MUPLUS+   Join Plus+ and get exclusive shows and extensions! Subscribe Today! LEARN MORE  

 
Close

Advertise here now!

 
 
EXPO Station, my favourite Subway by Williamcho via http://www.flickr.com/photos/adforce1/2624712971/

Absurdities of the UFO Kind

The sheer wealth of data, reports, eye-witness accounts and testimony leaves me  in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a very real UFO phenomenon of unknown origin and intent exists. Yet, it is a phenomenon that puzzles us, confounds us, and even takes us on strange rides into the heart of twilight realms filled with nothing less than outright absurdities. They are absurdities that lead me to believe rather than having definitively extraterrestrial origins, the enigmatic intelligence behind the UFO phenomenon displays far more than a few characteristics of Trickster-like entities. Think I’m wrong? Read on…

Without doubt, one of the most important – if not, arguably, the most important – of all so-called “alien abduction” cases is that of Betty and Barney Hill, who underwent such an experience in 1961, and who, it can be justifiably said, kick-started abduction research of the type that, today, has come to typify the subject. One of the most important aspects of the story – which, many have asserted, proves the Hill’s encountered real aliens – is that relative to the so-called “Star-Map” that the crew generously showed to Betty. It is the saga of this map that pretty much convinced whole swathes of Ufology that the mysterious abductors were the denizens of a light-years-away locale: Zeta Reticuli.

A map? Really? Can you imagine, even in the earlier years of NASA’s space-program, a scenario where – while traveling to the Moon in 1969 – the crew of Apollo 11 took to the skies amid a conversation that went something like this: “Right, lads, get the map out; we need to see where we’re going.” Such a scenario is manifestly idiotic. And, yet, we’re expected to believe the Hill’s aliens used such ancient means of navigation in a journey to and from another star-system, never mind just to the Moon and back.

 

Now, I don’t dispute that Betty Hill was shown such map-like imagery; but, in my view, the reason for doing so was  purely theatrical. The entire event was carefully stage-managed. It was done to convince the Hill’s – in a fashion to which they could relate and understand – that the entities were extraterrestrial. But, as a result of claiming to utilize such a ridiculously outmoded means of navigation, the visitors successfully rendered themselves as laughable and illogical as their simplistic map itself.

Also in 1961, a Wisconsin chicken-farmer named Joe Simonton claimed to have met aliens who landed on his property in a classic flying saucer-style craft. They were said to be very human-looking entities, who had an “Italian” appearance, and generously gave the stunned Simonton three pancakes that one of the crew-members happily cooked on his alien grill! And with their good deed for the day duly accomplished, the aliens were gone – presumably to fill the bellies of even more astounded souls. Is there a UFO case any more absurd than that?! Yes, there probably is, but the Simonton case is surely near the top of the list in the definitively wacky stakes.

Of course, many might say (and certainly have)  that Simonton either faked the whole thing, or had a particularly weird and vivid dream. But, there is one interesting issue relative to this case that is worth noting: what was left of the pancakes was duly provided to the Air Force, and then to to the Department of Health, for analysis. The results came back that there was nothing abnormal about the pancakes – except for one thing: they were totally lacking in salt. It so transpires that in European folklore of centuries-past, fairies – which were truly definitive Tricksters – could not abide salt. Yep, things are becoming tricky on the UFO front. Very tricky.

Let’s take a look at a third ufological classic; it’s one I have written about here before: the Rendlesham Forest, England, UFO-landing case of December 1980. Those who champion the event as being one of profound significance and relevance from an extraterrestrial perspective, fail to comment on (or, maybe, don’t even know) the fact that Rendlesham Forest was a veritable hotbed of weird activity – of a distinctly non-UFO nature – long before the “aliens” put in an appearance within those dark woods.

Large, black cats; ghostly hounds with red, glowing-eyes; spirits and specters; wild-men-of-the-woods-style characters; and even a Lovecraftian-type giant spider have all been reported from the depths of Rendlesham Forest – for decades. Are we really expected to believe aliens elected to make what might have been their most famous landing – in the United Kingdom, at least – in a clearly-delineated area already saturated by long-term weirdness? Surely not!

Given that some of the military witnesses to the 1980 “UFO landing” in Rendlesham said that their superior-officers were not watching the craft itself, but were deeply focusing their attentions upon the reactions of the astonished and amazed lower-ranks, I have to wonder if – as with the Hill affair and the crazy saga of Joe Simonton – there was a degree of manipulation afoot. If so, it may have been designed to instill – Trickster-style – the imagery and notion of visiting alien entities. If so, that particular Trickster could conceivably have been secretly at work in the woods for years – endlessly toying with us as it shape-shifted from black dog, to wild-man, to bug-eyed alien.

At this point, you may well – and quite justifiably - be asking yourself: what are Tricksters and why the need for such absurdity? Last year, I interviewed one of the most learned figures when it comes to such matters: Chris O’Brien, author of the book, Stalking the Tricksters. O’Brien told me: “It’s tough to define what the Trickster phenomenon is, but it’s the oldest archetypal symbol within the collective human unconsciousness. That’s why we have clowns: they do absurd things, and they’re a holdover from the original primordial Tricksters.”

O’Brien continues that the main role of the Trickster is to supply anti-structure and novelty within the culture or sub-culture, and to topple the status quo. And in doing precisely that, it allows culture to move forward, and create room for growth, instead of being rigidly stuck in one, particular control-system.

And, maybe that’s the whole point of the Trickster, and the reason why it plays such manipulative games with us:  for good or bad, its actions provoke and nurture new paradigms. Sometimes it upsets rhyme-and-reason just for the sheer hell of it. The result: it very often succeeds in radically altering mindsets at an individual – and, at times – collective level. UFO imagery, then, is one of the Trickster’s (probably many) tools of change.

The Trickster knows this all too well, which is precisely why it utilizes this very motif, and carefully ensures we remain its collective plaything to be used, tormented, taunted and even taught; sometimes for the better and, perhaps, sometimes not.

 TAGS:

  • Anonymous

    There were other aspects to this case too that added more mystery. Simonton had 4 cakes and ate one. One was given to a local Judge who passed it on to Nicap. One reached Hynek and the USAF and one went to the local university Dept who described it as a flour sugar and grease (APRO). Within a couple of months, he was claiming that the USAF had two and that he had one left for himself (FSR). It’s quite a messy chain of evidence.

    In early ’62, he described the visitors as having eyes that, ‘When they looked in your eyes, well, you couldn’t stand to look too long. They seemed to do something to you. Now I had thousands of people last year and I looked them over good but I never saw anyone with the complexions and eyes of those three men.” (FSR letter February 22, 1962 page 9)

    In an earlier issue, a guy dismisses the case as a hoax. How? Well, Simonton said he never saw the visitor’s ‘footgear’ when he could have looked over the hatch.

    This is before the Betty and Barney Hill accounts were well-known and we have that now-familiar theme of overpowering eyes. As far as I know, and it ain’t much, this is the only time Joe made such a point about the eyes.

    Much like Frank Manner, Joe regretted ever mentioning his experience. In an earlier issue, a guy dismisses the case as a hoax. How? Well, Simonton said he never saw the visitor’s ‘footgear’ when he could have looked over the hatch.

  • Gibius

    Nick,

    I find myself leaning in the direction of this answer to the UFO question. It seems that a lot of UFO experiences have an almost esoteric quality about them. In the same way Ben and Aaron have speculated on the infrequency of Bigfoot sightings being down to the ‘creatures’ being from another dimension like other paranormal entities, I’ve often speculated that UFOs are from the same thing – only intentionally disguising their nature for whatever purpose.

  • Xylo

    I think that the trickster explanation is simply too easy. Tie it up in a bow and dust our hands of the whole sordid mess. The Truth of the various UFO cases we’ll probably never know, but to say that it is the Trickster behind this phenomena is simply too easy and, in my humble opinion, makes a mockery of any and all investigation into this very real phenomena.

  • trickytreat

    perhaps if you did just a little research on your own and gained a better, more complete understanding of the Trickster, you wouldn’t dismiss the hypothesis out of hand–with a sniff…,

  • http://twitter.com/feltbettor Jeff N.

    I’m not entirely familiar with “the trickster”. I have read of many different entities/races that attempt to confuse and upset humans, one of which being demons. Is it the theory that fairies, elves, leprechaun, the Norse god Loki, demons, aliens, mermaids, Djinn and the like are all names of the many forms the trickster? Coincidentally I’ve also read that salt plays a role in protection from some of these other forms, which supports your theory.

  • Nick_redfern

    Jeff:

    Yeah, that’s pretty much it. Chris O’Brien’s Stalking the Trickster is an excellent look at the phenomenon.

  • Nick_redfern

    Xylo:

    You say of my discussion of the Trickster theory that it “makes a mockery of any and all investigation into this very real phenomena.”

    A mockery? We’re talking about a subject where (in arguably the most famous abduction case, that of Betty and Barney Hill), the aliens traverse the universe via maps! Hell, even we have GPS. They have maps?!

    We’re talking about a subject where George Adamksi claimed to have flown in space.

    We’re talking about a subject where the aliens decide to land at Rendlesham Forest, where big-cats, spectral black-dogs and a weird wild man were seen – all prior to the UFO landing.

    We’re talking about a subject where, in the 1980s and 1990s, much commentary was raised re anal-probes and abductions.

    Maps to travel space, Adamksi flying in space, aliens apparently fascinated by an already paranormal-soaked forest, and anal-probes? Many might say these very themes make a mockery of Ufology without any help from me.

    The fact is that yes, you are absolutely right: there is indeed a genuine UFO mystery of unknown origins. But it is so couched in absurdities, that in my view, the ET theory/belief-system (which is all it can ever be until we have defintive proof of what’s afoot) falls apart when viewed critically, because of so many outright oddities.

    But, something is going on, and it’s a phenomenon that undoubtedly plays with people, toys with them, manipulates them, and often profoundly changes them – just like the Trickster does.

  • Xylo

    Perhaps the term “mockery” is a bit strong, and I admit it certainly was; however I don’t think that the “trickster” is a good explanation for all, or even a majority of sightings.

    As far as maps go, what else is there? Give me an idea how an interplanetary vessel could navigate without a map, or a guide. GPS surely wouldn’t work without the use of known points and beacons.

    Are there absurdities in the UFO field? Certainly there are. Possibly more than any other field of study. Is that the trickster or just a bunch of shenanigans from “wannabes” and snake oil salesmen?

    I appreciate your work, Mr. Redfern, and I apologize if I came off as an acerbic remark. It’s just that I can’t agree with you that the trickster theory can explain a majority of the UFO cases.

  • Xylo

    I don’t dismiss the trickster out of hand, I don’t think the trickster is a good explanation for the UFO phenomena in specific. It can explain some parts of some cases, but not all parts of all cases.

  • Xylo

    I don’t dismiss the trickster out of hand, I don’t think the trickster is a good explanation for the UFO phenomena in specific. It can explain some parts of some cases, but not all parts of all cases.

  • chaos mike

    well! i have been using sensitive vid cams to study meteors for over a year. i set up
    one or two most clear nights.they point in the same direction. i caught some good meteors.
    i am looking for fire balls. none of those yet. lots of jets and airplanes and birds and satellites. not one ufo. nope. i got hours and hours of video in DVD. some i havent even looked at yet. i bet anyone a plug hobo nickel that the aint no ufo’s on any of them.
    of course that could just be the trickster element. it’a always good to have an out.
    anyone who wants to view any of my DVD’s should email me: pabtiu(at)hotmail(dot)com.
    we can discuss terms.

    all the so called ufo videos i have seen on youtube are patently phony.

  • Donald B Lytle

    Nick, You have slammed the hammer directly onto the head of the nail. The Trickster, Coyote, the chaos factor in whatever guise you’d like it labeled has taken over.

    I was looking through Kelleher & Knapp’s “Hunt for the Skinwalker” looking for the description of the yellow lighted tunnel opening up and growing in size in the night until the large dark sasquatch-like thing crawled out and went off into the night… But that’s close enough to Knapp’s description. Observations by people who experience intense fear before seeing the “alien” creature, as if the thing can broadcast a “fear signal” that is able to influence that response in a person. It’s all designed to blow your mind.

    I got slapped for saying this a couple of weeks ago but I still would like to see what the effect of a .44 magnum or, better yet, a .50 caliber Browning would be at close range. I don’t believe in ghosts – as remnants of once living people – and am not so sure about “demons” and such although I don’t feel confident in disbelief, if you know what I mean.

    It seems that something that can do things we haven’t yet caught onto is playing silly games with us, and sometimes maiming or killing in the process. That doesn’t strike me as acts of friendship nor as worthy of respect, just caution. If people and animals weren’t being killed by these whatever-they-ares I’d be interested in their message, if there is a message. Given the senseless killing, I’m not disposed to see them as kindly space-brothers who’ve come to help us poor backwards humans…

  • Nick_redfern

    Xylo:

    No need for apologies. We’re here to debate issues, and inevitably there will be times when we’ll disagree – and in a subject like this, which is full of uncertainties, that’s natural.

    You said: “As far as maps go, what else is there? Give me an idea how an interplanetary vessel could navigate without a map, or a guide. GPS surely wouldn’t work without the use of known points and beacons.”

    The problem is that conventional maps and guides only work when you are dealing with static objects. Remember, in our solar-system, we have planets that orbit the sun, we have moons that orbit the planets, and so on.

    In that respect, flying via map-navigation from point A to B won’t work because you don’t travel from point A to B in a straight line. You plan for where point B will be when you arrive there, days, weeks or months later – because of significant orbital movements.

    Here’s how NASA did it 42-years ago:

    Check out link 1 first and then link 2 for additional data, and you’ll see how complex NASA’s navigation system was more than 4 decades ago, and which didn’t require anything as simplistic as a map. The third link, is the most important, as it really explains in full the process of navigation, and why and how (when you are dealing with bodies – like the Moon – that are constantly orbiting) a regular map is an utterly useless, redundant item:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_PGNCS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system

    As link 3 notes in its opening line: “An inertial navigation system (INS) is a navigation aid that uses a computer, motion sensors (accelerometers) and rotation sensors (gyroscopes) to continuously calculate via dead reckoning the position, orientation, and velocity (direction and speed of movement) of a moving object without the need for external references. It is used on vehicles such as ships, aircraft, submarines, guided missiles, and spacecraft.”

    That’s the important thing about flying in space: you have to calculate where your arrival point (Moon, Mars etc) will be when you get there. Because it won’t be where it was when you took to the skies.

    My point about GPS was not to imply ET might literally use GPS. I mentioned it to point out that in our world, we have largely made conventional maps when we are driving our cars, because we have GPS that can tell us where to go.

    And if we can make such maps redundant today, how is it that space-traveling entities from some far-away world are still reliant on simple maps when (as per the links above) not even NASA was reliant on such things during its Moon trips years ago.

    I stand by what I said: the map shown to the Hill’s had nothing to do with navigation. Rather, it was deliberately shown to Betty to create an image/idea in her mind to which she could relate. The image it was designed to bolster was the ET hypothesis.

  • Nick_redfern

    Xylo:

    I just noticed that in my 3rd paragraph from the end in my most recent comment, I wrote: “…we have largely made conventional maps when we are driving our cars…”

    I omitted the word “redundant,” so it should read as follows:

    “…we have largely made conventional maps redundant when we are driving our cars…”

  • http://robertgoerman.tripod.com Robert A. Goerman

    Hi Nick,

    Hope this finds you and yours well.

    “Trickster” is as good a name as any! Many UFOs and “alien” visitors employ pitifully prehistoric technology. One of MY major research concerns is Anomalous Animal Cruelty, the savage and senseless killing of domestic animals, poultry and livestock. Sometimes small animal victims are literally torn asunder and shredded while alive in the aftermath of encounters with the unexplained and unknown. These killings are often characterized by abnormal violence and butchery not motivated by self-defense or hunger. These things typically haunt a location for a short while, are witnessed by sincere and bewildered locals, wreak all kinds of havoc, and then disappear without a trace.

    Yours in research,
    Robert A. Goerman

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2ZJNVBSQJGXD26JLR3FUARYMMA Joseph

    To be fair and touching on Xylo’s point, isn’t that trading one unexplained entity for another?

    It seems to me that the most likely explanation is being ignored in violation of Occam’s razor and new, unverified (and unverifiable) entities are being created at will to provide an explanation.

    “Now, I don’t dispute that Betty Hill was shown such map-like imagery;”… why not? The very fact you cite makes a good case for the event to not have actually (physically) occurred. This also explains things without the need to create a new unexplained entity.

    Similarly, pancakes made without salt do not in any way point to either the existence of extraterrestrials or the existence of non-corporal intelligent entities with magic powers. It’s an interesting analysis that bothers to mention what’s NOT in a substance, by the way.

    Typical pancake recipe:

    1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
    3 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
    1 teaspoon salt
    1 tablespoon white sugar
    1 1/4 cups milk
    1 egg
    3 tablespoons butter, melted

    Omit salt and – voila! – space pancakes. I know my mother is one of many who consider salt evil and add it to nothing, including pancake batter. I don’t think she is part of a parallel intelligent semi/non-corporal species bent on tormenting humanity, vulnerable only to sodium chloride. Although during my teenage years I might have given that idea some merit. :-)

    The fact that people have told stories about fairies and leprechauns in one era and space men in another *could* suggest a morphing entity tormenting humanity for reasons unknown. OR… it could suggest that people love to tell stories, pull hoaxes and occasionally fail to distinguish fantasy or dreams from reality. The entities could be evolving… or the storytellers could change their tales as society/culture changes. Magical entities could be adapting to our cultural archetypes… or storytellers and fantasy-prone personalities could be changing their tales to keep them believable. Lack of evidence could be proof of a paranormal conspiracy… or it could be because such things just don’t happen in the real physical world.

    The problem is that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable because it can ascribe any trait or ability to these hypothetical beings. Hypotheses that are unfalsifiable tell us nothing about reality. This hypothesis could also be used to explain anything. People used to believe in witches, thought they saw evidence of witchcraft, tried and executed witches. The conventional viewpoint is that magic is disproven so these people only saw what they wanted/needed to see and jumped to conclusions about some things they didn’t immediately understand. The trickster hypothesis allows that the tricksters were behind evil eyes and cursed livestock, etc. and thus allows for the existence (for a time) of the real effects of witchcraft. If we do a scan of Loch Ness and find no Nessie, this hypothesis won’t allow us to say it wasn’t there – the tricksters made it appear to fool us. Our chemistry points out the impossibility of casually transforming lead into gold (outside an atom smasher) so the conventional viewpoint is to conclude that tales of successful alchemy were legends, lies and fraud. The trickster hypothesis could contend that the mysterious figures in these stories who slipped people packets of the Philosopher’s Stone to allow one or two successful transformations were really tricksters playing games with humanity and thus we can’t conclude these alchemical feats never really happened.

    On and on and on… you say it yourself directly and indirectly… “fairies, elves, leprechaun, the Norse god Loki, demons, aliens, mermaids, Djinn and the like… large, black cats; ghostly hounds with red, glowing-eyes; spirits and specters; wild-men-of-the-woods-style characters; and even a Lovecraftian-type giant spider…..” This hypothesis requires us to accept the reality of every conceivable experience no matter how much it contradicts with facts, rationality or common sense (like the space map example). We’re dragged back into Carl Sagan’s “Demon-haunted world”.

    This is the effect of an hypothesis that creates entities with no proof of existence, and lacking any demonstrable reality, can have any attribute as needed to make them the cause of any event no matter how lacking in evidence or absurd. It’s really no different than the claim by some religious young earth adherents that “Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool us” or the conspiracy theorist confronted with inconvenient facts who replies “THEY put that there/took that away/changed the record to show that/forced that person to say that/wiped their memory/doctored the photo”. An unverifiable by definition entity with unlimited abilities can do anything which renders all forms of rational inquiry moot because the entity can alter the results. The entity can affect our test tubes, our minds, our memories… embrace this hypothesis and we can never know anything.

    As entertaining an idea as this is, an hypothesis that allows for everything really tells us nothing.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2ZJNVBSQJGXD26JLR3FUARYMMA Joseph

    What took me so many words to say you summed up perfectly in one sentence. The trickster theory is an “out”. :-) It allows one to be rational enough to agree that a particular claim is insane, yet still maintain that it really happened and hold on to the paranormal explanation. I know I went through that phase for a time myself when I got old/educated enough to finally start to question the things I’d absorbed uncritically from a steady diet of Daniel Cohen, Brad Steiger, etc. books as a kid. UFOs, psychic powers, ghosts, Bigfoot, Nessie, the Hollow Earth, real alchemists, etc. I think deep down there’s a fear/realization that few of these claims have more evidence than another and if you rationally reject one case you’re going to have to reject all of them.

  • http://www.dailygrail.com Rick MG

    Hi Nick,

    Interesting food for thought, but isn’t the Trickster-UFO theory sitting precariously on the assumption that the Rendlesham Forest Fortean shenanigans are fair dinkum? People make stuff up, misidentify things in the dark, get spooked easily — big leap of faith to trust their stories, isn’t it? Of course, it’s a big leap of faith to trust eyewitness accounts of UFOs too, so it’s a catch-22.

    I just can’t help but look up at the thousands of stars in the night sky visible to the naked eye, knowing there are billions more I can’t see, most with planets orbiting them that harbour life. That gets me thinking about the latest quantum physics research into extra dimensions, and despite the neverending tales of Fortean weirdness, I personally feel the interstellar or interdimensional ET visitor is the most likely explanation.

    Who knows, maybe all theories are right? It’s a big universe.

    Or maybe I’m being tricked. >.>

    Cheers mate, and keep exploring ideas!

    Rick MG

  • Nick_redfern

    Joseph:
    You make good points, and yes, as you correctly say, this is indeed [QUOTE FROM YOU] “unfalsifiable because it can ascribe any trait or ability to these hypothetical beings.” But that doesn’t mean it’s not true. The very thing that makes it unfalsifiable may also have a basis in reality.

  • Nick_redfern

    Hey Rick
    Yeah, we always need to tread carefully when analysing evidence, testimony etc. But, I find it interesting that these other anomalies at rendlesham occurred (and were reported) long before the UFO incident. If it was a case of people going to the forest AFTER the UFO event, and getting all hyped up and hysterical because of excitment etc, then I would be more inclined to be suspicious. But the fact that weird activity has been reported in a very clearly delineated area for years, I find interesting and leads me to believe they are somehow all inter-linked. But, I’m certainly not some rabid true-believer in the theory no matter what. I’m very open to the theory and think it has a great deal of merit and makes sense. But, the “U” in “UFO” still stands for “Unidentified,” so an open-mind is the name of the game – to all theories, and let’s keep digging to see where the evidence finally leads.

  • Nick_redfern

    Hey Rick
    Yeah, we always need to tread carefully when analysing evidence, testimony etc. But, I find it interesting that these other anomalies at rendlesham occurred (and were reported) long before the UFO incident. If it was a case of people going to the forest AFTER the UFO event, and getting all hyped up and hysterical because of excitment etc, then I would be more inclined to be suspicious. But the fact that weird activity has been reported in a very clearly delineated area for years, I find interesting and leads me to believe they are somehow all inter-linked. But, I’m certainly not some rabid true-believer in the theory no matter what. I’m very open to the theory and think it has a great deal of merit and makes sense. But, the “U” in “UFO” still stands for “Unidentified,” so an open-mind is the name of the game – to all theories, and let’s keep digging to see where the evidence finally leads.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ufomediamatters Joseph Capp

    In your effort to convinced people of the “Tricksters” you forgot the most important point of the Rendlesham incident. The base had nuclear weapons. The actions around UFO around military bases whether it is famous for haunting or not is well documented by the witnesses that were there. UFO monitored “shut” and “sho”t down down Atlas Missiles. Seems pretty strategic to me. The trickster is impossible to prove wrong because it is like believing in God. A super being who likes to play hippie and blow you mind. It’s an easy answer and you can’t prove it or disprove it. It is primarily based on faith. So why does the ETs seem to be around “haunted strange places”. The answer is pretty simple to me. They are interested in what we call paranormal Right this minute new instruments are being used to communicate and in fact document the paranormal. What will we have in a hundred years a thousand years? What will we know about the paranormal in a thousand years? Is the paranormal part of the entire universe? Do aliens speak to their dead? We know one thing that no other theory can aspire to. We know there is an intelligent species in the universe that wishes and has gone into space, and you don’t need a theory to prove that. The major argument against these visitors is the distance between stars. If our history is any indicator we have a powerful yearning to travel to the stars, and I believe some have already found a way to do that and have come here. I do believe like you that abductions are staged.

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  • Nick_redfern

    Joe

    You say: “In your effort to convinced [sic] people of the “Tricksters”…”

    I’m not trying to convince anyone. It’s a theory that I consider very well worth examining. I care not in the slightest if people agree with me or not. There should be no place in Ufology for the equivalents of Bible-thumpers who arrogantly say they are right.

    So, there’s no convincing on my part – I’m presenting a theory to muse upon and to debate.

    You say: “The trickster is impossible to prove wrong because it is like believing in God.”

    That’s absolutely true. But because it’s (so far) impossible to prove, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

    Right now, there is no hard proof that the UFO phenomenon has extraterrestrial origins. What we do have is strongly held belief-systems that it is ET-based. If we had hard proof, I would not be writing these words.

    So, for all of those that believe UFOs are ET-based (and they may well be, but people are deluding themselves if they think lots of reports and testimony equates to truth), they are no different from people who go to Church on sundays and believe in a Heaven and a Hell, the proof for which us purely (and ONLY) belief-driven.