via Joe R. Blakely
Local (Eugene, Oregon) author has written a few books (fiction) about Bigfoot.
I’m not going to review Project Bluebook, (not much) because I only saw the first two episodes. I enjoyed ACTOR’S NAME and the production is very good, but I’m with the camp who are upset over the inaccuracies. They seem to be so . . . intentional.
One thing that has me curious, is the Russian lesbian spy angle. Further attempts by the Russians to get at U.S. flying saucer secrets include a red-lipsticked blonde lesbian spy trying to seduce innocent Mrs. Hynek.
Are we serious here! Straight out of 1950s pulp fiction. As if UFOs, government conspiracies, heavy handed thugs, looming monsters, and MIB aren’t enough, throw in a femme fatale and lesbian luring the innocent.
I’m not sure what the point here is with that. Pure exploitive titilation for its own sake I guess.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, by the way. Except it isn’t accurate, in the context of Hynek. Why present this story with so much crap to muddle things? Were the producers worried the culture is bored with UFOs and needed more? Why the Flatwoods Monster as mutant tree instead of what was actually reported? And so on.
(cross posted at my blog Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch)
It’s very difficult to mine any information from this interview. Regan was good at expressing her own bafflement and confusion with her experiences, but not at describing them with enough detail that we could either sincerely share her bafflement or perhaps provide some clarity. She says she’s trying to understand them better, and I believe her, but I also sense an unwillingness to open her experiences up fully to outside commentary. One thing that was obvious is that she’s concluded far more about her experiences than she expresses outright, and perhaps she fears that opening up her experiences to outside comment will challenge those conclusions and throw her back into a worse confusion, or confirm the worst of them which she is not ready to hear, but that looks to me to be rooted in a lack of self-confidence and a disbelief that anyone could really offer her anything truly beneficial.
I apologize to Regan for being so critical, and perhaps I’ve got it all wrong, I share my thoughts freely and whether she considers them or throws them into the bin I’ll take no offense.Read the original source: http://www.unknowncountry.com/experience/regan-lee-orange-orb#ixzz5YOwqd2y0
Drawing of ‘non-human creature’ seen by Emma Woods. Drawing by Emma Woods.
When I was a young child, I saw a small non-human creature in my bedroom. Another child also saw him, and she still remembers it as an adult. It is a fragmentary memory, and at first I could not remember his face. However, years later I suddenly remembered his face, and I drew this sketch of him. I am aware that he is an archetypal “alien”, and I know the mythology behind it. However, this is what I remember. I don’t know what he was, and I think it is possible that entities might present themselves in various forms, perhaps according to the culture of the time. So, perhaps this is how I saw him, and he might appear differently to others, and to those in other cultures. [Emma Woods]
Emma Woods graciously gave me permission to post her drawing of an entity she saw as a child, along with her post.
I like that Emma shared her memories; I also like the fact she writes “I know the mythology behind it” meaning the appearance of the entity. Some might say these images are too convenient; not actual memories but influenced so heavily by the popular culture icon of “the gray” that we don’t remember accurately. Could be. I appreciate her honesty in noting this. I also like that she calls it a “non-human creature” and not an alien. As with my experiences, I don’t know if what I saw and experienced were aliens, as in ET, or, something else. Decidedly non-human though.
I have a painting I did years ago (the painting is buried in the studio for now) of the ‘invisible aliens’ I saw as a child. These beings were small, no taller than I, skinny, and almost like stick figures. That’s the sense I had, though I never saw them, not solidly. They were transsparent, barely there. But, there indeed! Their heads were oval or triangular shape. The painting was done before the publication of Communion. As with Emma’s comments about her experience, I don’t know if these beings were ET, something else, and or if they appeared differently — or were interpreted differently — depending on culture and so on.
You can find Emma on social media:
Nick Redfern, who’s latest book, The Roswell UFO Conspiracy, is causing much ado, will be a guest tonight on Coast to Coast.
Speaking of Nick’s new book — which I haven’t read yet, but plan to of course — it’s funny, in a typical UFO Land kind of way, how much controversy his book has caused. (The Roswell UFO Conspiracy is a sequel to Body Snatchers in the Desert.)
I have no idea what happened at Roswell, and aliens crashing their spaceships on a ranch seems possible. So do heinous acts by governments. The first, true folklore. (Which does not mean it isn’t also true.) But it’s a classic narrative of aliens in the desert, and has become a part of popular culture. Everyone knows what you mean when you cite Roswell, regardless of acceptance of such things as aliens from space. The latter, well, that’s more troublesome. People, including many UFO researchers, don’t want to go there. They don’t want to get deep into dark conspiracies. I mean, good god, no one wants to even hint they’re an Alex Jones. Also, many a UFO researcher is, bewilderingly, politically conservative, and actually trusts the government.
The truth is the truth, be it aliens or government (ours, some other, …), or private technologies as in global illuminati cabal types. Whatever the answer to Roswell, it is important we keep ourselves open, and be willing to really see the truth when, and if, it arrives.
Redfern himself writes about reactions to his book at Mysterious Universe: When Ufologists Turn on Ufologists.
I don’t know if Redfern’s book is close to any truth or not. But at least he’s offering us something new and we need to be willing to adjust the ways we consider what happened at Roswell.