The UFO Destroyers

Who is killing ufology, and thus the UFO mystery?

Stanton Friedman would be a suspect, but despite his fixation on the extraterrestrial hypothesis (that UFOs are from alien civilizations) and his promotions of the MJ-12 hoax and Roswell confusion, he keeps UFOs alive in the minds of many media persons and a slightly interested public.



So he’s not a UFO Destroyer.

Jacques Vallee, the UFO guru for members of the flying saucer intelligentsia, proposes that UFOs are an overt manifestation of a “tangible mythology” [our term, not his].

One aspect of the UFO mystery may well be mythological in nature, but that aspect doesn’t address the physical elements that have accompanied sightings, and alleged landings.

Vallee’s tangible mythology is more evanescent than not.



But Vallee is no UFO Destroyer. He may be on to something, but hasn’t made his case in a definite, scientific way. Nonetheless he has mustered a panoply of circumstantial evidences for his hypotheses.

Physicist Michio Kaku is no UFO Destroyer but, rather, a voice of reason from within the scientific community.



But his views are so amorphous that they are platitudinous and useless.

Deceased astronomer J. Allen Hynek was no UFO Destroyer in his later years, but had been near to doing in the UFO phenomenon when he was a spokesperson for the United States Air Force.



The momentum of his turnaround continues to this day fortunately.

Kevin Randle, who is obsessed with correcting the UFO record, zeroing in on old sightings and episodes, is wasting his and our time with the minutiae of historical UFO events. But he is no UFO Destroyer.



He just wants someone in authority to accept the (past) evidence.

Richard Hall and Jerome Clark, two past UFO experts, have given up the flying saucer ghost pretty much, appearing now and then to bolster former and present colleagues.





They are not UFO Destroyers, even though they are no longer significant players in the ufology game.

The UFO second stringers, Nick Redfern, Greg Bishop, David Clarke, Andy Roberts, the UFO Hunters, Paul Kimball, and a plethora of ufological mavens are not UFO Detroyers.





These people pursue the UFO enigma in context of other things that interest them, paranormal things and less mysterious things, like music and drink.

Mac Tonnies, a sci-fi writer and buff, puts UFOs in such a discursive arena of weirdness that he diffuses the topic, but he’s not UFO Destroyer, taking a benign neglect attitude toward the mysterious lights and images that others see as UFOs.



So who are the UFO Destroyers?

Whitley Strieber is one, having made a fictional mockery of the phenomenon, and persisting in his quasi-religious take to he point that many interested persons have discarded UFOs as something that science might be able to decipher.



Then there’s a small group of confused and addled persons who sneak in and out of the UFO arena, venting their spleen because they have gone unrecognized by UFO cognoscenti.

Let’s call them Alfred, Regan, and Lesley.



They gather ideas from others, either stealing those ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts their psychological well-being into question.

They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that others generate about UFOs.

And the final group of UFO Destroyers are those who hoax photos or generate sightings to give them a prominence that they could never achieve in a more credible arena.

These include the former contactees -- Adamski, Van Tassel, Bethurum, Fry, Angelucci, et al. – and present day hoaxers, such as Billy Meier.







The UFO phenomenon needs a focused approach, a discipline that is scientific in nature.

It isn’t getting that, and those above, whether they are a UFO Destroyer or not, haven’t been and are not helping to bring that about.

Paranormal Knowledge

A web-site we really like is the Paranormal Knowledge site, which can be seen by clicking here:

Paranormal Knowledge

UFOs are an epiphenomenon

The genius and fame of Albert Einstein lies in the verification of his theories (about gravity, light, et cetera).



Michio Kaku is one of our favorite physicists but he’s not in the same league as Einstein in that Kaku’s conjectures are merely that, conjectures. He has proposed some interesting hypotheses about everything from black holes, multiverses, and even UFOs.



But he hasn’t provided one theory that allows testing of any of those conjectural hypotheses,

Nonetheless, we like the guy, and we like his imaginative, but unproven insights.

In ufology, the scientist who usually gets rave reviews and encomiums is Jacques Vallee.



Dr. Vallee has proposed a categorical explanation for UFOs/flying saucers: they are manifestations of a deeply engrained phenomenon that has tempted and confused humankind since time immemorial, and change configuration with each new generation.

And like Kaku, Vallee provides no testable theory to prove his assertions.

Vallee is imaginative also, and erudite, but he gives nothing to science or lay persons that can be investigated scientifically or tested with scientific methodology.

But one thing is clear form Vallee’s pronouncements, and that is UFOs are an epiphenomenon -- A secondary phenomenon that results from and accompanies another.

UFOs are the external or conscious, overt manifestation of something that lies beneath or beyond them.

The real UFO phenomenon is masked by the UFO images and sightings many have observed, and which ufologists have long been obsessed with.

The true UFO phenomenon is hidden, and has always been so.

Vallee’s hypothetical writings indicate the same thing. It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t provide a mechanism by which the hidden UFO reality might be accessed.

Ufology needs an Einstein, not a Kaku or Vallee.

Lesser lights like Paul Kimball and us (and a few others) continue to recognize that ufology is flawed by its inept research and persistent obsession with old sightings that have been hammered into non-researchable data and obscure remembrances.



Mr. Kimball has no illusions that he’ll discover the UFO reality, but he is optimistic that someone can and will, eventually.

Paul Kimball is thus a ufological agnostic.

We, on the other hand, think that UFOs may be an unknowable reality, like God.

That is, the reality is palpable in a circumstantial way but the core reality is beyond the ken of humanity or anyone, even an Einstein.

We are not ufological atheists, but we are UFO cabalists it seems.

UFOs, Christianity, and Quantum

What is the one element that UFOs, Christianity, and Quantum have in common?

That they are each, basically, inscrutable; they make no sense when reviewed in depth.

No one knows what UFOs are. Even though many have a mundane explanation, the fundamental phenomenon remains elusive and unknown, maybe even unknowable.

Christianity is mired in mystery. Did Jesus of Nazareth actually exist? Was He Christ? God? Are the Gospels fiction or fact?



Quantum mechanics is rife with riddles and weirdness. The physics of quantum is a hodgepodge of bizarre theory and mathematics that no one really understands, although some physicists pretend to.



(There are other mysteries – Bigfoot, the Loch Ness thing, what happened to Amelia Earhart, who really shot JFK – but those mysteries don’t have the complexity or raft of commentary and research that UFOs, Christianity, and Quantum have.)

What is the core reality of the UFO mystery? That is the question that most ufologists ignore, caught up in the peripheral aspects of sightings and UFO episodes.

In Christianity, the core questions revolve around Jesus/Christ. Was he God incarnate? Was there a Resurrection? And so on…



Christianity’s questions were raised right at the beginning of the Common Era, even before the pronouncements of St. Paul, circa 35 A.D.

Those questions remain intact today.

Quantum theory has settled on one question: What is the Higgs Boson – the so-called “God particle”?




Quantum Mechanics essentially began with Max Planck’s 1900 energy hypothesis. And one hundred and eight years later, quantum remains fundamentally unclear, despite some peripheral elements that have been “proven” by experimentation.



The UFO mystery essentially began to be seriously scrutinized after the Kenneth Arnold sighting in June 1947.

A little over sixty years later, the UFO enigma is still intact and primarily unknown.

Is there hope for a UFO denouement? Not if current investigators remain entrenched in internecine squabbles and febrile obsession with old UFO events such as the alleged Aurora, Texas crash of 1897, Roswell, the Hill case, the Phoenix lights, et cetera.



Just as Christianity will never settle on one truth, cannot settle on one truth and Quantum is dealing with aspects of physics that are submerged in a possibly unfathomable reality, UFOs are unlikely to be understood in the present time-frame, with the present contingent of ufologists who are immersed in decrepit research and faulty data.

Nonetheless, UFOs, like Christianity and Quantum, will continue to intrigue a small coterie of persons who are intrigued by mysteries no matter how remote they are for an explanation.

The Roswell Liars by Anthony Bragalia

The crash of the extraterrestrial to Earth in 1947 is likely a true event, a fact of history. But like all history, it is clouded with fiction. And the story-telling and mistruths are not always told by those who are covering up the alien reality. In fact, the greatest lies about the Incident are told by those who believe that it really was an ET crash.

Why do people hoax their involvement in Roswell? What makes some seem compelled to insert themselves in the event? Who are the Roswell Liars?

Man has pondered the stars -and whether they are inhabited- since he first gazed the skies. To wonder if there are others in the Universe is perhaps the most fundamental question. It has been asked by all people throughout all ages. By its very nature, such a question evokes deep emotion and opinion. It invites speculation. This "not knowing" is a source of perpetual frustration. Man sends out flying telescopes and manned spaceships to find out. He sets up vast arrays to hear ET. He makes movies about it. That there are Others is our greatest hope. The ultimate question - Is anyone out there?- plays off of our greatest fear. No one wants to be alone.

It is then understandable that there will be those who will use this "yearning for ET" to their advantage. Quenching that yearning will bring out both the sincere and the insincere. Out will come those who are motivated by truth and those who will trick for personal gain.

We have all faked something in our lives. We do so when we cannot offer truth. And there are many who have faked their association with Roswell and its aftermath. This includes people from all walks of life. Station and position in the world has little to do with the desire or ability to fake. Some very intelligent and very prominent people have done so. Those who lie about their Roswell knowledge or involvement have included military officials, intelligence agents and even men of science.

People hoax many things- from literary works to clinical test results. Precisely why they do this is difficult to ascertain. One explanation does not explain the reason for all hoaxes. But personal gain or elevation-without regard for others- is always at the center of such hoaxes.

Money is often a motivator. Before he passed, my grandfather told me that the best advice that he could give me was to always "follow the money." He said that when you do that, the truth will become evident. Some hoaxes are boldly created just for money. Ray Santilli's financier of the hoaxed "Alien Autopsy" film (Volker Speilberg of Austria) privately confessed that though Roswell was likely true, he cared only about making money from it - and doing so at anyone's expense. Santilli himself, not content with all the money that he had made from the film, later even released a tongue-in-cheek "tell all" movie in the UK on the "making of the hoax" for further personal profit.

Lack of self-worth is another reason for devising such hoaxes. Lt. Col. Philip Corso (who dreamt up his "Day After Roswell" book from imagination) was one such person. He was a man who didn't quite make it. Despite over two decades of service as an Army Officer, Corso was always near to the decision-makers, but never himself a decision-maker. He was photographed with prominent men, but was not one of them. Always around the action, Corso wanted to claim some action of his own later in life. He inserted himself in history. He finally made his mark on it by crafting his story at a time when those he mentioned as also Roswell-involved has passed. Bob Lazar was another example of someone who had great -but unrealized- potential. Dreaming that he was an engineer working on the crashed Roswell craft at Area 51 reflected a young man who wanted to be recognized for great scientific achievement. His early years making rocket cars did not bring him that recognition. But Roswell rockets would.

Pranks for the sheer sake of it is yet another reason people hoax Roswell. We all knew a class clown. Someone who enjoyed having fun by making fun of others. People prank others because they can. They like to take advantage of those who are vulnerable to such a thing. They insinuate their "power" over others in a way that is meaningful only to themselves. They receive enjoyment from deceit because they have nothing real to give. John Lear Jr. is such a person. The rebellious son of an overachieving father, the Junior's achievements were far surpassed by those of the Senior, the inventor of the Lear Jet. John Lear Jr. did not need the money nor the notoriety to tell his Roswell tall tales. He just wanted more fun in his advancing years. An adventurous type, Mr. Lear spun tales of adventure about underground alien bases at Dulce, NM for years. Though he no longer flew CIA missions over the jungles, he could still take flight by spinning stories about aerial discs and Roswell.

Embellishment is still another cause for Roswell lies. Those who may have had a fleeting exposure to the events surrounding the crash sometimes enlarge their roles. Though they may have had some genuine Roswell connection, they feel the need to make their part in it greater than it actually was. They do not themselves know the "whole story." But they know the "core story" to be true, based on their limited personal experience or through what they knew from others who were more involved. So these individuals "build" on their Roswell tales to help "make the case" and to satisfy those who question them by providing needed answers. Roswell "luminaries" such as Frankie Rowe and Glenn Dennis likely fall into this category.

Official disinformation, some say, is used by Intelligence Agents who are sanctioned to "confuse the truth"about Roswell. They maintain that these agents are purposely authorized by their superiors to spread "wild tales" about the event and its aftermath in an effort to make Roswell sound ridiculous. But I do not think this is the case at all. Disinformation is not always used to cover up what is known. Sometimes it is used to "smoke out" what is not known.

Recent discussions with a "minor member" of the notorious "Aviary" reveal that this is precisely the case with original Roswell investigator William "Bill" Moore. Mr. Moore was very active in 1980 in uncovering details about the crash, authoring the first book on the subject. During the course of his investigation, he befriended many scientists and military officers associated with such places as Kirkland AFB and nearby Sandia Labs. Some were intrigued by his investigation. Moore even developed amateurish codenames (using species of birds) as a way to identify these scientists and officers without using their actual names.

During a conversation with Dr. Henry Monteith, a retired 20-year physicist with Sandia, I learned much about this. Dr. Monteith explained that in 1980 a man named Rick Doty, a Special Agent with AFOSI at Kirkland, had begun soliciting people's opinions at the base and at Sandia about Moore's claims about Roswell. Monteith did not trust Doty. He did not think that Doty really "knew" anything himself, but that he was merely trying to find out the truth from others. It seemed as though Doty would do anything to learn the truth, including making up stories to get the real story. Doty's interest was genuine, but his personal knowlege, nil. So he continued with Moore to assemble others to learn what they might know about the Roswell matter.

Over the years, people that Monteith knew began to make speculations and theories about the matter, repeating rumor and unconfirmed stories. These people included other physicists at Sandia such as Robert Collins (who together with Doty wrote "Exempt from Disclosure" a couple of years ago) and others outside of Sandia such as Hal Putoff, Kit Green and John Alexander. What became clear in talking to Monteith is this- each "Aviary" member was "smoking out" the other for the truth that they did not themselves possess! Despite their lofty positions in science and military, these people gave fall to the same vulnerabilities that we all do. They played off of each other with their own gullibility, paranoia and distrust. Moore and Doty tried to "fuel" this circle of scientists and officers and "trick" them into revealing more. But it is a "more" that they did not have. Ultimately, the "Aviary" wound up only reflecting and feeding off of itself with each person's personal interests and "takes" on Roswell. They "spun" it in their own ways and applied it to their own future purposes. None really knew the truth, but each wanted to see if any of the others did. Kind of like a poker game. Who has the best hand?

The common denominator found in all hoaxers is a lack of respect for their victims. Hoaxing about Roswell -whatever the motivation- only serves to cast doubt, derision and confusion on the matter. Hoaxes cheat us of reality.

Like the spirits that must be discerned and the false prophets that must be called out- the Witnesses to Roswell must be tested for their truth. And for every person who speaks the truth, there will always be one who does not.

Ufologists haven’t made their case

Stanton Friedman, the face of ufology for cognoscenti, believes UFOs (flying saucers) are extraterrestrial craft, and he’s believed that for a lot of years now.

But he hasn’t, despite a Herculean effort, proven the UFO ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) one whit – not a scintilla of proof has been proffered.

Yes, a lot of circumstantial evidence, but that’s been it.

Kevin Randle is a Roswell devotee. He can’t leave that episode alone, having invested much time and effort in trying to convince others (ufologists mostly) that something extraordinary happened near Roswell in 1947.

No proof from Dr. Randle, just conjecture – thoughtful conjecture, but that’s it.

Jerome Clark has moved on to investigating or researching early Christianity and seems to have abandoned the field of ufology and UFOs pretty much

Richard Hall has been absorbed in the American Civil War, disgusted with the whole UFO nonsense he’s been privy to, although he, like Clark, believes that UFOs are manifestations that deserve scrutiny.

But all the writings of Clark and the thoughtful input of Hall have provided proof of nothing.

Über-geek Mac Tonnies is suffused with everything – and we mean everything – esoteric, as befits his caffeinated mind. But his ramblings have been totally conjectural, and his idea that there is a concomitant civilization living alongside mankind (and has since time immemorial) is without anything resembling proof.

Frank Warren is an accumulator of UFO clippings and news items, and some interesting ideas about what UFOs are and are not. But proof of anything? Nada.

There is a raft of UFO aficionados – Maccabee, Howe, Greer, Gersten, Story, Pope, Redfern, Bishop, et al. – who deal with UFOs but have yet to prove what they are.

Yes, UFOs exist. There is enough proof for that. But what are they? Ufology hasn’t even come close to a reasoned and convincing proof.

Ufology and its minions – ufologists – keep dredging up old cases and incidents. But an original, convincing explanation for any of those sightings has not been forthcoming, so one can see why science and media eschews statements by any of the above named persons.

UFOs are not strange.....

…enough to be alien or extraterrestrial.

The shape of UFOs, the lights they display, the spotlights they sometimes engage, the maneuvers (except for those alleged 90 degree turns), the construction materials (of those that have been inspected in situ supposedly)….none of these things suggests that UFOs or flying saucers are other-worldly.



The lights, for example, that are often described in UFO sightings are usually red or green, sometimes white or blue.



But an alien spaceship wouldn’t have lights that reflect the spectrum range unique to Earth.

The shape of UFOs – whether seen as “lights” or observed in the daytime – is always geometric according to the constructions of Earth’s mathematics which, again, are unique.



(Math on other worlds would be unique to the evolution of scientific thought – if any – of the species of those worlds.)

Round, triangular, rectangular shapes, and all the other mathematical constructs here, on Earth, derive from the ancient Greek models, and would not apply to extraterrestrial beings (and societies).



That extraterrestrial mathematical models might coincide with those of Earth is so astronomically improbable, ufologists should discard the idea that UFOs come from outer space.

(SETI’s premise of radio transmissions by alien races is also flawed for the same reason.)

UFO flight is generally similar to those of Earth’s aircraft – except as noted, when UFOs make instantaneous 90 degree turns or ascend at rates that are not possible in today’s Earthian airplanes…unless….unless Earth entities have secret aircraft capable of such maneuvers, and have had them since the 1940s which, admittedly, is unlikely.



But those turns and ascensions may be from UFOs that are phenomena rather than actual bolts and nuts aircraft.

So-called debris from flying saucers, over the years, has never proven to be other-worldly.

While the make-up of the Universe insinuates itself in all planets or systems of the Universe, the composition of construction supplies would have to differ for worlds where water, timber, metal, and chemistry itself is distributed in arrays that are unique to those worlds.



The geological/chemical make-up of the Earth is unique, or nearly so. UFOs made here would surely differ from UFOs made in a galaxy far, far away.

The geology and chemical make-up of worlds – even those in our own solar system (such as Mars, Jupiter, the moons, Titan, Europa, et al.) – is so vastly different from that of the Earth, that to assume UFOs (which are invariably described or recognized as vehicles not very removed from those of the Earth) are from far-flung galactic worlds lacks common sense.



And those little things that show up in UFO reports: the blinking lights – blinking. Why would UFOs from elsewhere blink? That’s an idiosyncrasy of Earth aircraft.

What about the “smells” of UFOs – sulfuric or burnt metal? Why would UFOs from other worlds have smells like those on Earth?

Then there are the sounds from UFOs: hums (low usually) or no sound at all. Why would UFO energy sound like an electrical hum from Earth, or have no sound at all?



A lack of sound is problematical, in that flying saucers – or any flying vehicle – has to make some sound…it’s the nature of flying craft to create sound waves, or interfere with sound waves.

The silence of many UFOs goes against the physical properties of flying; it’s almost mystical in nature – or a sensory misperception.

We find one UFO sighting – filmed – that strikes us as authentically real, and possibly other-worldly or a manifestation of a phenomenon as yet unknown to science:

You may see the video clip here (from the UFO CD, published by the Software Marketing Corporation in 1993):

1963 Colorado

What that video shows us is a phenomenon almost life-like in its configuration, pulsing, and moving at a speed too fast for anything of a solid construction – something strange but not in a tangible extraterrestrial sense.

There are few UFO sightings – filmed, photographed, observed (by visual sighting or radar) – that display the physical mannerism of the 1963 Colorado UFO, but there are some.

However, we contend that those UFOs are something other than alien vehicles. (And they certainly are not secret aircraft of any Earth military or scientific organization.)



So, for us, the great bulk of UFO sightings that excite ufologists and UFO mavens are prosaic, and hardly amenable to an extraterrestrial hypothesis.

This doesn’t mean that the phenomenon (or phenomena) shouldn’t be addressed. It just means that UFOs should be investigated without the Sci-Fi trappings.