Friday, November 09, 2007

A wonderful post that touches on the "absurdity factor" that colors so many UFO encounters:

The Red, White and Gray (Part One)

Significantly, Dolan notes: "none of the sightings included descriptions of what are now called 'Grays.'" It wasn't until the 1960s, and only in the United States, that identifiably "gray aliens" began appearing in encounter records. In the years since, their image and their associate disinformation fables (Roswell and Dulce, for instance) have come to so dominate the subverted consciousness that some ufologists simply remove the ongoing and troublingly bizarre "non-gray" encounters from their ET equation. Debunkers also. Susan Clancy can make her shallow arguments for sleep paralysis and the archetypal simplicity of the gray's minimalist face, but has nothing to say about bug-eyed hairy dwarves dressed like monks, because the troubling variety has been excised by those who mean to exploit a phenomenon beyond their control and massage its perception.

Fortunately, not all researchers have been frightened off by this "troubling variety." Jacques Vallee, John Keel -- and, more recently, Greg Bishop and Nick Redfern -- have ventured bravely into the abyss and returned with important perspectives that too few seem to want to hear -- let alone understand.

(Tip of the hat to Elan.)


Anonymous said...

The occult (and my preferred, since -- now it can be told -- I am an occultist) explanation is that UFOs and UFO occupants are REAL ENTITIES who appear in HALLUCINATORY (rather than "material") form. I think this is also the essence of Vallee's theories as I understand them....

Why does this explanation seem so difficult for most researchers (both believers and sceptics) to get a handle on? I'll tell you why. Because in our materialistic culture with its hegemonic dogma of scientism, people are essentially "not allowed" to believe in any sort of immaterial reality. Materiality -- "matter reality" -- is all there is. (The endemic "mind-brain misidentification fallacy" that I'm always harping on here is one major piece of evidence of this collective cast of mind.)

Und zo. Whatever their ultimate "source," I am quite will to believe (as a working hypothesis, anyway) that UFOs and UFO occupants are real entities that are experienced in an essentially hallucinatory way. If we can shake ourselves loose from the cultural equation that "hallucinatory = unreal," we might begin to get somewhere.

I am, however, not sure what to do with the so-called "physical evidence of UFOs" apparently left behind in some cases.


--W.M. Bear

secret squirrel said...

Off-tangential note:

Found an interesting reference to a triangular ufo in the midst of reddish ball of light on the CIA FOIA website ( from, get this, _50_ years ago, prior to cultural contamination of similar modern (post-90's) sightings.

Velly interesting, nes pas?

wintermuse x9 said...

Crucial question: considering the wide variety of ufo/uap forms, and their ever changing and evolving morphology, why does the archetypal grey alien predominate abduction and CE III reports? Riddle me that, jokers...big clue right there, imho.

Greg Bishop said...


How do you get so many commenters? Ufomystic has a stable of about 8 or 10, although I know from the site statistics that thousands visit the site! Perhaps we're hamstrung by the UFO subject, whereas you are free to indulge.

Personally, I don't adhere to any one "theory," but the non-linear/ non-materialistic/ non-Aristotelean is ripe for speculation and fun, while the ETH is old, boring, and has no more proof going for it than our particular species of "mumbo-jumbo."

Anonymous said...

greg -- I like your site a lot too and visit it fairly often. I promise to drop a comment now and then. It's basically the same reason I don't start my own blog. If I limit myself just to commenting on PB, then I actually have some time left over to do stuff....

--W.M. Bear

Mac said...

Heya Greg,

One word: "bribes."