and I am always hopeful. So I'm not completely pessimistic. In fact, I'm not pessimistic at all. Those humans that fuck with us in concert with "them" (ETs, and/or non-human entities) can go to hell. And if it does turn out they've messed with my head on more than one occasion as well as my husband's, that really is every bit as unnerving and fantastic as aliens. Something I've been saying for a long time.

So. Leah Haley. For years Haley has been writing about her experience concverning alien abductions. She wrote a book: Lost Was the Key, and related her experiences of UFOs and all kinds of related weird events. You can read about it by Googling and reading Jack Brewer's articulate article.

The idea of MILABS (Military Abductions) has always been an uneasy part of UFO research. Not many want to go there. Too paranoid, among other things. (I have had so many experiences with UFO groups who persist, like some Fortean Pelicanist-ostrich hybrid of keeping their heads in the sand, that only "positive" stories and theories of ET and UFOs be allowed. Even if your experience is the your truth, if it's "negative" they don't want you around.) There's a middle here; it's not only ETs, and it's not only humans operating covert staged abduction events. One does not exclude, or negate, the other. ETst still exist -- so do humans manipulating the idea of ET existence for all its worth.

Haley has uncovered government documents, incuding patents, that have led her to her conclusion that alien abductions are human created mind control experiments. For example, as Brewer relates:

Haley cited U.S. Patent Office documents, demonstrating evolution of electronic technology and non-lethal weapons that correlates with the time line of reports of alien abduction. Advances in technology during the 20th century included using electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) to remotely entrain brain waves, induce altered states of consciousness and transfer an otherwise inaudible voice directly into the brain. Overexposure to EMFs was documented to cause hallucinations, nausea, short term amnesia (missing time) and reddened skin, circumstances which became staples of abductee testimonies.

Robert Bigelow figures into this. MUFON founder John Schuessler  rejects criticisms and suspicious of Bigelow's involvement in MUFON and UFO reports, thinking such opinions are silly paranoia. But I've been suspicious of Bigelow's involvement (and indeed MUFON in general) and Haley's experiences add support to the idea of a hidden agenda. It's not altruism on Bigelow, etc. part. (I should add, "in my opinion.:)

Of course we can't know if Haley is being truthful, if she isn't, in reality, just paranoid, if alien abductions really are literal, if the government is pure as the driven snow, and so on. I have no idea. I'll amend that: of course I have an idea, or else I wouldn't be commenting. I have no proof. In my own case, all I have is the knowledge of my experiences:

• Seen several UFOs throughout my life
• Have had related UFO "alien" experiences: telepathy, "visions", dreams, precognition, shared events, synchronicities...
• Have had two episodes of missing time (and possibly a third), shared by another witness
• That witness is now my spouse, who has had his own life long experience with such things
• (We even lived a few blocks from each other when we were teens years before we met)
• Have cover or screen memories related to these events
• And all that's just for starters...

if she's telling her truth, she is not to blame for anything. 

In the meantime, those of us with experiences know something very odd occurs, and after years of investigating, exploring, speculating, sharing and discussing, no UFO pundit, self-elected UFO Police, or anyone else, has walked up to us and handed us a big "Here! All the answers to all your questions in this fancy little envelope." Nope.

So where ever Leah Haley's current opinions takes her, and us, we'll have to see. But in the meantime, for now, I appreciate her honesty in coming forth with her perspective. It causes us to take another look from a different perspective and that is not ever a bad thing in this realm.

Richard Thomas Interviews Dean Haglund (X-Files, Lone Gunmen)

From June of the year: BoA contributor Richard Thomas interviews Dean Haglund of X-Files and Lone Gunmen. Haglund has interesting things to say about art, the culture's "zeitgeist of the moment," the trivialization of conspiracy theory-theory, Haglund's current projects and a lot more of course, including his thoughts on our world now vs. the world during X-Files days. 


And for more, visit Deanhaglund.com

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

Synchronistic Linguistics and Twilight Language

I'm not sure what either one of them means; like other terms, such as exo-politics, disclosure, and post modernism, the definitions seem murky and ever shifting. But I like what I think I think those terms mean. Anyone out there who wants to educate me on these terms -- synchrnonistic linguistics, twilight language -- feel free. I know Loren Coleman refers to twilight language a lot, but haven't figured out exactly what it is.

In the meantime, I found the following article on the Paranoia Magazine site: Synchronistic Linguistics in The Matrix; Or How Bob Dobbs Became the Tetrad Manager, by Robert Guffey.

I do know I've been fascinated by juxtapositions and images as language for many years. Patterns, comparisons, startlingly little items that seemingly have nothing to do with each other and yet, for whatever reason, I see a connection. Or a . . . something. Maybe it's just the Fortean inclined mind.

UFOs, the Trickster and Humor

The Trickster is an inherent part of Fortean phenomena, including UFOs. That’s why, as I’ve said many times, things like the so-called UFO circus, the Raelians, ironies and synchronicities, surreal juxtapositions, the stonewalling by the infrastructure in regards to UFOs, the maddeningly elusive quality surrounding the indisputable authenticity of photographs, samples, castings, and recordings,hoaxers and pranksters, and the petty in-fighting will always be with us.

Which brings us to humor. Humor, like all things, has a range of styles. Some humor is barely humorous. There’s lame thick headed boorish humor, fart joke humor, cruel humor (laughing at people getting hurt, especially in the genitals) witty humor, cutting biting sarcastic humor, vaudeville humor, sex humor, all kinds of humor. Some humor isn’t funny. Some is hysterical.

Everything contains elements of humor. The Trickster knows this. Sometimes Trickster’s humor is playful and a bit of a tweak to us to remind us of things. Usually it’s to lighten up and not take ourselves too seriously all the time. Other times its humor is downright dangerous. But trying to think of the Trickster as without humor is ridiculous; the Trickster is all about humor.

The mistake some people make is in thinking that, because one laughs and sees the humor in things, the importance of that thing is trivialized. Depending on the type of humor this could be true. All those stupid jokes about “anal probes” - - enough already!

Encounters of the strange, whether it’s with aliens, UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, or Mothman often are very scary. There’s nothing funny about them.

Nor is the research itself a light hearted romp through curious minds.

But having fun at times, being funny, and seeing the humor in things is not hurting research, the self, or others, as long as you’re not making fun of.

The question is, are you having fun at your own expense, or others?

My husband and I make jokes all the time about UFOs and aliens. Don’t you think we both struggle with the weird things that have happened to us throughout our lives? Do you think it’s at all comfortable for us to know that we’ve experienced hours of missing time on two different occasions? That’s damn scary. It’s weird. It’s unpleasant to consider what the possible explanations are; from mental illness to government experiments to actual aliens from space. And yet we make jokes all the time. We have to.

Seeing the humor in things is a good thing, and often a healing thing. How many times in your life have you been in a crisis, and something, or someone, makes you laugh?

I’ll share a personal story that has nothing to do with UFOs or the weird. But it’s an example of humor in a seemingly inappropriate place. We went to the funeral home to my father’s memorial. Now, none of us had any money, including my deceased father. We barely scraped up enough to do what we did. My father was a riot, one hell of a funny man. He appreciated the funny goofy ironic things in life, the surreal, the absurd. So here we are, solemn, sad, in the little chapel, and here comes the funeral director, wheeling my dead father out on a trolley thing. Not the most delicate or classy of arrangements. Okay, so Dad was covered up with a sheet, but still. Now my Dad was a big guy, 6 feet 3 inches, and here he is, barely on this rickety metal table on wheels. And he starts to slide off! And the poor funeral director is trying to not notice it, but also trying to fix it, and my Dad’s body is sliding off. And you know what we all did? We started to laugh. We laughed so hard we cried. And laughed again. We laughed our asses off. Which mortified the funeral director. Which made us laugh even more. Sick? Not if you knew my Dad. (I love you Dad. . ) The point is, humor has its place in the world.

You have to see the humor in things, or you’ll go insane. Remember the television series M.A.S.H.? All that dark operating room humor. They weren’t making fun of patients, or the medical profession -- in fact, they took the work damn seriously. When it came to saving lives and helping others, they did not mess around. They knew very well the seriousness of the situation. I know M.A.S.H. was just a fictional television series and nothing like real life, including UFO real life, but it’s a good illustration of my point.

Who were considered the most useful, and immune to punishments from the ruling classes? The court jesters.

The point is the use and benefits of humor. Humor is like anything else; it can be abused, misused, misunderstood, certainly.

But to suggest that those exploring UFOlogy or other Fortean topics should not have fun at times, use or see the humor in things, is at best terribly narrow minded, and at worst, ignorant.

Besides, if you can’t see the humor for what it is within UFO studies and Forteana, you’re missing a huge part of what those are. There's nothing funny about that.

The Scientology Meme: Mob Mentality

I’m no fan of Scientology, (had a personal negative experience with them involving a family member when I was young) but I’m no fan of organized religions or organized anythings. Like Groucho Marx once said:

I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

On many esoteric blogs, as well as the anti-esoteric blogs and forums (otherwise known as “skeptics”) there’s been a lot of self righteous anti-Scientology posts. Well, yeah, okay. Let’s go after the Vatican, various Christian sects, Islamic extremists, the Raelians, Buddhists (just because they’re not American and are suspect you know), Yoga, and Jews. Oh, and Wicca. Let’s go after all religions, spiritual and philosophical systems. Get rid of them!

The reasons why so many all over the world are now going after Scientology have to do with its existence on the fringe. Everyone’s gone after all the above mentioned systems; and many of those systems (Catholics, Jews, Muslims) are accepted by mainstream culture. As soon as you step over that line of what’s accepted, you’re fair game. Scientologists, like Mormons and Wiccans for example. are suspect. Their rights to freedoms, in this country anyway, are swept off the table, because, well, they’re weird. And if we think it’s weird, really weird, then we get to vilify. We’ll leave the Methodists alone but don’t be going around saying you’re a Scientologist or practice Wicca. Then we’ll get you. Get you good.

Another reason for the smug sense of being Very Reasonable, is the fear of criticizing religious Muslim extremists for what they are: fanatics. We don't dare go near there for fear of staring up something, or being “anti Muslim” and vilifying an entire group of people.

The same with Judaism, though less so. Everyone from the Left to the Right and in between gets to insist they’re “not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel,” before they launch into a long winded, often erroneous, mini history of why Israel is so evil. But that aside, most people leave that alone as well. (Wait, no they don’t, look at Rense.com.)

The point is, no, I don’t like Scientology. (Although, as with all of these systems, don’t be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.) But there are issues far bigger than Scientology to focus your wrath on. The occupation (er, “war”) in Iraq. Global warming/climate changes/whatever the hell you want to call it, we’re all gonna die save the earth damnit, alternative energies, child abuse, elder abuse, domestic abuse, animal abuse (Christ, we’re an abusive species!) poverty, education . . .

I’ve noticed that for those who proudly state they’re “skeptics” -- those very same who remain stubbornly ignorant of the facts when it comes to UFOs, who assume all kinds of wild things regarding the paranormal -- are quick to believe the most paranoid, outlandish things about things they want to annihilate.

I suppose one thing that bothers me in particular about this is the idea that those working so hard towards eliminating or “exposing” Scientology feel so damn proud of themselves, as if they’ve brought us a rare gift from another realm. This rare gift is presented as enlightenment from ignorance and superstition. It's an intellectual coup.

Kind of like what they do with UFO and paranormal topics. There are those within and on the fringe (the chronic skeptics looking in) of UFO studies who insist UFOlogy needs some sort of guild, organization, committee -- some kind of official body --- that will once and for all get rid of all that embarrasses and angers, and keep only what is approved. (Who gets to do the approving, and why, well, you see why it's a problem. . .)

Exercising our right to voice our opinions about these things is one thing, and exposing illegal or unethical methods is a good thing. Other than that, ranting on an almost daily basis, hacking into web sites and calling for blood seems over the top.

What disturbs me is the momentum. Worldwide, people have been unquestioningly and happily joining in protests against Scientology. And it’s this crowd gathering/one-mind vibe that has me worried. At some point, the lines blur: who are the ones acting as a mob, as a single unit, as a controlling mass? That’s scary.

Non-extraordinary Reactions to Extraordinary Things

Regardless of the cause behind the UFOs, the fact is the UFOs exist, and we have every right to talk about our observations and experiences.

That's a quote from me. Yes, I'm quoting myself. My recent piece on UFO Digest, on the orb/UFO sighting of the Lafuers in Albany, Oregon and chronic skeptics.

Hysterical about hysteria

In Hysterical about hysteria, the author comments on the somewhat suspicious insistence of scientists and authorities that the noxious fumes experienced by witnesses to Peru’s recent “thing that crashed from the sky” was “mass hysteria.”
Instead of actually treating the witnesses with respect and interest, they’re dismissed. As he writes:

Whoa, time out. Geologists say that meteorites can't cause people to become sick, therefore the people must be delusional. Isn't that putting the theory before the observation? It's also a little weird that the "large number" of reports is used to cast doubt on them. In most areas of science, a large number increases our confidence. Why can't we just say, There were reports of people reporting a flash in the sky and a big hole in the ground and getting sick, that's weird, so let's investigate.

Good point.

OrangeOrb Sunday Round-UP

Quote of the Day:
I'm compelled to my expression -- I call it a provoked obsession. ~ Alfred Lehmberg.

Speaking of Lehmberg, his blog is An Alien View. He also writes a column for UFO Magazine.

Paranormal Smackdown
My item ‘Paranormal Smackdown’ generated a lot of comments. Also over on The Daily Grail.

While my two cents (and that’s all it is, fine people, my two cents, just opinion and speculation) is that Whitley’s interpretation of “the visitors” is heavily influenced by his Catholicism. That’s my take on it; but others disagree. And while I have my opinion, I want to make it clear that that’s all any of us have. It’s easy to play armchair psychologist and comment on other’s interpretations and experiences. Some of us, myself included, can’t help ourselves, because we’re in the same boat as the person we’re commenting on. We’ve had our own experiences. We’re all just trying to figure it out.

Paranormal Meet: New Blog Site
The Paranormal Meet seems to be going strong; new members join every day. It’s good for those of us with established blogs, as well as those who might be shy or unsure about blogging.

Jacques Vallee on C2C!
Monday night Jacques Vallee will be the guest on Coast to Coast. This is such exciting news, I’m going to . If Noory is the host, well, it’s kind of like Jay Leno interviewing ... well, anyone. God help us. But I’ll listen anyway of course.

Various Items
Pieces that went up in the past couple of weeks, in case you missed them:
Trickster’s Realm on Binnall of America on weirdness on the Oregon coast. Look for my new column that should be up sometime on Monday on Glowing Bird Theory.

My thoughts on faeries and other entities on UFO Digest: When Entities Collide.

Still obsessed with parsing UFOlogical terms on American Chronicle: What is a Real UFO?

Vote, Fave, Join, Promote

Don’t be shy. Click on any of the green and white “Technorati” buttons on your right and make The OrangeOrb one of your “favorite” blogs.

There are also a few Yahoo groups you can join: if you have a UFO blog or site, you can promote it at UFO Blog Listings. If you’re interested in discussing aspects of Trickster behavior, join Trickster and the Paranormal. And if you live in the Pacific Northwest, or even if you don’t, you can discuss paranormal, UFO and Fortean topics in Oregon Forteana. The Yahoo buttons on the side bar on your right will take you there.

And just for silly fun, you can vote for the OrangeOrb as being the best pop culture blog, “freakiest blog” or “blog about stuff.”

I Know, It’s A Waste Of Time . . .

But I do wish the following would forever disappear from the culture:

“Do you believe in UFOs?”

"Are UFOs real?"

“Do you believe you’ve seen what you thought was a UFO?”

“Aunt Millie said she’s seen a UFO; do you believe her?”

“Do you believe UFOs exist?”

You get the picture.

I know, I know, it’s “only” semantics (a phrase that drives me wild) and it’s a ridiculous battle. No chance at all of ever winning, or even coming close.

Still, every now and then I just have to rant about the use of UFO as an: idol, an idea, a concept, a entity, an alien -- make that an outer space alien -- a mirage, a hallucination, a fantasy, a lie, a drug or alcohol induced event, a mental aberration, a religious figure, a God/

Instead of what it is: a weird object/craft/machine/light of unknown origin and purpose. Nothing to “believe” in at all. Do you “believe” in your microwave? The point some make that “we know what a microwave is; we don’t know what a UFO is” is a nonsensical response. Yes, yes, we know about microwaves, and we don’t know the whats, wheres, and whys of UFOs, but that’s what UFOs are. In that sense, we do know what UFOs are: we don’t know what they are. (heh.)

Putting all this other stuff onto an unexplainable light/thing/machine in the sky only reveals the issues of the individual doing the interpreting. Including the thuggish (or disingenuous, depending) response of the pathological skeptic who insists that “everyone knows when we say UFO we really mean aliens from space.” Speak for yourself there Mr. or Ms. Pelican Head.

I have ideas, theories even, as to what some UFOs are, but that doesn’t mean they are that.

I’ve seen several UFOs in my life. (Some with some high strangeness thrown in.) And while I won’t deny or try to explain away, nor rationalize in any way, that I’ve seen UFOs, -- because I have -- neither will I say I “believe” in them.

Memory Games

image: still from Hitchcock film Spellbound, 1945


A lot’s been written on the nature of memory and UFO/paranormal experiences. All sides of the anomalous realm have tackled the hows and whys of our memories; skeptics of all stripes, UFO researchers, psychologists, debunkers, etc.

Theories as to our memories abound; explanations for missing time, screen memories, events that are as real as me sitting here in my armchair with my laptop but shouldn't ‘t be for their fantastic elements; all are either “explained” or debunked. And then there are the UFO researchers who take a nuts and bolts view: they happened exactly as described, for the aliens really did land, or communicate, or abduct, and that’s the end of that.

We’re fantasy prone. Or we remember what we want to remember. Or we think we remember but we really don't remember. We fill in the lbanks with things that aren’t there. We see patterns where there aren’t any. We want to see things so we do. We’re awake when we’re asleep, we’re asleep when we’re awake. Or we think we are. We suffer from sleep paralysis. We expect to see or experience something strange, so we do. We’ve seen too many movies about flying saucers. Some of us are mentally ill. Or some of us are just outright liars.

All the above combine in various ways to screw up our memory banks, and make us think we’ve seen things that we shouldn’t have, couldn’t have seen because they don’t exist. These are excuses to explain away all the weird things that happen in UFO events: missing time, screen memories, interactions with entities on some mid-plane (neither here in “reality” nor unreal.)

I’ve spoken with many individuals who’ve experienced the above, from a UFO sighting to alien abductions. I’ve personally experienced the following: UFO sightings, missing time, regression/hypnosis, interaction with entities, awareness of invisible entities. (Or what we interpreted as “entities” for all I know, they could have been microwaved beamed at us from a shadow government agency.) And in all of those experiences; my personal ones, and those of others, not once has the idea of these experiences being murky, iffy occurrences been expressed. There was never any doubt they really happened.

I don’t think I’ve seen UFOs, I have. I don’t kind of, sort of, in that vague dream like way, think I could have experienced missing time, I did experience missing time. The invisible entities: that was confirmed on different occasions by others who experienced the same thing. There is no question of false memory or sleep paralysis or other trendy chronic skeptic explanation.

I do have two memories I’m not sure about, and they have nothing to do with UFOs, the paranormal, or anything at all esoteric or occult. The question of course is why? How can it be I have two images/memories that won’t go away, yet I don’t know if they really happened? Were they dreams, or real? And why do I remember them at all?

In one, I am about five years old. I’m with my grandmother. We’re in a large place; the floor is black and white checkered linoleum. There are large pebbled glass windows set high in the walls, which are white ceramic tiles. The sun is streaming through these windows; the place is full of light. There are lots of clocks everywhere. I have no idea if this is a dream, or a memory of something real. It’s a persistent image however.

The other one concerns a concert. I have a memory of seeing Donovan at the Hollywood Bowl. But I’m not sure. I’ve been to a lot of performances there; and never doubted one of them. I’m positive about all of them. Except this one. You’d think I’d be “sure” if I saw Donovan or not. Why wouldn’t I be? Why am I not sure? I have a persistent image of him on the stage, sitting on a carpet, with flowers around his neck. I’m in the audience watching him. I think. I’m not sure. I don’t remember who I was with, how I got there, or what happened next.


Are these memories real? Is the first one a memory of somewhere I really did go with my grandmother? the Donovan memory: is it just one of those quirky aberrations, or some type of UFO or paranormal event after all?

While interesting, they have to stay where they are. In the meantime, the other experiences, as strange as they are, leave behind them plenty of questions as to what, who and why.

But not to their reality.

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.

Acceptability of Faith, Demands for Proof

Many a chronic skeptic will back down from attacking/debating/arguing with a religious person. The accommodation is one they’d never make for a UFO or Bigfoot witness, or anyone who’s encountered the paranormal. But they’re not as quick to practice their irrational rationalism with a person of faith because, they’ll tell us, it’s a matter of faith. (Also, many a skeptic is a person of faith.) If the religious person admits that they belief because they “have faith,” and acknowledge that there isn’t any way to prove such a thing (which is why it’s called faith) everyone’s pleased with such civilized behavior and there is no need for debate.

The degree of acceptably of one’s faith decreases with the type of religion or spiritual system in question. Mainstream religions are usually fine, unless they verge on the cultish. When one strays from the “norm” by claiming to be pagan, or a non-Western religion or system, the marginlization begins.

Faith is what it is, and there’s nothing wrong with having faith. This isn’t about a judgment on the merits of faith. But one can not prove God exists, or Jesus, or the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit, etc. Someone says they believe in these things, they believe because of their experience, and their faith. But what have they offered us? Nothing tangible. Yet we leave them alone.

But in cases of UFOs and anomalous events, as we know, the expectations -- the demands -- for proof are shrill. They’re relentless, and those who make the demands are consumed with the self-righteousness of any zealot who believes -- who knows -- they are right and on a higher moral road.


Meanwhile, people see Bigfoot or other entities, and immediately have their sanity and character questioned if they share their stories. One could argue that in the case of a single witness, all we have is her word. And yet, why would someone want to lie about a thing like that? (True, people have and do -- in all areas. The point isn’t so much about believing another wholeheartedly without any thinking on your part. It’s more of an approach, a mindset, a way of looking at the world that is the issue here.)

In cases of multiple witnesses, we have a lot more than the lone person relating her story of encountering a God. Yet we demand much more from the Bigfoot witness.

The same for UFOs. Hell, we’re still stuck on the inaccurate semantics surrounding UFOs: the inane question “Do you believe in UFOs?,” the “We don’t know what a UFO is, so how will we know one when we see one?” (also used for Bigfoot) and “UFOs really means extraterrestrials” comments.

Even with photographs, video, film, thousands upon thousands of witnesses, anecdotal evidence, the chronic skeptic still swims around the silly language games while demanding proof, proof, and more proof.

It’s not a surprising reality to know, though it is frustrating, that the anomalous -- where something has been encountered, smelled, seen, touched, heard and felt -- is not only dismissed, but violently discarded. Juxtaposed this with the serene acceptance of staid religious “faith” where nothing has been seen, heard or felt, except by the individual. There are no photos , no radar, no plaster casts or interesting DNA results from hair samples, just a person’s “faith” to get them through. And we nod and gladly accept the latter as rational, and the former as irrational.

By accepting some forms of religious belief as valid and rational, those who reject the anomalous in general have set up a buffer for themselves. A little blankie that comforts; yes, faith is a mystery but there you are. No we can move on. The scientist can go to church and go back into the lab, utterly rejecting ghosts, esp, UFOs, Bigfoot and weird creatures that pop into our reality.

And then there's this; the idea that religious experiences and apparitions are paranormal/Fortean, not "religious" though obviously they're framed in that way.

Marginalization of UFO "Buffs"

Two related blog entries by two blog authors on the marginalization of UFO "believers." Lesley, of the DebrisField blog, has good comments about this. In her essay Ufology: A Cult of Personality she writes:

Beyond that, for ufology to be a cult there would need to be a belief system that everyone followed. Anyone who is a member of ufo updates would quickly realize that ufologists agree on almost nothing. They all have their own theories and personalities and anyone who thinks they would all agree on anything, except that there are strange things in the sky, has never spent any quality time with a ufologist.”

Exactly.

As Lesley points out, sure, there are the “cults” within UFOlogy; the Raelians, etc. To consistently use those groups as an accurate representation of UFOlogy is dishonest, as those who rabidly attack UFO studies know full well.

On the Sanity for Sale blog, there is a good piece:

UFOs: To Believe Or Not To Believe.
The author writes:

”You may have noticed that, in the media, UFO believers are usually referred to as buffs, a term used to diminish and marginalize them by relegating them to the ranks of hobbyists and mere enthusiasts. They are made to seem like kooks and quaint dingbats who have the nerve to believe that, in an observable universe of trillions upon trillions of stars, and most likely many hundreds of billions of potentially inhabitable planets, some of those planets may have produced life-forms capable of doing things that we can’t do.”

In contrast, those who believe in Jesus, God, other forms of mainstream religions are not only acceptable, but considered honorable, trustworthy people. A recent poll (I forget where I read about this) revealed that the majority of voters would not trust an atheists as president. The tension between Upstanding Religious Person and UFO “Believer” is hypocritical, one could say, but it’s a given oppositional juxtaposition in the realm of the Trickster.

As both articles point out, many mega-skeptics and anti-UFOists refer to a “belief” in UFOs, which automatically calls up the memes of: faith, blind faith, miracles, religion, cults, craziness, delusions, and hallucinations. With such labeling, the UFO witness, writer, researcher and investigator are dismissed. People who study UFOs are “buffs” as the author of the Sanity blog says, or they’re “enthusiasts” which some anti UFO skeptics insists on calling those of us who are involved in UFO research (meaning, from a non chronic skeptic perspective) “enthusiasts,” as if we’re all fanatical NASCAR fans. Both terms further trivialize the subject, and more to the point, those who are involved in its study. By consistently using these terms and phrases: buffs, enthusiasts, fans, believers, etc. the topic of UFOs, and those involved with UFOs in whatever way, are presented to the culture as goofy, eccentric, unintelligent, uneducated. Certainly not a topic to be taken seriously, nor the humans involved with the topic. (Unless it’s to debunk, deny, and discredit the topic. Then those people count of course.)

Our culture -- our infrastructure -- has many ways it perpetuates anti-UFOism, along with anything outside of the mainstream. Misdirection, disinformation, appropriation, trivialization, marginalization, outright lying and dishonesty, questioing the patriotism, morality, sanity, intelligence and or honesty of UFO "believers," are among the dozens of ways this populates throughout our culture.

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.

'UFO' DOES NOT MEAN LITTLE GREY MEN

A New Meme: We All Know UFO Really Means Aliens From Outer Space by yours truly.