Sunday, August 23, 2009

UFOs and the Old Geezers

Many times when someone posts something somewhere that is ridiculous or meanspirited, I just ignore it. Ignorance is in great supply in the world of the Internet and all you need to do to see that is take a look at the comments appended to news articles. Ignorance of the UFO world is overwhelming.

Just recently the RRR Group posted a picture that my wife took at the MUFON Symposium in Denver and claimed that those of us on the Speakers panel were a bunch of geezers who had failed to solve the UFO question. It was time for us to get out of the way and let those younger, brighter and more enlightened take over. We had our chance and we failed.

Except we haven’t failed. We solved the problem. We have the proof that some UFOs are alien spacecraft and we can make that point over and over. The evidence for that is overwhelming, but not unlike Galileo, who failed to convince the church that there were moons orbiting Jupiter, we get a bunch of people who "refuse to look through the telescope."

Old geezer Ted Philips, being interviewed during th MUFON Press Conference made an important point. Talking about the four thousand or so landing trace cases that he had investigated, he mentioned that once he had a description of the craft, he could predict what the landing traces would be. In other, more scientific words, we had reproducibility, meaning the same things observed under similar circumstances and the predictability that comes from repeated observation. This was science at its best and it’s something that the debunkers, the skeptics, and apparently those in the RRR Group ignore.

Old geezer Chris Rutkowski (seen here) reviewed, at length, a longitudinal study of twenty years of UFO reports in Canada, looking for trends. Here again was a statistical study that provided information about what people saw and how it was identified, if it was identified and what it meant when the mundane, or what some would call the rational, did not explain the events. These were unidentified sightings that suggested alien visitation.

Old geezer Stan Friedman (seen here) diverted from his normal "Flying Saucers Are Real" talk and spoke about the possibilities of interstellar travel, something the youngsters, the debunkers, and the skeptics will always reject out of hand. The distances are too vast and we just can’t travel that far with our chemical rockets.

Well, of course, a chemical rocket would quickly run out of fuel, but other methods of propulsion have been discussed everywhere from science fiction to science conventions... and ways to generate the necessary energy have been discussed. Methods that aren’t beyond our current technology so that when the opposition says the Voyager spacecraft will take 70,000 years to get to the nearest star, they don’t mention that it is not accelerating. Any trip to another star will require constant acceleration until a point is reached that the craft will have to begin to slow down, but the round trip time drops considerably.

Old geezer Bruce Maccabee (seen here) examined the pictorial evidence for UFOs and there are some cases in which there are but two possible solutions. The object is either alien or the case is a hoax. Maccabee mentions the McMinnville, Oregon case which he had investigated for decades and he finds no evidence of hoax... which, coincidentally, is the solution offered by the Condon Committee, the University of Colorado scientific study of UFOs. The object in the photographs matches no known earthly-built craft and was, or is, therefore good evidence of alien visitation.

I, myself an old geezer, would point to the Lubbock Lights photographs taken by Carl Hart, Jr. in 1951. The four known pictures show the objects in V-shaped formations over the town and are either of some unknown craft (which could be of earthly manufacture though no one can point to it) or they are faked. Donald Menzel, that paragon of scientific thought and rationality, for no reason what-so-ever, declared the pictures to be fakes. Carl Hart, Jr., told me in an interview a number of years ago that they weren’t faked and he doesn’t know what they were.

I could point here that the Air Force has been less than candid in its investigation of UFOs, slapping on ridiculous solutions just to be able to label the case. For the 1957 sightings in Levelland, Texas, which involved multiple witnesses, the UFO interacting with the environment, sightings by law enforcement officers and even the suggestion of a landing trace, the Air Force decided the sightings were weather related and the culprit was ball lightning... at the time, even science denied the existence of ball lightning. No one then seemed to catch the irony of using something that didn’t exist to explain the sightings of something else that didn’t exist, at least according to those in the Air Force.

If you are interested in the duplicity of the Air Force, let me point out that according to their nearly day long investigation, their representative spoke to only three witnesses. Later, when Major Don Keyhoe suggested that there were nine witnesses, the Air Force all but called him a liar.

But the truth is that both Keyhoe and the Air Force were wrong. There were many witnesses in thirteen separate locations. Many of their stories, gathered before the publicity and within minutes of their sightings were strikingly similar, including the electromagnetic effects on their vehicles engines, radios and lights.

What all this means is that we geezers have solved the UFO question. We know what is going on and we use our experience to provide answers for those cases that we can and we suggest that some of these UFO sightings are the result of alien visitation. I believe that we know what is going on with the cattle mutilations, a subset of UFOs, I’m fairly certain we know what is happening with crop circles, another subset, and the jury seems to be out on alien abduction, though we have some very interesting terrestrial solutions.

And now we have people... scientists saying the evidence is anecdotal but, of course, that is a way to reject it without having to examine it. We have people claiming that after 60 or 70 years of investigation we have no answers, though we have many solid answers, and we have one group waiting impatiently for those they consider geezers to die off and get out of the way of the new breed who can bring a fresh approach to the problem.

I ask, just what will this new breed do differently? Use the Internet for their research? Rehash the cases that have been solved and involve us again in messes like the Allende Letters, which was explained thirty years ago? Or maybe the RRR Group will support more experiments like those two clowns in New Jersey who proved that witnesses report accurately what they see and that UFO investigators provide answers quickly...

Old geezer Marc D’Antonio told me that he knew the objects in the New Jersey case were either Chinese Lanterns or flares after examining the tape of the lights. The only people fooled were the news media who haven’t conducted much in the way of investigations in thirty years and the employees of a Ford dealership. The two "twenty-somethings" who conducted the "experiment" lied to the media, lied to the researchers, interjected themselves when the publicity began to slip, and then drew conclusions that were not based on the research but on their own personal bias. So much for the new life interjected into UFO investigations and research by the young, hip, enlightened youth.

Here’s the bottom line in this. We know the answers but we can’t get the scientists, the Air Force, the media and the debunkers to look through the damned telescope. They know there are no such things as alien visitors and any evidence that shows otherwise must be manufactured.

And now we have to put up with those enlightened individuals who believe that we have failed in our mission the last several decades. But no, that’s not where we failed. It was in the public relations war. The bad guys had access to the media who are too sophisticated to believe that creatures from another world were smart enough to get here from there. They’re too sophisticated to believe that an average person is smart enough to distinguish between the mundane and something extraordinary. They’re simply too sophisticated to look through the telescope.

So what is the answer here? Simply do a better job communicating the results of investigations to the press. Make sure that everyone knows when an explanation is the result of a desire for a specific truth rather than the culmination of an investigation. And to get those who refuse to finally look through the telescope.


Bob Koford said...

[Sound of Doorbell]

"Hi....Dr. Randle?"

"Yes. Can I help you?"

"Actually sir, we have come to help you."


"Yes sir. We are with the Geriatric Ufological Institute (GUI). We have been authorized by others who care about you to assist you to our facilities. It's for your own good, we assure you."

"What kind of joke is this? Who put you up to this? Was it Christian?...who was it?"

"Now, now, Dr. Randle, we don't want any trouble. Just come peacefully, and everything will be just fine. We have a wonderful facility. We have racket-ball courts, and swimming pools, and even a community garden where you can be with your friends. It's quiet, and you can get plenty of rest there, without having to worry about any more of those nasty UFO fairy tales. Just think, you won't have to lie anymore. You can just let it all go. Other, more capable, and dare I say, younger folks can handle it for you."

[Kevin starts to close the door, one of the men puts his foot in the door, calling into his cell phone]

"Send back-up...send back-up!"

cda said...

You are being inconsistent Kevin. For some 20 years now you have been claiming that the Air Force has known what UFOs are since 1947(from their involvement in the Roswell crash) but are withholding the vital proof from the public. Now you are saying, in this latest posting, that the Air Force, and science in general, is simply ignoring the mass of evidence for the existence of ET visits to earth. This evidence is what you, and other ufologists, have discovered so diligently over many years.

There are thus two schools of thought among UFO 'geezers': one says that officialdom is being obstinate and refuses to accept the overwhelming evidence for ET presence; the other says the US authorities know the truth (and have done so for over 6 decades) but refuse to tell the public.

Which school do you belong to, Kevin? Because if the AF have long known the truth, then they do not need to "look through the telescope" do they?

Paul Kimball said...

Hi Kevin,

I agree, and I disagree. I agree that the RRR post was meanspirited, and ignores the good work that... "classic" UFO researchers have done over the years. Unlike them, I recognize the value in that good work (as well as the flaws), and believe it can be built upon by a new generation. Which leads me to the point of respectful disagreement: the case for the ETH as the ETFact has not been made, no matter much you say to the contrary. Perhaps it has to your satisfaction, or Stan's (although I doubt it has been made to Chris', judging by past statements he has made), but that doesn't make it a fact. And I think that's what rankles some of us younger guys (youth being a relative thing) - the certainty many of you guys have that you've made your case, when we - and so many others - look at it and go, "umm, not quite". And most of us can't be dismissed as ignorant, or just some debunkers, because it's not like we haven't looked at the evidence, or that we aren't opne-minded (indeed, hopeful) that there's life out there. We just don't think that you've made your case, even as we are happily willing to entertain the prospect that someday, with better, more definitive evidence, that case might indeed be made.


Greg Bishop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Greg Bishop said...

Good post, Kevin.


I would agree with what Paul wrote, and add that the example of Ted Phillips proves that he may be able to identify landing traces by visual sightings, but does not really prove where the object came from. It is perhaps a reasonable assumption that it came from another planet, but an assumption nevertheless.

The valuable information that you and others have provided is that there is a real phenomenon that deserves more study than it has received to this point from mainstream scientific researchers.

starman said...


There's nothing inconsistent with hiding the initial proof of ETs and refusing to PUBLICLY accept further evidence of them. It's all part of the coverup.

"It is perhaps a reasonable assumption that it came from another planet, but an assumption nevertheless."

Where else could it have come from? UFOs are technological, and leave physical traces, hence aren't from some spirit world. Yet no Earthly nation can duplicate UFO performance. Add to that reports of nonhuman entities and the ETH can be considered a fact.

RRRGroup said...

Kevin at al....

The RRRGroup post (mine) wasn't mean-spirited, or meant to be.

It was a broadside, and being a geezer myself, a plea to step aside and quit making "definitive" statements such as your post here has made.

The "faith" you place in the ET hypothesis isn't a bad thing, just a non-scholarly thing.

The UFO newbies, such as Mac Tonnies (and a few others), bring a fresh taste to the UFO discussion, which media, academe, and maybe science might savor.

You old guys have gathered much evidence, like a bird-watcher or butterfly collector, but a clarification of the UFO species?

No one of you old wizards have done that -- not at all.


rutkows said...

I only just turned 50, for God's sake!

RRRGroup said...


You're just a semi-geezer.


Alfred Lehmberg said...

All apologies Kevin... but I fail to see the profit, intellectual or otherwise, in facilitating the inane, disingenuous, inconsistent, entirely facile, and wholly anthropomorphic mewlings of Rich Reynolds, to _any_ degree.

It may be that I have an Axe to grind in regard of his fatuousness and unrepentant sociopathy...

...but I surmise if I pulled a fraction of the crap he pulls on a regular basis I'd be ridden out of of U-town on a rail dripping hot tar and retching dirty feathers!

Truly, Reynolds and his stupid simulacrum should be avoided, I submit, for the toxic non progressive program he giddily prosecutes.

Again, my apologies for voicing this considered opinion, but the discussion is in no way facilitated by a murder of vomiting crows, much less the likes of RR and his panoply of tendentious troll sites, eh?

RRRGroup said...

Ah, further puke from Lehmberg.

Talk about vomit.


borky said...

Kev, surely you've noticed by now how the 3Rs bunch periodically come out with something pointlesly provocative just to wind people up?

I don't know if it's a guerilla advertising technique for drumming up attention, i.e., site visits, or due to a surfeit of Scouser ancestor genes, but they're always doing it.

RRRGroup said...


It's those damnable Scouser genes!


John W. Ratcliff said...

I believe what you, and others, have definitively proven is that there exists an *unknown* phenomenon in the UFO mystery.

That's it. Period. We have no idea of the sourcing, origin, or know in any other way what that phenomenon is.

Please don't overstate the case, that's what gets us in trouble.


Rod said...

Geezers. Heh. Y'all were/are - with precious few exceptions - thick as thieves, clannish, suspicious, obsessive-compulsive, angry, whiney, confrontational, illogical, dogmatic, condescending,resistant to new ideas, protective of obsolete ideas, self-congratulatory butthead frogs (in what has become, moreso day by day) a vanishingly small pond.
Turning my back to the lot of you was the best thing I ever did, next to divorcing my wife.

Rod said...

You might consider not taking the time responding to me. I won't be back to read it. On the other hand, if makes you feel better, go ahead and mean-mouth the mystery man among yourselves, even if he isn't paying attention.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

R. writes,

"Geezers. Heh. Y'all were/are - with precious few exceptions - thick as thieves, clannish, suspicious, obsessive-compulsive, angry, whiney, confrontational, illogical, dogmatic, condescending,resistant to new ideas, protective of obsolete ideas, self-congratulatory butthead frogs (in what has become, moreso day by day) a vanishingly small pond."

So... pretty much like anyone else with gravitas unjustly lost by your estimation... as these persons pointedly do what any of us attempt to do regarding the outré: try to make sense of that which _contrives_ to be so nonsensical.

This is no campaign for faint-hearts, Sir, and even the grossly underrepresented women involved in it must wear a cup, eh? You quit too early given all you have to do is pay attention.

R. writes:
"Turning my back to the lot of you was the best thing I ever did, next to divorcing my wife."

Considering your angry and largely misrepresenting commentary on a pretty brave bunch of guys —more cross-fertilizing than you'd give credit for— the wife may have been something else on which you quit too early.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Haw! Who you kiddin', "Mystery Man"? ROFL! A troll by any name returns to the crime scene, always! _Suns_ don't come up first!

[Huge mirth!]

RRRGroup said...

As usual, Lehmberg makes a wrong assumption.


Alfred Lehmberg said...

...And your riposte to such is a facile declaration as moronic as it is insipid.

Standard fare over the years from a person owing me profuse apologies and seven figure damages for the affront of "Slander per se":

The four (4) categories of slander which are actionable per se are (note iv)

(i) accusing someone of a crime;

(ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease;

(iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and

(iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

You've published such as described above to Errol Bruce-Knapp, Kevin Randle, and Paul Kimball!

Apologies! Damages!

C. R. Rookwood said...

I'm surprised by how often I still hear 'experts' say that no physical evidence has ever been found in conjunction with UFO sightings, when clearly that's not true. It isn't even that hard to find good studies and legitimate, hard evidence that SOMETHING happened. As you say, it's not secret or anything.

Several comments have asked the question, which is it? A government cover up? Or a refusal to take the available data seriously or even look at available data? Why can't it be both? We know that disinformation campaigns exist regardless of what we think about UFOs. If the government has evidence of alien visitation, it isn't inconceivable that they might use what evidence they had as part of a disinformation campaign. The pattern by now is so familiar: 1) initial press release about UFO from government agency, 2) denial of press release contents, 3) denial of denial.

You don't need a study or a chunk of metal to see that pattern is real. It's the same, over and over again.

It seems like the either/or approach goes wrong all the time so why cling to it? To me it seems obvious that several different things are happening with regard to UFOs and they all get muddled together. Some of that might well be intentional and the muddle could have a purpose in terms of national intelligence.

That said, I do get tired of seeing the same dozen old guys trotted out on every single TV show about UFOs, standing there talking about how a couple of lights in the night sky couldn't be anything other than a spacecraft. Why not talk about the good stuff or stay off of those dumb shows? Maybe then people won't laugh it off so much. Every time I see Bruce Macabee on TV he's sitting in front of a computer screen arguing that something totally unimpressive is very impressive based on his on impressive credentials. I'd rather see the smoking gun and so would everyone else.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

That's certainly one of the mysteries of the phenomenon is that it provides so much material for its own dismissal. It persists still, though, maybe the smoking gun is denied you out of respect for your sensibilities, to a degree. Maybe its not in your best interests for it to shove itself down your throat, but for you to genuinely come to understand that it is there, and look for it, yourself.

Don't mean to go all woo-woo on ya ma'am, but I think there is something to what I say.

I just finished Richard Dolan's second Volume, UFOs and the
National Security State:
The Cover-Up Exposed, 1973-1991... the mind is open for all kinds of possibilities!

Anonymous said...

Actually, the guy's post was a lot worse before he edited it. He mentioned the death of Hall, for example, and was hoping for the death of a few more soon. I wrote a comment on his site telling him he'd lost all credibility with me. He did not publish my comment, but altered the article to tone it down considerably.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

That seems to have been the stock in trade. If he's not wishing death on his ethical superiors or sniping debunked irrelevancies at them, he's suggesting they may have been involved with the pursuit of heinous activities. Then he expunges the history of same, it would appear to me. How is that remotely tolerated?

anakin_nEo said...

Great article :-) I'm agree with the fact that the statistical analysis of data is the key to understanding ufo, so I do personaly the same job in french part of belgium for years...and with many world data sources including mufon data

if you want, see my non commercial site

curently I try to list british cases from mod divulgation and bresilian ones from bresilian divulgation

when I put data on google map for example for recent year I find some constants , same thing with crop circle, so it's clear in my mind that it's non random , and thus maybe there are sometimes some sort of "alien intelligence" behind cases and sequence of those cases

so thank you for your job and the job at the mufon !!

and thank you for making the access of the mufon journal free to the world , it's a mine of information as the current data as well

for me your are on the right road for years and if today ufology is more "show" than "hard work", it's only the hard work who enable the future, that's the sign of pioneers... always

time doesn't respect what it's make without him, isn't ?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Rich Reynolds? Is he still around?

Oh yeah he's the guy that deleted my post from a UFO forum because he didn't like where I placed it.

Oh yeah he's the guy that says he will find the answers yet I'm not aware of any real investigations he's done other than from his armchair. Yep That's where we'll find the truth.

I bet these fools in the RRR group have never visited a proposed landing site or interviewed thousands of witnesses or looked at the thousands photographs and videos or analyzed trace evidence.

They aren't old enough.

Lance said...

While I certainly respect you, Kevin, for your formidable investigative and historical writing, as a scientist... well not so much.

A scientific veneer does not make science--a fact that typically escapes pseudoscientists. While I may be alone, your claims of repeatability (!!!!) etc. provided me with much amusement.

You have done excellent work in this field. Unfortunately, the thing you are investigating is too jealous to be investigated or it is not there at all or something in-between. It's not that the geezers have done a poor job--they may well have done the best that could be done.

To step beyond the very very meager results of UFO research is not something I would expect you to do gladly.

If only we could check in 50 years from now and see the same lack of results that I (as an informed skeptic) expect from the new crop of writers and investigators, many of whom have weighed in above!


starman said...

While we're on the subject of "old geezers": KDR, I hope you don't plan on dying of old age anytime soon. UFOlogy will need you for quite a few more years.

tonyon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tonyon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tonyon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tonyon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tonyon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.