TIME: A SOMEWHAT CRYPTIC AND PERSONAL COMMENT

Hmm, in my universe, "three weeks" does not equal fifteen months. Oh well.

WELL, GLAD THAT’S ALL CLEARED UP!

"Skeptics longs [sic] knew (scratch that ... long suspected) that the very nature of UFO sightings -- always occurring away from urban areas . . ."

But no matter, because:

” . . .UFOs don’t exist.”

And here's the quote of the week, on why one would hoax a UFO photo:

"Stories also tended to make girls scared, and thus with a little alcohol, they could be hit upon."

RIP: UFO Sightings. b. 1946, d. 2006

FURTHUR ORTHON

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

FURTHER ORTHON

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

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

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

But it is appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

I’M BORED WITH THE BORED; BUT HAPPY NEW YEAR ANYWAY

One observation I’ve made while journeying through UFO Land is that there are a handful of active, yet bored, anti-UFOists. Yes, they’re skeptics, but it’s more than that. Some are ex-UFO investigators/researchers themselves. Years ago, they started UFO newsletters, magazines, journals, groups, meetings, presentations. They investigated local UFO sightings. They researched UFO history and became familiar with the UFO cases and participants. Others never were so involved; that was, and is, beneath them. This never stopped them from commenting on UFOs, even writing books about them. While there are differences between these two; the skeptic who sneers at it all, and the ex-wonderer/wanderer who now sneers at it all, they have some things in common. And that’s boredom, with a capitol B. Bored, bored bored. They are so damn bored.

They’re so bored, they have to write about how bored they are, and tell others about how bored they are. They have the need to express their ennui with UFOlogy to others; but that’s not enough, they have to try and get others to come over ot their side. They have no qualms about being insulting to pro-UFOers. They think it’s okay for some reason; probably because, aside from being bored, they’re arrogant. They’re arrogant, because in their mind, they’re right. Their rightness gives them the right (heh) to be obnoxious towards others they deem unworthy. Those that haven’t yet turned toward the UFO side are ripe for picking; aiming their pleas at the neutral, the undecided, the newbie, the Bored ask them to come on over and join them in their anti-UFO, fanatical rationalism.

These bored types respond to anything UFO-ish with a big yawn. They often qualify their bored responses with the typical refrain of many a skeptic: “oh, I wish it would be true. I wish we’d all get the answer that a new study, a new case, a new witness, will tell us what UFOs are, and why, and from where they’ve come.”

Even if they truly did wish that, one wonders why they’re wasting so much time with telling us how bored they are.

A few of the bored blogs: (by no means an inclusive list. They differ slightly in other ways, and, as noted, there are plenty of others that incorporate even more bored bashing, but I’m not here to review them, analyze them, or get into anything. Simply point out the blatant and obvious: they’re bored, and I’m bored with their boredom.)

Aliens Ate My Buick
UFO Reality
UFO Iconoclast
Updates UFO Updates
Magonia


I’m bored with these boring bored bores. Let’s hope the New Year brings us world peace and freedom from poverty. And freedom from boring bored anti-UFO pundits.

Sadly, the chances of the first two becoming a reality are close to none, as is the latter wish.

But as I always point out my dahlings, within my somewhat cynical and pessimist nature (though I prefer to use the word ‘practical’) (and at least I’m not bored) there’s always hope, a glimmering desire stronger than the current reality. And so, I, along with so many others, continue to do the things needed to bring about these changes.

And with that, Happy New Year everyone!

MORE FROM ORTHON: CLASSISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________

For more on UFOs and class, see:

Dr. Kinsey, UFOs and the Lower Class

OKAY, THIS IS WHY: UFO ‘CIRCUS’ FOLK

I have to make this very short and sweet, since I really need to be doing a lot of other things at the moment. But I wanted to get this out there.

One of my Christmas-Solstice-Festivus books arrived today; Colin Bennett’s book about George Adamski: Looking for Orthon; the story of George Adamski, the first flying saucer contactee, and HOW he CHANGED the WORLD.

Bennett, for those who don’t know,(and really, you all should) writes very, very well on Forteana. Not just the fun, juicy Fortean stuff like rains of frogs and flying saucers that look like your great grandmother’s chandeliers, but Forteana itself. The phenomena/non as a phenomena/non.

(I’ve commented before that it seems to me, in some ways, that Bennett isn’t appreciated enough. Maybe that’s just me. For example, his article in the December issue of UFO Magazine. Where was everyone on that?)

I’m not far into this book; just got past the introduction so far. Bennett said this in regards to why we shouldn’t dismiss Adamski as a kook, and be done with it. No, no no. There’s more to it than that simplistic, dichotomous response:

We need him [Adamski] if only because his views are quite wonderfully absurd.

When I read that, I realized, in one of those ‘click’ moments, why it is I still hold an affection for the Contactees of the 1950s and ‘60s, why I still kind of, sort of, like the Raelians (even while, not) why the Pamela Stonebrookes and all the others that are obviously goofy appeal to me. Even while acknowledging they are probably, a good many of them, hucksters, what about the ones who aren’t? Like the ones who merge UFOs, aliens, Jesus, and angels all together? Or the woman who told me a story so many years ago now of a woman living in a rural part of Oregon, and the aliens took her baby -- and left a “lobster baby” in its place. Those who are sincere and honest when they tell us the dippy, crazy, out there stories.

Yes,sure, a lot of them might be mad, suffering from depression, etc. but that’s not the point. It is on the mundane level, and if they need help they need to get it; but still. Still there is the fact of them, and within their experiences, which have become our experiences, having witnessed them, there is more. There are reminders and messages, symbols and events. A tweaking, teasing tugging at our reality. We can choose to brush it off as mere rantings or silliness. Or go the other way and ignore all caution while diving headfirst as “’bleevers.” But there’s another option. To appreciate it and value it, even to, if nothing else, acknowledge it.

And Colin Bennett put it very simply: we do need the Adamskis of the world, for a lot of reasons, and being “wonderfully absurd” is one of them.

I don’t know if Bennett uses the phrase “Trickster” but that is another reason for this affection towards the seemingly ridiculous. Well, they are ridiculous, but that’s not the end of the story. If one believes, as I do, that UFOlogy also is chock full of Tricksterism, Bennett’s comment makes sense.

What many within UFO studies forget, or, don’t acknowledge in the first place, is this inherent force within UFOlogy.

It reminds me of something I read some months ago (it might have been Bennett who said it, or someone else altogether, I don’t know. If anyone does let me know) and that is, in commenting about Fortean Times taking away the Forteana and becoming skeptics, including towards UFOs, they said something like:

Putting the Fortean back into UFOlogy, or, maybe it was putting UFOlogy back into Forteana. Okay, that made better sense the way I remember it. If anyone knows what I mean let me know. :) (I’m a Pisces, just go with it.)

I have more good books on the way; it’s going to be a fun New Year!

MORE CTH MUSINGS

Mac Tonnies, on his blog Posthuman Blues, has a
new entry on the CTH.

Here’s his succinct summary:

The CTH is a synthesis. In keeping with the "nuts and bolts" tradition, it incorporates what we know about our planet and its biology and arrives at a prospective anthropology of the "other." It eschews interstellar travel in favor of beings that may not be nearly as alien as we've been conditioned to expect -- by the media and (as I argue) by the UFO intelligence itself.

I agree with much of what Tonnies says with his CTH, and appreciate the clarification. For while it shares a lot of similarities with Keel, Vallee, Harpur and others, it isn’t the same idea. For one thing, as Tonnies states, the CTH is based on a biological/anthropological construct, and one where the “alien” may not be all that alien after all. In other words, sharing more with us than we -- or “they” --(you know, them) allow. The Ultraterrestrial theory for example, and its cousins, contain more fantastical elements that I don’t think Tonnies includes, from what I understand so far.

I like the CTH, even though I still hold to the opinion that the Keels, Harpur's, Vallee's of the world have a lot going for their theories as well. And I also hold to the ETH. That’s not the point however -- that I happen to like the CTH and am defending (as if he needs it) Tonnies’ theory -- the point is that the CTH, no matter what you end up thinking about it, is fresh. It offers new thinking about the UFO phenomena, and we can all use that.

Tonnies concluded with this:

Ironically enough, the CTH manages to alienate champions of the ETH and those who support a more esoteric, "interdimensional" explanation. It offers no clearcut reconciliation. It does, however, wield explanatory potential lacking in both camps.

I respectfully disagree that the other camps do not have the “explanatory potential” while the CTH does. All are speculation at this point, including the CTH.

As I
wrote in yesterday’s blog entry,this fierce clinging to the dichotomy stops UFO studies from moving forward. And I happen to think all three are quite possible; the ETH, the CTH, and the more fantastical Ultraterrestrial theory. But that’s me.

Another issue is the response of many a UFO researcher, writer, witness, etc. to the CTH. Many have behaved badly, others have balked, some have said, like myself: “Hey, right on!” Or at least, “Wow, thank you for the intriguing idea on what could be.” Observing the reactions of those in the UFO field to this idea is certainly as interesting -- and revealing -- as the UFO phenomena itself. The UFO subject is a fringe topic with more than its share of denialbility, nay sayers, debunkers, disinfo and distraction artists. One of UFOlology's main problems is getting others to listen, to consider, to open their minds. It seems ironic then that there are those within UFOlogy who react to something new and intriguing with such stubbornness.

THE ETH VS. . . . . WELL, EVERYTHING: WE’RE STILL STUCK

PARANORMALITY

Currently (though not for the first time) on several ufo blogs, like Posthuman Bluesand UFO Mystic, The Other Side of Truth, etc. there’s an lively discussion on the ETH (extraterrestrial hypotheses) vs. other theories and how it compares/contrasts to their UFOlogical ideas. The cause for the most recent collection of discussions is Mac Tonnies, author of the Posthuman Blues blog, new cryptoterrestrail hypothesis (or, ‘CTH.’) Before the CTH, and very likely after the CTH wans a bit, the debate will still go on between the extraterrestrial hypothesis and, well, everything else.

The ETH is often refered to as “paranormal.” I’ve been writing for the past year and a half or so on this blog that extraterrestrials (always assuming they exist of course, which I think they do) are not paranormal, and that the "answer" is more than one thing. Often it appears that way to us; we interpret the effects of their craft, the entities, and what they’re doing as paranormal. Experiences such as psi or esp (as I’ve experienced), and precognitive dreams related to the events,(something I've also experienced) for examples, can be said to be “paranormal.” But if most of UFO events are caused by ETs, it’s doubtful they’re “paranormal.” They’re not any more “paranormal” than one group of humans from one culture encountering another unknown, and very different group of humans from another.

And yet.

How do we explain the so-called "paranormal” aspects of many a UFO encounter? Is the answer mere coincidence? “Magick?” Or stupendous technology? Probably the latter, in the case of ET.

Because ET is not paranormal, does not mean that there is no paranormal aspect to the UFO phenomena.

RELIGION-OSITY

Many critics of the ETH and most all skeptics (or ‘cultural skeptics, to use Colin Bennett’s term) attack so-called ‘believers’ in the ETH as taking on a new form of religion. The argument tells us that “belief” in ET is merely the same thing as believing in Jesus Christ or God and therefore, silly, since none of those exist. (Or if not “silly” then still a non-issue, since there is no proof of either, it’s faith based. In the context of UFOs, since it's "faith based" there's no need for serious investigation.)

We all know there are those who do believe that ET is not only more technology advanced, but also ethically and spiritually advanced. They’ll save us, teach us the way, show us what to do. Once they land and announce themselves openly, it will all get better. No more poverty, wars or global warming. Replace Jesus, God or the promise of glorius ever lasting life with ET and it's still religion. Faith and trust Faith in their existence as "real" and trust in what they tell us is true.

Those people aside, to present an acceptance of the ETH, or acknowledge its likelihood as some sort of new religion is inaccurate. I am of the opinion ET exists, and clearly they’re more technology advanced. It does not follow however that their technological ‘superpowers’ makes them also superior to us ethically, morally or spiritually. And it doesn't mean they’re here to save, heal, or teach us. (If anything, they make me a bit nervous; I don’t trust the spindly things.)

Debates about ET often become stagnant pretty quickly because of this divine/religious/spiritual aspect. Lines have been drawn; they’re magikal-magical-mystical, or they’re none existent. There is a third angle; the nuts and bolts theorists, who usually don’t involve themselves with this aspect, and that’s a good thing. However, the problem sometimes is that the anomalous high strangeness, or ‘Oz' factors (term coined by UFO researcher Jenny Randles) often encountered in UFO events are ignored.

THE ET

Often when discussing ET it’s presented as one, a singular, individual thing. We use ‘ET’ as shorthand, but we often run into problems in doing so. ET becomes almost a cartoon like figure or a comic book hero. One individual, representing all UFO events. Many types of ‘aliens” have been described, there are numerous websites about the different races and forms of extraterrestrials, all kinds of beings have been encountered and assumed to be from space. Still, the semantics used when discussing ET, or the ETH, has a lot to do with what we think of ET.

PARANORMALITY, RELIGOUSITY, THE ET: Uh -Oh

Now we’ve run into trouble. Technology is interpreted as paranormal, expectations, desires and need create a religion, and we have the danger of thinking of ET as a sort of non-human (or possibly part human) comic book hero. (Or villain; I mean, take a look at the Reptilians.) But there is a very weird component to a lot of UFO sightings, in fact, to a lot of UFOlogy itself. From the description of entities, to their behavior, to the characteristics of craft, to what has happened to the witnesses, to those who study UFOs, . . . it all gets very weird very fast, and we can’t find a neat box to put the parts -- technology, behavior, entity -- into.

Which brings us to:

ETH VS. ... EVERYTHING: OR, HI, I’M YOUR DICHOTOMY

I’m always surprised and a little exasperated when I still come across intense debates (often degenerating to name calling, sarcasm and sneering) about which is the ‘answer’ to the UFO enigma. Sides are quickly taken, and little consideration is given to this: that the UFO phenomena is more than one "thing." This has been one of my main points about UFOlogy since I’ve been blogging,longer, actually. With some exceptions, many UFO researchers, witnesses and the mainstream man or woman in the street, take sides. It’s either ET, or it’s either some sort of Trickster, ‘cryptoterrestrail (a la Tonnies) or Ultraterrestrial (as with Vallee), or ‘daemons’ (Harpur) but it seems that there is basic need to take sides, to choose one possibility and stick with it.

The idea that both exist; ETs from space, as well as earth bound, terrestrial entities, and that both are in this dance we call the UFO phenomeana is too often rejected by many interested in UFOs, from the UFO investigator to the UFO witness.

Possibly it has something to do with human psychology; we need to have these rigid lines drawn so we don’t get confused. It’s certainly neater; choose one, and go with it. It’s easier, trying to figure out what’s going in the context of UFOs is difficult enough without having to bring in so-called esoteric theories. It is kind of crazy making in a way. But we can’t continue to ignore or dismiss other ideas simply because it’s easier to handle just one.

BOTHNESS

I’ve wondered if some extraterrestrials are aware of the non-human “ultra’ terrestrials, if one mimics the other at times, and if the ultras, or cryptos -- take your pick -- are aware of various ETs. Whether or not that’s the case, it seems just as likely as any other theory that both exist, and both are active. And, as diverse as the ET population is purported to be, the same could be said for the earth bound entities. And taking off on a tangent from that angle; we can question whether or not all these entities are manifestations of a larger, single force, or just some of them are, or if they’re unique unto themselves. . .

There’s also this idea: is it correct to call ETs strictly “ET,” and/or terrestrial bound entities strictly non-human? Folklore and myth contain a wealth of stories of mortal/immortal beings; of humans that are also more than ‘just’ human.

None of these things are exclusive to one another.

MEANWHILE . . .

I think that the Trickster is an inherent part of the UFO phenomeana. (George P. Hansen makes a brilliant case for this in his book The Trickster and the Paranormal.) Part of this can be seen by the very fact such debates over the ETH vs. Anything Else take place ad naseum. While we’re busily and neatly dissecting sections of the phenomeana and deciding that theses pieces are the only ones that ‘work,’ ignoring all else, the phenomeana continues on its merry way. It’s all at once behaving elusively, bizarrely, illogically. (or what appears to be so to us.) It presents us with solid evidence -- radar, ground evidence, etc. -- while at the same time appearing murky, blurry and blobby on videos and photographs. It takes people to Venus, abducts them from their beds. Or at least, it has some of us believing that that’s what happened, while others debate what “really” happened around us.

THE THEORY TANGLE

Within this debate comes -- often presented as an accusation -- that a theory, idea, or hypothesis doesn’t have any proof. (While the three are not accurately interchangeable, I will use them loosely here to mean the roughly the same thing. ) All we have within UFOlogy and its cousins: Forteana, religions, the paranormal, is speculation. I will amend that to say we have elements of solid evidence sprinkled throughout; documents, for example. But since the phenomeana is so vast and multilayered, we have to ask: what are these proof of? (And do we trust the sources and the information?)

It is all right to speculate. Of course, there’s “wild” speculation, and we run into problems when those who confuse speculation with fact and proof insist they have the truth. But we need speculation; like the often dreaded anecdotal evidence, without either we wouldn't have anything.


EXPECTATIONS

I think that some of us expect a one size fits all answer. We expect that ET, ultraterrestrails, angels, demons, the fairy folk, UFOs, aliens, entities are behaving logically. We expect them to have a reasonable machine, a reasonable technology, a reasonable reason for appearing to us. We expect that there is really only one category: it’s ET, it’s angels/demons, it’s the government. We expect that these beings will heal us, fix us, give us a new kind of magic. We expect full disclosure. We expect that we can trust; that if we see on the news ET just landed,it’s the truth.

Not everyone thinks like this of course, but enough to keep these debates going, even after all this time.

THE BALL

There needs to be a willingless among all who study UFOs to acknowlege -- and use -- the idea that the UFO phenomean is at all times dynamic and ever shifting, full of multiple possibilites. At times various possibilities shift forward while others stay back, only to switch places again.

Without this model constantly in hand, it is difficult to see how much progress can be made within UFOlogy. The stubborn belief that it all can be solved with just a simplistic, narrow nose to the grindstone, purely ‘nuts and bolts’ (or paper trail) approach seems almost willfully ignorant.

This is not to say we don’t need this kind of approach. We absolutely do. The point isn’t that this approach is invalid; it isn’t. The point is this: without holding this ‘ball of possibilites, while utlizing this approach (or any approach) we simply will not get anywhere in UFOlfogy.

POST YULE ROUND-UP

Not much to report; just a post Yuletide note of what I'm working on and some of what will be coming here in the next few days:

Part II of my 'Bubble Model' is coming.

I'm at work on something about Mac Tonnies' CTH (crypto terrestrial hypothesis) -- it'll be a good thing.

Also finishing up the long overdue review of Lisa Shiel's book Backyard Bigfoot: The True Story of Stick Signs, UFOs, and the Sasquatch. (The review will be sent to Lisa first, I'll link to it when I know.)


And looking forward to reading my Yule time books: Body Snatchers in the Desert: The Horrible Truth at the Heart of the Roswell Story, and On the Trial of the Saucer Spies; UFOs and Government Surveillance both by Nick Redfern, and Looking for Orthon: The Story of George Adamski the first flying saucer contactee, and how he changed the world by Colin Bennett.

And a couple of things I'm not ready to share yet, but are pretty exciting for me in the context of UFO World!

If you stumble across another 'Orange Orb' blog in another format somewhere along your wanderings, it's just me, trying out a variety of templates, hosts, etc. I am still searching for the right fit. (If anyone has any input I'd appreciate hearing from you.)

I hope everyone had a safe and good holiday!

THE DANCE WITHIN THE BUBBLE

My UFO Philosophy Bubble Thing, Part I

Theories, ideas, musings, hypotheses, thoughts, anecdotal evidence, we’re all just trying to figure it out. Some are brave and fresh and daring; Nick Redfern’s book on Roswell Body Snatchers in the Desert, (with a review by Stanton Friedman) or the current discussion over Mac Tonnies theory on ‘cryptoterrestrials.’ Others are almost quaint; for example, the idea benevolent Space Brothers who are here to help us vibrate to a higher level, or, something.

Hundreds of theories. There’s no lack of theories on what UFOs are, and there’s a good handful of theories about UFOlogy itself.

So I’m going to jump right in and present little theory; the Bubble Theory. The bubble doesn't mean anything, it was just a quick and convenient way to graphically organize some thoughts. But in thinking about it, I found that the bubble is a good image. It ‘s reminiscent of the bubble in The Wizard of Oz: the one that was small at first, only to grow bigger . . . and bigger . . .until it “landed’ and the Good Witch appeared from within. The bubble is a sphere; many a UFO has been described as being sphere shaped. Planets are sphere shaped. The circle itself is a spiritual and holy symbol. the bubble fits, it’s simple yet elegant.

My little Bubble of UFO Philosophy contains two key points that I think many do not consider when it comes to UFO theories. One, there is an inherent Trickster energy in the paranormal and Fortean realm; and this includes UFOlogy. Two, the Infrastructure -- science, academia, politics/government, society,the media and to a lesser extent, religious institutions -- cannot, will not, treat UFOlogy with “respect” or seriousness. It can’t. Expectations of science taking the subject of UFOs seriously, of embracing the topic with good intent is ridiculous, Expecting any of the ‘departments’ within the Infrastructure to do so is futile. That’s why full disclosure will never happen, etc.

“The Trickster” is not a person, or some sort of comic book character. Rather, it’s an energy, it’s a force. It’s manifestation. “Trickster” simply is an easy to hold, easy to use symbol to express this idea.

The same with ‘Infrastructure.” It’s not an actual building (as one skeptic , in all seriousness, asked me eons ago on a forum) it’s an idea, another manifestation of systems at work. Individual journalists, scientists, academics, religious leaders, politicians, may very well be sincere in their attempts to discover the truth within the UFO phenomeana. But as a whole, and as a force that can be addressed within our culture (and the modern world in general) we can accurately say that this Infrastructure has been diligent in doing what it does; keeping the mundane world mundane, and keeping the anomalous world out. That’s what it does.

I think another thing that is often “wrong’ with UFOlogy is the expectation, or belief, that there is to be one explanation, one kind of witness, one kind of government response, one kind of research approach, etc.

Sometimes it seems that researchers shouldn’t change their minds in regards to theories, or are given the room to safely say they don’t know yet what to think of a thing; they’re still considering.

Surrounding these two key points are the things I think are vital to unraveling the UFO enigma. they’re not in any particular hierarchy, because we need all those things at the same time in order to gain a better insight into the phenomeana. It’s a juggling act all right but it’s necessary. Or, consider it more of a dance. (Hey! The Bubble Dance!) Not just the steps, but the dancers themselves. Some move up to the front, some move to the side or back, some are doing better than others, some, even if not as good as the rest of the troupe, are at least doing some innovative steps.

Also within the Bubble are the folk, the witnesses, the researchers, the skeptics. All of these things make up UFOlogy, and UFOLogy is a part of the UFO puzzle. It’s a symbiotic system. It's not just the 'study of UFOs,' it's also those who study UFOs.


I’ll post Part II at a later date, where I’ll define the terms within the bubble.

DO YOU SEE THEM? WELL, DO YOU?

It's obvious; these owls are hiding from skeptic Joe Nickell. (With thanks to the very fine Daily Grail.)

And A Merry Alien UFO Christmas to All!

(Updated to include Danile Brenton's "The Twelve Alien Days of Christmas")

"Suppose that the elf in question spends one second per house. This isn't the usual picture--'Ho Ho Ho' and so on--but I imagine he is terribly efficient and very speedy; that would explain why no one sees him very much. With 108 houses he has to spend three years just filling stockings. I've assumed he spends no time at all in going house to house. Even with hyper-relativistic reindeer, the time spent in 108 houses is three years and not eight hours..."~Carl Sagan, on the "Santa Claus Hypothesis"

Yes, but Carl, it's called magick!

Christmas. The time of year when fundamental zealots demonstrate their thuggery and paranoia by lamenting in public forums how “the left stole Christmas.” Time for the the non-religious but vaguely superstitious kind of,sort of,Christians experience vague free floating anxiety. This time of year many Jews and non-Christians experience conflicting emotions. As my husband commented to me the other night, “Only you would be playing Christmas CDs while lighting the Menorah.”

As for myself, I’ll occasionally tweak the incessantly grinning xian who gets in my face about “Merry Christmas” if they’re pulling some passive -aggressive political tactic on me, but otherwise, I’m comfortable with my expression of it all. Being the only Jewish Pagan whatever on the job, I was the one who brought in the Christmas decorations and wore my Santa hat. I do what I do, and I like it. Twinkling lights and home made fudge and gifts, because I want to. Toys for Tots and lots of cheer. I’m not making a statement, or maybe I am, but I’m having a great time this season, Yule, Solstice, Hanukkah, whatever. It’s the season, yes, and what it means and why is different for everyone. I’m not trying to take away anything from anyone, but I'll celebrate, share and observe the way I choose.

It is a magickal time of year. Any way you choose.

UFOs aren’t exempt from the Christmas season either. It’s where the could be reality of ET meets the commercial lore of Santa Claus and the sacred myth of Christmas. Somewhere in between the two is a merging of realities. Aliens turn green as they meet elves. Scientists use Santa Claus to explain science. The market place appropriates it all and repackages it for us in strange blends. It’s just part of the season, and the Trickster energy inherent within UFOlogy and Forteana.

It's interesting, all the greenery. Green aliens, green elves, green Grinches, little green men, The Green Man . . . What it means, many have pondered. Including me. There seems to be an obvious relationship with this and nature energies. Which in turn leads to a terrestrial based hypothesis for alien entities. All just seasonal musings for the moment.

Five Alien Elves, by Gregory Mcguire:

”Tis the night before Christmas, and a strange vehicle appears in the sky above Vermont. Is it Santa's sleigh drawn by reindeer? No, it's five aliens from the planet Fixipuddle, caught in Earth's gravity and plummeting to the ground.

The aliens tune into a broadcast movie, and see Santa Claus forcing enslaved elves to make spies for him, and then sneaking into houses in the middle of the night to plant his spies and steal food and drink. The Fixipuddlians decide to free Earth from this evil tyrant, and set out across the snow, disguised as elves.”

(Just from reading that bit above I get images of MIBS and Black Ops screwing with Christmas . . .)



A Christmas play from 1997:Santa Claus Meets the Christmas Alien, by Sonia Brock. Here’s one little scene:

Santa: Mr. Zongo you are pretty small. Are you strong?

Zongo: Honk, honk! (He lifts Santa as he speaks)

Mrs. Hummingbeak: He’s going to kidnap Santa. It’s a alien abduction. Help! Help!

Zongo: Honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk!

T. Kitten: He says Mrs. Hummingbeak should stop watching the X-Files.

Mrs. Hummingbeak: Well, I never....... I’ve been insulted by a little green alien from the planet, Zip.

You can order Alien Christmas scenes from Center Stage Productions. (Really expensive!)

An article musing onChristmas on Mars by Debbie St. Germain.

A campus tour:Christmas Around the Galaxy.

For your Christmas/Holiday music collection, there’s Fountains of Wayne “I Want an Alien for Christmas.”

And Daniel Brenton writes on his blog The Meaning of Existence and All That The Twelve Alien Days of Christmas."

And finally,we can’t forget about The Grinch. He’s big, and he’s green. He’s not an elf, he’s not an alien, or at least, not an ET. He’s something . . . another blending of images and lore. A Christmas classic, and in typical Trickster like expression, written by Dr. Seuss, who was Jewish.

Whatever you celebrate, Happy Holidays! Be safe, be true. . .

Eugene, Oregon: A Fortean Home

Or so it seems. Autumn Williams, Bigfoot researcher, lives in Eugene. Her mother lives in Oregon as well, she's the author of a recent (or soon to be ) book on Bigfoot. Also Ron Olsen, Bigfoot researcher. And director Ed Ragozzino, director of the 1977 movie Sasquatch, the Legend of Bigfoot.

Nahu lives about two miles from me, as it turns out. He's written a book about UFOs, angels, aliens and God/Jesus. I've never met the man, but I'm sure it'll be interesting. Oh you bet I'm going to call him!

I wonder who else is lurking around this town? (Oh, Dr. Ray Hyman, skeptic; he's over at the University of Oregon. But he doesn't count.)

And that's just here in Eugene. Oregon, it seems, has quite a number of Bigfoot, UFO and Fortean/paranormal people around.

MORE COMPUTER WOES

Something is afoot with me and computers. I'd say, being the product (or victim, depending on ones perspective) of both a Jewish and a Roman Catholic upbringing, that this is happening so I don't get too happy over my new laptop. But I wouldn't say that.

Now it's my email: rlee15@uswest.net. They told me it's an "outage" and there's estimate on when it'll be cleared up. They had problems a couple of weeks ago as well. I'd switch my links over to my Yahoo account, but I'm afraid it'll once again screw up the whole Blogger/Google/email thing. It did before, that's how I lost my original Orange Orb blog.

Try contacting me at my Yahoo account: seaglow99@yahoo.com

It's always a good back-up anyway.

Update: Here's an alternate blog site as well. After what's happened here, I'm not taking any chances. It's Orange Orb on Word Press, which is pretty good, so far. I'm just exploring it now. But, if need be, I'm all set over there.

I also had my money refunded from Go Daddy; I kept the domain but not the blog. Too messy to use and they never did put it up, even after a week.

From Daniel Brenton's blog: UFOs, An Unreasonable Argument

This is from Daniel Brenton's blog, The Meaning of Existence and All That: UFOs An Unreasonable Arguement. It's a very good piece on the weirdness factor within UFOlogy.