Thursday, November 29, 2018

Roswell and Wernher von Braun

It struck me that since I have published a couple of articles that either attempted to explain the Roswell debris or explain the whole of the crash scenario, it was only fair to look at it from the other side. Just yesterday, as I was provided many references to James Carrion’s book, I also received, from Tony Bragalia, a link to an article he had written about Wernher von Braun and his connection to the Roswell case. You can read it here:

I will note, apropos of nothing, but which might be of interest, Frank Kaufmann had told me a couple of decades ago that he, Kaufmann, had discussed the Roswell crash with von Braun. That wasn’t quite as far fetched as it seemed. A couple of
Wernher von Braun
decades earlier than my interview with Kaufmann, there had been a dedication of the museum in Roswell. One of the features was a replication of Robert Goddard’s lab. Goddard is considered the father of American rocketry, and von Braun had praised him for his innovations. Von Braun said that his work had been built on the foundation laid by Goodard.

Karl Pflock challenged this claim (about Kaufmann talking with von Braun and not von Braun’s praise of Goodard), but I was actually able, through documentation, to place von Braun and Kaufmann in the same room at the same time. Kaufmann was the chairman of the Roswell Chamber of Commerce during the dedication, and he had something called a Congressional Record that established that. This simply means that this document had mentioned Kaufmann’s position and that he and von Braun had attended the dedication. That put them in the same room at the same time and I wouldn’t be surprised if Kaufmann didn’t speak with von Braun.

Now, before you all write to tell me that Kaufmann has been caught in fudging his tales, I am not suggesting that they talked about the Roswell UFO crash. I’m only saying that Kaufmann met von Braun. I would be surprised, stunned actually, if either of them mentioned the crash. If there was a crash, it would be highly classified, and even if they both realized that the other was in on the secret, I just don’t see them discussing that in a room full of people at the dedication. In fact, I would be surprised if they exchanged much in the way of conversation, given the circumstances.

So, no, I don’t believe that Kaufmann knew anything about the crash stories that he hadn’t picked up over the years by watching television or talking with Walter Haut. In fact, in my first conversation with Kaufmann, he mentioned the 1989 Unsolved Mysteries broadcast that told the tale of Roswell. (And yes, I was on that show and no, I didn’t get to meet Robert Stack.)

Bragalia’s article will tell you that von Braun was brought in as a consultant to study the craft. He mentioned these things to his colleagues over the years. They are the ones who are suggesting that von Braun was involved. You can pick up the details in Bragalia’s article at his website. If you have questions about Bragalia’s article, you can contact him through the website.

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

James Carrion's The Roswel Deception

Over the last few hours, I have received a half dozen notifications about James Carrion’s book about the Roswell UFO crash, The Roswell Deception. Carrion’s been working on it for a long time, and, has “previewed” parts of it on several
James Carrion. Photo
copyright by Kevin Randle
occasions. The book is long so that I haven’t had time to read the whole thing yet. I do know that he is passionate about his explanation.

One other thing of note. He was, at one time he was the International Director of MUFON, and in February 2010, gave up that position. He said that as a single parent, with aging parents and other responsibilities, he simply didn’t have the time. His own UFO research into role of the government in UFO research was also taking his time.

For those who would like to see a different perspective (you knew I would have to say that didn’t you), you can read his book free here:

As I say, I haven’t read the book, so I’m really not in a good position to comment on the content. When I get the chance, I’ll try to post something about it…

Apropos of nothing at all, I will mention that we’ve been provided with another theory for the Roswell debris this year… the Satelloon. I don’t believe that a Satelloon is the solution, but heaven forbid that I say anything negative about it.
So, give this a read, see what you all think, and provide a comment if you are so moved.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018


Well, here we go again. Another reason to dislike Ufology. This time I find myself engaged in a discussion over semantics. I have to wonder what is the proper terminology for these things that people claim are buzzing around Earth. And this is just another part of a much larger, societal problem with nearly everyone requiring everyone else conform to their personal beliefs and to use their personal terminology, sometimes under penalty of law (or thoughts of changing laws for that purpose, but I digress already).

Steve Bassett suggested during my recent interview with him that his preferred term for what we all think of as UFOs is UAP, standing for unidentified aerial object. Back years ago there were those who made the argument that UFO suggested two things that might not be true. That is, these things were objects and they were flying. UAP didn’t suffer from those preconditions and was, therefore, a much better term.

But even before we got to UFO, there were the Foo Fighters, a name which conjured up no sort of image or preconceived notion. Foo Fighter was something that airmen on all sides of the war saw that they couldn’t identify. When World War II ended, interest in the Foo Fighters and their origin ended and that name didn’t translate into anything that was coming in the near future.

Arnold's "Flying Saucer."
We, of course, here in the United States, started out with flying saucer, based on Ken Arnold’s description of the motion of the things he saw as opposed to their actual shape. Others thought that flying disk was a better description. I’m not really sure I understand the difference… both came to mean (please note the qualifier) alien spacecraft. That wasn’t the only definition back in 1947, it just evolved into that.

Although Ed Ruppelt is credited with creating the term, unidentified flying object, a review of the Project Blue Book (Project Sign and Project Grudge documents that are all a part of the Blue Book files) shows that others might have used the term or a variation of the term without really suggesting it was the definitive definition of what was being seen and reported. These records mention unidentified objects and the like without making this an official designation.

Ruppelt told us about the distinction between the terms, or as he defined the distinctions, when he was leading Blue Book. In serious matters, it was UFO or unidentified flying object, and when attempting to ridicule the whole thing it was those flying saucers, probably said with a sneer or a smirk.

There was a point during Blue Book and during the mountains of paper generated by this topic which wasn’t supposed to be important but seemed to attract a lot of attention, the acronym became UFOB, for unidentified flying object. I don’t know why they attached the “B” to it. Taking this to its ultimate
A "true" UNIFLOB
conclusion, I designated then as uniflobs, which just grabbed a bunch of the letters from unidentified flying objects and strung them together.

Coral Lorenzen was also unhappy with the connotations that calling them flying saucers created so she preferred UAO, which stood for unidentified aerial object. We can look at back issues of The A.P.R.O. Bulletin in the late 1960s to see this. For example, in the July/August 1967 issue was the headline, “UAO Struck Automobile in Ohio.” She soon tired of this, probably because it was a battle that she would never win and reverted to the conventional UFO a couple of years later.

At some point, and I don’t know what that point is, others, unhappy with UFO, created UAP, as mentioned. This has been around for a while but has never grabbed the status of UFO, probably for the same reason that Lorenzen’s UAO failed. It just didn’t seem to have the pizazz of UFO and by the time she attempted to shift to UAO, it was too late. That’s probably going to happen to UAP.

I mention all this because there are those out there now that think we need to rethink the name of these alleged alien spacecraft. Those at the Academy to the Stars have come up with their own acronym, AAV. This stands for Anomalous Aerial Vehicle. I’m not sure that it does anything other than disguise what we are talking about from those who haven’t kept up with the latest trends, which again, in the world today, is filled with the latest trends.

I will point out that this new name doesn’t suffer from all the problems of UFO but that it does assume that what we’re talking about isn’t just an object but is a vehicle. It seems to presuppose that these anomalous (unidentified) aerial (flying, but not in the same way that flying suggests an operation… it just means it’s in the sky) vehicles (which is worse than object because a vehicle suggests a manufactured ship rather than object would could be a meteor, or a cloud, or a bird) are someone’s’ craft.

This is all driven, to some extent, by an attempt to disguise what we’re really talking about. No, it’s not UFOs, it’s AAVs. Somehow this change will slip by those with open eyes and be fooled that we’re not talking about alien visitation but something of more scientific. We’re not studying UFOs, we’re studying AAVs. Is there really a difference, other than the letters in the acronym?

I just thought I would mention this history of the ever changing name and point out that UFO is probably here to stay, no matter what some of us attempt to do. If I had my way, I’d stick with uniflob, but only because it suggests that we don’t take ourselves so seriously that we can’t see the irony of changing the name as if that will change the outside perception.

Update 1:

From Chris Rutkowski (which makes this even worse):

Back in 1980, the term TOPA was suggested by a scientist as a replacement for UFO, to make it more acceptable by the scientific community.

Oddly enough, he was ignored.

Monday, November 26, 2018

Oak Island, Red Glass and the Knights Templar

No, I wasn’t going to review each episode of The Curse of Oak Island because it just doesn’t seem to be worth the effort. They have all fallen into a pattern, and last week’s episode (No.2) was no exception. However, they did one thing that annoyed me.

Once again, near the surface, meaning buried in six or seven inches of soil, they found a hunk of jewelry that had a large red stone set in the center. This, they believed, was their first real find of treasure. They took it to a university geology department for analysis.

So far, so good.

Under microscopic analysis, it was determined that the stone was, in fact, red glass. The geologist mentioned that the formula for red glass had been found and lost multiple times over the centuries. The formula was either a family secret or a trade secret and because of that, the formula was something written in code…


That perked up the ears of the treasure hunters, not to mention the narrator. Then, it was off the rails, again… The Knights Templar
Templar Battle Flag
used codes. They were the main bankers of the 14th century until they were wiped out in one night, (just as the Jedi had been, but that is irrelevant to us here).

Doesn’t code imply some sort of nefarious purpose? Code implied that maybe the Knights Templar were responsible for the Oak Island treasure (though I’m unsure how they made this leap in logic).

Or maybe, just maybe, those who had discovered a way to create red glass had wanted to keep the secret for themselves. They used a code so that others couldn’t steal their formula. Maybe there just wasn’t a hidden purpose in that code at all and just maybe, or much more likely, it had nothing to do with the Knights Templar.

This is the thing that annoys me. They pick up something on the surface, clearly something created centuries ago, and then pile speculation upon guesswork upon faulty reasoning, and run with it. A piece of red glass, no matter how old, does not a treasure make, nor does a comment that some glass makers in ancient times tried to protect their formulas using codes does not lead to the Knights Templar.

Sure, there were other outrages in the episode, but this was the most egregious of them. I couldn’t let it pass without comment

Thursday, November 22, 2018

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Special Edition, Steve Bassett

In what I think of as a “Special Edition” of the radio version of “A Different Perspective,” I spoke with Steven Bassett, he of the Paradigm Research Group, and a driving force behind Disclosure. That means, simply, that he believes the government is wrong to withhold the information they have about alien visitation, and they should disclose it immediately.

The show was two hours long, but was broken into two one-hour segments. You can listen to both of them here:

and here

I did begin the show with a bit of a tribute to my old friend, Brad Steiger. He had
Brad Steiger
died recently, and I wanted to say a few words about him.

And, I sort of went off-script (though there really isn’t a script) by asking Steven what he thought about the original MJ-12 documents. He was unaware of the book that Bill Moore, Richard Doty and Bob Pratt had written a couple of years prior to the MJ-12 documents surfacing. I did explain all that in Roswell in the 21st Century.

We then moved onto the USS Nimitz “tic tac” video of something near the carrier group. Two fighters, already airborne, intercepted the object, recorded it using their onboard equipment, and returned to the carrier. I asked Steve (eventually, it comes in the last segment) if the Pentagon had offered an identification of the object.

This led to a discussion of Disclosure, the idea that the government would eventually tell what it knows about UFOs, or as Steve and many others prefer, UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). While that it probably a more apt description of what is going on, it just doesn’t have the zip of UFO (and yes, I said
Steve Bassett
zip on purpose).

We do talk about the history of UFO investigation, showing that it has been ongoing since, at the very least, 1947, though there is evidence that it began, unofficially, in the United States in late 1946. We do get into some of the history that is hidden behind a thick veil of secrecy. Although we didn’t have the time to get into it in depth, there were hints of where to search for more information. This is a topic that demands more information but too much of it is guesswork, speculation, or a reliance on uncorroborated insider information.

For more information on Steven Bassett and the Paradigm Research Group see:

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Curse of Oak Island - Season 6, Episode 1

So, yes, I watched the first episode of the new season of Curse of Oak Island and have to say that nothing seems to have changed. We’re still teased with what is being found, including a gold coin but we don’t know if it was found deep inside one of those holes they have dug, or if it was discovered on the surface as
Oak Island
practically everything else has been. In other words, without some sort of context, this means little and is just one more example of what we have seen season after season.

In the preview show that ran in the hour before the new season started, we saw the coffer dam that they will erect at some point. That is an impressive structure but I have to ask, how would pirates, or British sailors, or whoever, do that in the 16th or 17th century? If we are to believe that these long-gone people built some sort of drainage system that would flood the Money Pit, we have to wonder how they could have done it so long ago with their state-of-the-art shovels and pulley systems that would have been all they had. And, we’ve seen that the Laginas boys have scraped down, below what was the surface of the beach, and there was no evidence of that boobytrap or drainage system. In years past, we did see they found some sort of channel or stone lined ditch that didn’t seem to be the legendary boobytrap that we’ve heard so much about. It’s not really the same thing though.

Anyway, this episode didn’t give us much in the way of new data. They did test the lead “Knights Templar” cross they had found, on the surface, last year. The tests seemed to show that the lead didn’t originate on the North American continent, but we didn’t find out where the lead had been mined. But then, we do know that ships from Europe had landed on the island in centuries past, not to mention people living on the island so the cross really doesn’t tell us much of anything.

I didn’t really expect much from this first episode. They weren’t going to solve the mystery or find the treasure. In fact, I had heard or read somewhere that this season will be longer than those aired in the past. That means they’re going to drag this one out for a lot longer.

However, I have to say, that I don’t think they’re going to find the treasure. I have been interested in this since the 1960s when I first heard about it. I have read many of the books and articles about it, and for a time believed that there was a treasure hidden on the island. Since that time, I have watched each season of Curse of Oak Island and I think the Laginas accidently solved the mystery long ago. I think, once they got to the bottom of Bore Hole 10X, which Dan Blankenship had explored so long ago, and which held some interesting images, we had the answer. There was no chest down there. There was no body that seemed to be lying down there. Everything seen in those old videos or photographs turned out to be nothing more than optical illusions of the rough bottom.

They also have put a diver down, in a new hole they drilled, and he found that there was a current down there. It seemed that the area was connected with the ocean, and that the reason the Money Pit flooded was not really a boobytrap, but they had tapped into that underground water source. The flooding was the end result of tapping into the source of the water that filled the pit.

But we also have to ask, once again, who had the technical ability to build a structure of that nature. While the engineering capability might have existed in Europe or China in that time frame, it wouldn’t have existed on a pirate ship or a British man-of-war. They simply couldn’t have dug down more than 90 feet, created the elaborate drainage system that boobytrapped the Money Pit, and certainly wouldn’t have been able to block the boobytrap to get back at the treasure if and when the wanted to retrieve it.

Joy Steele
Joy Steele, I think, have provided the true story of Oak Island. I think her theory, that Oak Island have been some sort of way station, a place where British ships could go for repairs, is the correct one. Her theory explains everything that has been found to this point without inventing a treasure. Her theory is based on history rather than speculation. I have reported on this in other blog postings. You can read more about it here:

When we get to the end of this season, which will probably be the last season, there will be no treasure found. Given all that we have seen in past seasons, and all the speculation that has not panned out, there really is nothing more to learn. I hate to say it, but I don’t think there was ever a treasure. I think the story evolved from a trio of boys who had heard tales of pirate gold, found something that they didn’t understand on the surface and wildly speculated on what they would soon dig up… They found nothing, family legends notwithstanding, but that didn’t mean that others didn’t buy into the story. We’ve had two centuries of digging, mythmaking, and speculation but we’ve had nothing in the way of real evidence. At the end of the season, I think that everyone will agree that even if there was a treasure at some point, it is no longer there.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Tucker Carlson Knows Nothing about UFOs

Tucker Carlson might be a wiz at political commentary (or he might not be depending on your point of view) but when it comes to UFOs, he knows nothing. He demonstrated that again just last night, November 13. He was discussing the report of a UFO by a couple of airline crews and played the tape of the discussion with air traffic control. He then brought on someone else who knows nothing about UFOs to discuss the case.

First, let me say that Carlson and his pal didn’t make fun of the sighting. In fact, Carlson suggested that we needed to listen to what the pilots said because they were, well, trained observers. While we can argue that point if we’re so inclined, I will say that a pilot who has flown all over the place at night should be more familiar with what is in the sky and what those things look like. This just means that they are probably more familiar with the sky than the average citizen who sits around inside watching television rather than being outside, or looking outside, into the night.

As they, Carlson and his pal, wrapped up the short segment, they both commented on the unidentified astronomer who thought what the pilots had seen was merely space dust, meaning, of course, a meteor. Carlson mentioned that he didn’t know of any pilots who had misidentified meteors, which, of course, was another proof that he knew nothing about the topic… but as a pundit on TV, he can comment on all sorts of matters of which he knows nothing.

So, let’s break this down.

The sighting sounds, suspiciously like a bolide, which is nothing more than a very bright meteor. CNN reported, that one pilot said, “"It came up on our left hand side
Daylight bolide over the Grand
Tetons, 1960s.
(rapidly veered) to the north, we saw a bright light and it just disappeared at a very high speed ... we were just wondering. We didn't think it was a likely collision course ... (just wondering) what it could be.”

Another pilot who saw the object (and even if it was a meteor it would be an object) said, “meteor or some kind of object re-entry appears to be multiple objects following the same sort of trajectory... very bright where we were." 

An aviation expert said that he thought the sighting was of a meteor.

And while that was my first thought as well, we get back to Carlson saying that he didn’t know of other sightings of meteors that had fooled people, or rather pilots. I’m thinking that he hasn’t looked at the Project Blue Book files, or the MUFON files, or read much of anything about UFOs. While I know that some of my colleagues will object, I will point out that I believe the July 1948 sightings by airline pilots, Clarence Chiles and John Whitted, was of a meteor. If nothing else, this suggests that pilots, just like others can be fooled by meteors.

I do think the astronomer was a little bit too dismissive when he called it a sighting of space dust. True, most meteors are very small but do glow brightly as they fall through the atmosphere. Most burn up long before they reach the ground. A meteor the size of a softball will light up the sky and often break up as they fall. Back in the day, as I was delivering newspapers in Cheyenne, Wyoming, I saw a very beautiful, blue-green meteor break into four pieces directly overhead, which is to say, miles and miles above me… but I digress.

Some of these larger meteors, as they break up, look just like a cigar-shaped craft with a lighted cockpit and a row of windows behind it. This, I believe is what Chiles – Whitted saw back in the 1940s. I mention this only to provide a perspective.

Anyway, it seems that what the pilots saw was a meteor, probably a little larger than dust, maybe the size of a grain of sand, or even a baseball, as it burned in the atmosphere. Such displays are rare, so that pilots who routinely see meteors, have not seen anything quite as spectacular as a bolide. When these are seen, newsrooms, sheriff’s offices and the military receive calls about UFOs.

While I will applaud Carlson for his reporting, meaning he didn’t use this to ridicule anyone one, he did display his ignorance. True, he mentioned that many reporters don’t bother with such stories because they don’t want to be ridiculed by their colleagues but he took it a step too far. He suggested that this fear was why reporters never followed up on such stories, implying that no one did. This is untrue. No matter what you say, MUFON, among others, do follow up on these sorts of reports, often identifying the true nature of the event.
For other views of this sighting see:

and many more can be found online for those who wish to look.

Ian Ridpath sent the following link for those with a more visual nature:

Tim Printy offered more on the fireball explanation at:

Thursday, November 08, 2018

Socorro Symbol Redux

I am sure that most of those who visit here do not wish to descend into another pit of minutia about the real symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw on the side of the landed UFO. My first thought was to just allow Ben Moss to have his say and let it go. My second was to respond in kind, but that seemed like an exercise in futility. My last, and current thought, was to post the information in a dispassionate fashion and let the readers decide which symbol is correct based on the evidence. Not exactly the most scientific of methods, but one that would allow those who had no strong feelings one way or the other to determine, from the information, which symbol is most likely the correct one.

The facts of the case are not in dispute. I think everyone agrees that there was something that landed near Socorro and that Lonnie Zamora saw it. Zamora was the one who raised the issue of the symbol. Within a couple of hours, maybe less,
Richard Holder
Zamora was interviewed by Captain Richard T. Holder of the Army and Arthur Byrnes, Jr. of the FBI. During that interrogation both Holder and Byrnes made recommendations to Zamora about withholding some of the information. In both cases, it seemed that the suggestions were not an attempt to hide information, but to provide a way of determining copycats and to protect Zamora.

According to Coral Lorenzen, writing in The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, Holder had wanted to withhold the design of the symbol Zamora saw. He thought that if others came forward with a story of seeing the same thing as Zamora, they could weed out the liars by asking them to draw the symbol they had seen. Zamora, as a police officer, apparently agreed with this. When Lorenzen questioned him about it, he refused to provide any information.

As an aside, and of no real relevance to this discussion, it was Byrnes who suggested that Zamora not mention the two beings. It wasn’t for an official reason. Byrnes thought it would spare Zamora some cheap shots from reporters and others who routinely laughed at tales of, well, little green men. Lorenzen said that Zamora did tell her about the creatures but steadfastly refused to say anything about the symbol.

Given this, several different examples of the symbol have been published over the years. Most aren’t close to the two that have come into prominence. It’s those two that I’ll discuss here in no particular order.

The first is what I think of as the “Umbrella Symbol.” It is the one most often associated with the case. Here is the evidence for it:

According to the testimony from Lonnie Zamora, as the craft departed and before Sergeant Sam Chavez arrived, Zamora scribbled, on a piece of scrap paper, this
Zamora's first scribbled representation of the symbol.
symbol. He signed that.

During his questioning by Holder and Byrnes, he drew representations of the craft, and on one of them, he drew the symbol. He signed this one as well. The other writing on that illustration was not Zamora’s, which may or may not be relevant.

Jim and Coral Lorenzen interviewed Zamora within forty-eight hours of the sighting and published a long article about the case in The A.P.R.O. Bulletin. That same Umbrella symbol is used on one of the illustrations, though a second stylized symbol is used on another illustration in that same issue. Neither of them resembles the inverted “V” with the three lines drawn through it.

Rick Baca, working with from information provided by Zamora, given in the city attorney’s office, produced an illustration of the craft. The symbol on that illustration was added later, under the direction of Zamora. It is, obviously, the “Umbrella” symbol.
Rick Baca's drawing of the craft with the "Umbrella" symbol on it.

In the Blue Book files is a report prepared Major William Connor, who had driven Hynek around the Socorro area in April 1964. Connor prepared a report about his interviews with Zamora. On page 3 of that report, he included an illustration of the “Umbrella” symbol that was reported by Zamora.
Major Connor's internal report from the Project Blue Book Files.
Ray Stanford, in a May 3, 1964, letter to Dick Hall, confirmed the arc and arrowhead symbol (Umbrella) as the correct one but also mentioned that the symbol of the inverted “V” with the lines through it was the “faked” one given to the press.

Stanford's Letter to Dick Hall.
Rich Reynolds, who interviewed Zamora’s wife around 2006, was told that the “Umbrella” symbol was the correct one, that is, the arc over the arrowhead.

Hynek, in a confidential interview with Isabel Davis on May 20, 1964, included this symbol as the correct one. He did mention the inverted “V” with the lines through it, but noted it was from the newspapers. It is clear that at that time, Hynek was aware of which symbol was correct and which one had appeared in the newspapers.

On the other side of the argument, there are those newspaper stories printed on April 29 and 30, which seem to be based on an Associated Press story in which Hynek seemed to suggest the inverted “V” with the three lines through it is the correct symbol. In the Project Blue Book files, there is a teletype message that is located with a number of newspaper clippings that does refer to the inverted “V”, but that teletype message seems to be referring to the newspaper clippings rather than any of the testimony given by Zamora. That is not part of the Air Force investigation.

James Fox has said that in conversations with the late Lonnie Zamora’s wife, she said that the inverted V was the correct symbol. Fox has spent time with her, in their house, and has been granted access to some material that might be unique.

The "top" two symbols in this discussion.
Ben Moss has reported that other members of the Socorro Police Department, when asked about the symbol, seem to uniform in their answer. The inverted V is the one that Zamora saw on the craft.

In the unofficial Blue Book information discovered by Rob Mercer, there is a hand written note that suggests that New Mexico State Police Officer, Sam Chavez, a close friend of Zamora and who arrived on the scene within minutes, provided more commentary on this. According to that, "Sgt Chavez says that the Socorro Policeman had told him that the sighting had markings on its silvery side. Chavez said that the officer told him that the design was an inverted [V] with three crossings on it, but that the Air Force had told him not to discuss the markings."

The page from the unofficial Blue Book files.

Ray Stanford said that he had recorded an interview with Mike Martinez, who said that the symbol was the inverted V.

Hynek also appears on this side of the argument. Interviewed by Walter Shrode at KSRC radio, told of the inverted V. Hynek said, “He [Zamora] described it to me as an inverted V with some sort of bar across it.”

There is a letter dated September 7, 1964, written by Hynek and found in the Blue Book files. There is an illustration on it of an inverted V but the three lines are between the legs of the V and do not extend beyond them.
Symbol from Hynek's September 7 Letter.

In those “unofficial” Blue Book files saved by Carmon Marano and ultimately obtained by Rob Mercer, there was the cursive note on a 3X5 card that reported the inverted “V” with three lines through it. There is a second card with the same information on it that is a hand printed version of the first note. Both seem to be 
Carmon Marano
derivative of the newspaper articles rather than information gathered from Zamora or that were part of the official Blue Book file. According to Marano, this file was made up of documents and information for use in briefing the press about UFOs and included newspaper clippings that were not part of the official file on the case, and was, in fact, kept in in a desk drawer rather than in the official files.

As I noted in an earlier post, the inverted V with the three lines through it is one of the many symbols used in alchemy which certainly gives it a terrestrial based source. I’m not sure how relevant that is, but it seems unlikely that a spacefaring race would paint such a symbol on their craft. (Yes, I have slipped from the dispassionate rail here but I think this fact is relevant.)

And to us all get back on track, I mention that Ben has said there is a letter from Richard Holder, written at some later date, that explains some of this. According to Ben, the correct symbol is the inverted V as pointed out in this letter.

There is one other fact that might be important. When Baca’s illustration was published in the Socorro newspaper, the symbol wasn’t on it. The symbol was added later. This might be the reason that some suspect that the inverted V had been on the drawing, removed, and the Umbrella symbol substituted for it.

These are all the relevant facts about the symbols, or so I believe. I might have missed a reference. If so, please send a comment and I’ll try to get it included. I’d be interested in what everyone thinks now, given this information. Let me know. If nothing else, it will be an interesting exercise.

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

My Latest Outrage - Bielek, Allende and Several Other Things

I’m outraged… outraged, I say. In the last couple of days, I have been bombarded with nonsense in books, on the Internet and on television. Just when I think we have heard the last of some of the nonsense out there, someone feels the obligation to resurrect it with another half-baked, ignorant theory.

Let’s start with the book. I had ordered, through Kindle, a book on conspiracies, not that I’m enamored with them, but because the book was free and it touched on a couple of topics I find interesting. So, I plowed through the Kennedy assassination stuff, some of it, in fact, informative, but then I came to two things that I know something about and that I knew were wrong.

First, I was treated to the idea the William Cooper had been assassinated by Arizona deputies because he knew too much about UFOs and the secret studies. Cooper, who claimed that he knew all about MJ-12 because of his position in the Navy, was considered dangerous, according to the theory. He had some sort of gig as a briefing officer on highly classified material, or something like that. MJ-12 was part of it, or was something that he had seen. However, if MJ-12 is a hoax, and the smart money is on that, not to mention that the best evidence shows that, then Cooper’s claims were also a hoax.

There would be no reason for government assassins, in the guise of Arizona deputies, to gun him down. Of course, had he not fired at them first, the outcome might have been different. The point, however, is that the information about Cooper was badly flawed.

Second, in that same book, there was a short mention of the McMartin Preschool scandal of the 1980s. The McMartins were accused of dozens of crimes including child abuse, engaging in Satanic rituals, child porn (I think), and a host of other crimes involving dozens of children. In the end, the vast majority of the charges were dismissed and the case ended in a colossal boondoggle.

Children, for example, had claimed they were flown out of state for the rituals, taken to locations in which Satanists abused them, sexual abuse in a super market, blood sacrifices and other crimes. But investigation showed that most of the crimes and abuse could not have been committed as described because of timing or in the locations mentioned. In fact, most claims of the Satanic abuse faded at the end of the 1980s for the lack of any concrete evidence that there was a national, Satanic cabal that was protected at the highest levels of the government.

To prove the case, however, the book suggested that the children told of underground tunnels below the school. Once it was demolished, there was some sort of old dumping ground found. This was proof of the tunnels, or so it was claimed. The children had been right. The problem was that so many of the tales told by the children were impossible and no evidence in the form of pictures, which the children claimed had been taken, were ever found. That was the sort of thing that the author relied on… a short reference with a suggestion of proof that had been debunked long ago.

In keeping with my chasing footnotes hobby, I chased a number of footnotes in the book and they lead to a right-wing publication and no further. I didn’t find the source material particularly persuasive, and if the source is flawed, then the information is flawed. In these cases, I knew the source was flawed. Given that, I didn’t find much else in the book that was of use.

AOL, once again, treated us to the story of Al Bielek. I don’t know how many times they have recycled this story. It’s always the same one, provides no real analysis, and suggests that Bielek is a real time traveler who knows, or knew, what the future holds. I’m astonished that Bielek didn’t make himself rich with this future knowledge like Marty McFly attempted when he traveled from 1985 to
A young Brad Steiger
2015. A simple check of sports outcomes or trends in the stock market or commodities, should yield millions. Bielek didn’t have any of that information. Hell, a wager on the outcome of the 2016 election, information about the president surely available in the future, would have done the trick, but no, Bielek missed that bet.

I don’t suppose I have to mention that Bielek’s tale is based on the Philadelphia Experiment, the Navy’s alleged attempt to teleport a ship. Of course, that tale is untrue and first surfaced as part of the Allende Letters, another hoax, revealed as such by Robert Goerman. All this has been explored on this blog in the past. I think the best of those articles can be read here:

One other thing about all this. My late friend, Brad Steiger had befriended Bielek in the past. Bielek stayed at his house on a
The late Carlos Allende aka
Carl Allen.
number of occasions and Brad told me that he found Bielek to be a likable chap. Brad said that he was deeply saddened when he realized that Bielek was not telling the truth. Bielek’s story is a hoax… but AOL keeps alerting us to it without telling us that it is a hoax.

Finally, I saw another of the seemingly endless documentaries on alien abduction, telling us the same tired stories with almost no evidence of anything extraordinary happening. I was going to pussyfoot around this topic somewhat, but really, why?

We were told that many of the abductees “remember” some of the event without the use of hypnosis. We learn that Betty and Barney Hill had conscious memories of the event before they were hypnotized by Dr. Benjamin Simon. But what we weren’t told was that there had been no memories until they surfaced in Betty Hill’s dreams. These she shared with researchers such as Walter Webb and, of course, her
The late Budd Hopkins, a leader
in abduction research.
husband. That the memories first surfaced in dreams is, I think, an important part of the case.

And, when we begin to talk of memories prior to hypnosis, we find that many of them are from hypnopompic and hypnagogic hallucinations. These are sometimes terrifyingly real dreams upon waking or going to sleep. These accompany sleep paralysis and are often associated with a belief that some sort of entity is in the room. It is often only after hypnosis that the details begin to mimic those of alien abduction. Rather than go into this at length here, I’ll just point those of you who are interested to the following:

The real problem here, or at least part of the problem, is that those offering some opinion in passing, or creating a documentary, have some sort of agenda. The producers might wish to advance the idea that aliens are abducting people so they stay away from information that might challenge that idea. People writing about Bielek, are convinced that there was a Philadelphia Experiment, and he is confirming their belief. Doesn’t make it true, but they believe because they want to rather than because the evidence supports the belief. And those believe Bill Cooper about MJ-12 for the same reasons.

In our world today, there is so much misinformation available it is a full-time job to keep just a tiny segment of it straight. There is spin to underscore a belief, but spin doesn’t really advance knowledge. In our world we have to fight to keep everything straight. That is why, after several years, we read on various news sites that those who created the alien autopsy have “finally” copped to the truth, as another example from a recent story.


I have known this for years and published information about it in books that are now several years old and Philip Mantel had devoted an entire book to it… but the “news” is provided for us today. Let’s just keep the debate alive rather than acknowledge the truth and move on.

Anyway, we must remain vigilant to the heavily biased information presented as if it is the absolute truth. We must attempt to correct this false and faked information with facts, figures and other information rather than just ignore it. Having ranted long enough, I now return to the football game.

Saturday, November 03, 2018

The Source of the Socorro Symbol?

Just when you thought there would be no more to say about the symbol that Lonnie Zamora saw on the landed UFO near Socorro, New Mexico, a new candidate has entered the competition. This one is from Otis T. Carr, who most of us have never heard of, but who, apparently, in the late 1950s, claimed that he could create a flying saucer and set out to do it.

Carr's billboard announcing his spacecraft.
Carr claimed that he had worked with Nikola Tesla, which, I suppose is an excuse, or a reason for Carr to have slipped off the rails of more conventional science. (Please, no comments about the legitimacy of Tesla, he was a genius, Carr was not.) Carr founded OTC Enterprise, the OTC, are of course, his initials. He hired a business manager and then Carr, and Norman Colton, began to search for funding for his “fourth dimensional space vehicle.” This craft would somehow slip through space without really flying. It could travel to the moon and back in a matter of
Carr's business logo.
hours. It was designated as the OTC-X1, and the first flight would be in April 1959.

Before we get into the success of that flight, I’ll mention something that is always pointed out. Carr received a patent for his flying saucer, which is supposed to add some legitimacy to his invention. Oh, it  was not a spacecraft though, but an amusement park ride. He had partnered with an Oklahoma City theme park, Frontier City (which, if you’ve ever driven through Oklahoma City on the Interstate, you’ve seen), and it was from here that he was going to launch his flying saucer to the moon.

On Sunday, April 19, 1959, some 400 people assembled to watch the launch of the saucer. It didn’t fly… Carr was in the hospital with some sort of lung problem which meant he wasn’t there to promote his craft. He promised that the test flight would take place sometime later, but it never did. Instead, Carr found himself in trouble with the SEC because he had been selling stock in his company without the proper compliance with various governmental regulations. He spent some time in the slam for this. That should suggest something about his credibility, but there are always those who will claim the big, bad government shut him down… but the saucer never flew and his technology as never proven to be real.

None of his craft ever flew, and that is really the real point here. If the craft never flew, then it would be impossible for Lonnie Zamora to have inaccurately drawn the symbol that Carr had created for his company. Although it bears a slight resemblance to what Zamora reported, it is not an exact replica and really shouldn’t even be considered. I mention it here to make sure that no one believes it to be what Zamora saw.

I should thank my pal and fellow GoT enthusiast, Rich Reynolds, for telling me about this. Interesting though it is, there is really no reason to think that Zamora saw a Carr flying saucer with that strange symbol painted on the side.