Via Rich Reynold's site, Jose has provided interesting points of contention regarding the behaviors of both UFOs, the craft occupants, and the witnesses.
In my opinion, Jose provides salient points that underlines the insanity of the Disclosure movement and Ufology in general. It's the absurdities of the behaviors of UFOs and the witnesses that Jose has highlighted.
"The behaviour of the occupants of the flying saucers is absurd and lacking in logic. And this does not happen because, as most scholars explain, we are incapable of interpreting or elucidating the actions of an advanced civilization in millions of years of evolution. Let's not be fooled. Simply put, the actions of the ufonauts are a set of nonsense, one after the other. The actions developed by extraterrestrials are very similar to those recorded in dream experiences. Therefore, all the gratuitous and unsubstantiated speculation about the absurd factor, an important key for many researchers of something sublime and extraordinary inserted inside the UFO encounters, is wrong. These circumstances are due to an effect caused by the interaction/communication of the witness's unconscious with an unknown external agent, which creates a projection following similar processes of creativity to that displayed by our psyche during the sleep phases. And we all know that dream experiences are signified by their absurd character..."
This is loosely borne out by some of the cases that I've referenced here on this blog. For example, Robert Hastings relays a story told to him by a ICBM maintenance team member who experienced an encounter over an Ellsworth AFB launch facility circa winter of 1978.
"Of course, by now, we knew it wasn't a cloud, but you could not see what it was! We turned at that corner and walked, maybe a hundred feet, until that edge turned a corner. I do remember walking to the north side [of the site], and exiting the gate, then heading west, south, east and returning to the gate to get back in. Anyway, the object was not a triangle. It looked like it was four-sided, like a parallelogram or a rhombus [which is diamond-shaped]. But you couldn't tell how high it was.
So, we went back on the site and closed the gate. By then, the noise was deafening. Still, we weren't scared, just perplexed and maybe apprehensive. We had heard rumors about UFOs, and we had heard that people had been discharged for reporting them. I began to wonder if it was some kind of SAC exercise. If it was, we were in trouble. You are not allowed to go off-site, and we had walked out the gate. So, I was concerned we would get in trouble."
During this same time, two of my IQT classmates at Vandenberg AFB (1980) were FSCs at Ellsworth and relayed a story of Alarm Response Teams chasing strange lights in the skies throughout their flight. They appeared sincere and rather circumspect about their experiences, and yet they stated that they were not emotionally traumatized on the night in questions.
I posted a blog article detailing the story of SSgt Louis Kenneweg who made statements to seeing strange lights near the Malmstrom AFB weapon storage facility, yet he calmly reports for duty apparently telling no supervisor of his observation....basically business as usual.
These are but a few of the UFO stories that I've come across involving observations of seemingly highly trained individuals responsible in some form for the operation and upkeep of nuclear ICBMs. There are trace elements of Caravaca's absurdities in all of these stories.
The only draw back to Caravaca's theory is the use of a possible paranormal make up of his "external" agent that acts on the observers/witnesses. I submit that external stimuli may well be a factor, but other environmental agents should be closely looked at as well as the psychological make up of the observers themselves.
Could it be that these witnesses, per Jose's cases, have something in common as far as cognitive behavioral traits? I would like to see this aspect further explored.
In regard to your last paragraph, it would be interesting if we could measure to what extent a person's recollections of an incident can change over the course of fifty years and still be considered an honest appraisal by the individual recounting the story. At what point does it become evident that the teller of tales is simply lying? Fortunately, we never had much reason to make such a determination to flesh out the testimony of Robert Salas. In my opinion, if the individual under examination is claiming to be the deputy commander of a specific flight at the same time that he is trying to convince the actual deputy commander of that flight to testify to the truth of claims already asserted by proxy, there should be no doubts whatsoever that he's just a liar who got caught in the midst of the lie. I could never understand why skeptics go to so much trouble to prove that the witness was mistaken, honest but deluded, or saw something that was there, but was wrong insofar as his identification of that something when it's equally likely that he's just lying for his own reasons.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteGreat to hear from you! Hope all is well with you and yours.
I've always given some degree of leeway with memory recall, but there should be some consistency with the foundation.
Salas has other problems with his story as he had claimed that all of his recollection came about under hypnosis. And, he was an abductee to boot. Most people are unaware of this, yet many still believe him.
We're doing very well, thank you Tim. I hope things are the same with you.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about there being other problems with Salas' recall. I find it interesting that all of his claims, spurious as they are, were nonetheless introduced piecemeal -- one nugget at a time, so to speak. It's almost as if he added something new every time someone asked him a question he had no real answer to.
Q: why is that all of your earlier explanations tended to change just a little bit, with more details coming to light with time, almost as if your memory was improving with age.
A: Uhhh... hmm... Hypnosis?
It's always fun when your new articles come out. I try to check in at least once a week, but I sometimes stretch it to two. I was lucky today. You have 2 new articles! Perfect ... Cheers to you, Tim -- have a great week.
James