What Did Dr. J. Allen Hynek Believe About UFOs in 1967: And When Did He Say It? And A Philosophical – Psychological Debate: The Debunkers: And The Telling Of The Curious Case of Moriarty Wild: The Man Behind It..
Copyright, C, Steve Erdmann, 2012
This article was published in the September 2012 issues of UFO Digest.
It is printed here with permission.
Reviewers and Journalists can use short quotes for respective works.
Parts I, II and III .
“Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart,” Phil Jackson..
(….they have made a show of intolerance which has been fatal to their success…whether those theories were true or false.” David Meredith Reese, Humbugs Of New York, 1838.)
“A primary aim of science is to satisfy human curiosity, to probe the unknown, and to open new paths for intellectual adventure…though scientists, being quite human, have often inadvertently given the opposite impression.” Dr. J. Allen Hynek.
The world of unknown phenomena in 1947 was a peculiar world. In June 1947, Kenneth Arnold sighted strange machines skipping through the Mount Rainer, Washington state skies akin to superior aircraft that he could not identify. “I am convinced in my own mind that they were some type of airplane, even though they did not conform with the many aspects of the conventional types of planes that I know,” (Kenneth Arnold, Spring, 1948 FATE Magazine). That set the stage for thousands of people seeing similar aircraft, and since Washington and the White House denied it was American, the alternatives were fascinating; one said they might be “machines from outer space”: And the worldwide imagination morphed into seeing exactly that..
It was an equally ‘peculiar’ 1967: It was ‘Wild.’ Moriarty Wild..
To the scientific community, always worried about its status quo and respectability, strange machines flying about the planet were hard enough to allow into the conversation, but spaceships from outer space were absolutely sinequanon and taboo. The U.S government, in general, denied the reality of the phenomena, and it hired “experts” such as the late Donald Howard Menzel (Director of the Harvard observatory) and the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek (Professor and Chairman of the Astronomy Department at North Western University) to control the growing, raging speculation.
As the official consultant and investigator for the U.S. Air Force, Project Sign, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was able to view cases “up close and personal” and began a gradual change of attitude from complete cynicism to, what he believed was, true scientific objectivity – “objectivity” as in “examining all the facts based on all the evidence and testimony,” which Hynek labeled as the real Scientific Principle. Unfortunately for Old School Ufology, the “machines coming here from other planets” belief did not encircle all the facts and evidence; and Hynek gradually began to allude to that fact in his speeches and lectures.
Moriarty Wild (not the real name: which will be given to the editor) is a case in point. He was one of those inquisitive young teenage astronomy students that felt the cases sighted promised new space-age accomplishments and expansion of science, and like many youngsters at that time, was eager to explore. I was one such imaginative youngster. But Wild believed in a makeshift and an odd version of Old School respectability (in fact, Wild believed most of Forteanism  was filled by inane idiots and crazy tall-tales; yet, those big guns of cynicism could just as easily been aimed at his own pomposity, who, like, Hynek and UFOs, I saw his idiosyncrasies “up close and personal” also) – I did not cling to old ideas – and I felt the wide field of science was “open” eternally to all kinds of possibilities (I, at the time, was impressed by the late pulp editor Ray Palmer’s intuitive ventures into New Age forecasting and the alternative viewpoints of the late Meade Layne Borderland Science Research Society and similar searchers).
Another Moriarty Mastermind from ‘Sherlock Holmes’.
Surprisingly, Wild and I both had been “buffeted” by “authority” of various kinds: Wild, however, became an authority unto himself – I was far too “humbled” by the lashings and slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune to consider myself an authority to end all authority and all solely unto myself (see my forthcoming memoirs to discover the slings and arrows) – that kind of authority scared me – I sought wild adventure to fill that gap of loss caused by various kleptocracy. I saw any new science as “wide and wild adventure.” That life and science of adventure, however, and those adventures were not necessarily progenitor by accomplished “liars” that Wild constantly envisioned.
In the ensuing years, Moriarty increasingly became what is known as a ‘debunker,’ those critics that devoted their lives, as a protection against the destruction of society, to destroying modernistic and what they felt were New Age degeneracy. Wild progressed to a fairly high extreme, seeing beliefs and modern theories as often a Fabian Communist Conspiracy. Some of his ideas, I could agree with, other ideas seem too harmful, even though the cases Wild attacked seemed just as hurtful and infuriating. I’ve heard Wild refer to citizens several times as “savages.” (”… [if the attack had] backfire effects [which] can occur if a message spends too much time on the negative case, if it is too complex, or the message is threatening.” [en.wikipedia.org/debunkers]). Ben Pile surmised: “far from seeking rationalism, skepticism is increasingly a search for authority…it indulges the same fantasies…skeptics and rationalists ought to be taking a look at their own ideas…we don’t need a police force to protect us from bad ideas. We just need better ideas.”
Debunkers, as a modern-day class, seemed to have emerged about 1975 with a gaggle of scientists about the globe, such as Marcello Truzzi of CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal), that fellow critic Carl Sagan warned was having a debilitating and polarizing effect with “…a tendency to belittle, to ignore the fact (that many theorizers) are human beings with real beliefs…us vs. them…careless remark(s)…Phil Plait, astronomer, ‘Don’t be a dick’ DBAD speech…”
SKEPTIC, Vol. 13, no.4, 2011.
What happened to Moriarty Wild may have happened to many a critic or debunker, and sometimes we find their holier-than-thou lifestyle is humbled by belated and sometimes reluctantly discovered facts. I often found myself agreeing with Wild (and cannot be considered to be betraying him) in general terms on several topics, including the degeneration of Americanism and society. This story, however, is not presented to cause hurt or harm, but to introduce humility and compassion. The real source of their sardonic-ism, as outlined at the end of this article, may be encrypted in the labyrinth of their psyche. After all, is said and done, however, debunkers cannot deny they are just ‘human beings’ like all the rest of us..
NOVEMBER 24, 1967.
But everything has its beginnings, and we selectively pick November 24, 1967, when the public and Forteans went to listen to Dr. Allen J. Hynek’s lecture on his investigations into the UFO phenomenon as he spoke at the St. Louis Washington University Graham Chapel (“The UFO As A Scientific Problem”). I had taken note of and later presented his comments in my small fanzine Dissenter/Disinter, also marking Hynek’s comments that he was beginning to suspect that the oddities in those phenomena indicated a metaphysical or psychic aspect in its nature. I later pointed out this revelation to Wild, whereupon Wild again surprised and shocked me at my front doorstep by saying, as I greeted him and casually mentioned my column on the speech, that I was a “liar” or a “god-damned liar” (I can’t remember which of the two phrases he spurted out to me; it had been one of several of his tantrum-like bestirs over the years). Of course, Dr. Hynek’s sayings were not my words I reviewed, recorded and presented, but Dr. Hynek’s.,
(I don’t, however, recall Hynek getting into some ‘lengthy’ discourse on the supernatural nature of UFOs, but he did indicate something paranormal was going on. Did it occur to Wild that I may have been indifferent? Impartiality, unfortunately, was not the hallmark of these ‘religious’ debates: apparently Wild felt, caused partially by Wild’s scholastic academics, that just the mere mention of anyone’s viewpoint opened the commenter to Wild’s censure in some kind of religious inquisition and verbal castration.)
Thoughts on the nature of UFOs as “space machines” (piloted by almost anonymous, unrecorded pilots in the actual sighting reports) had been framed previously by pulp fiction writers in the 1930s and earlier fiction writers such as H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. The story-line of pulp writers of the 1930s – 1940s encompassed such writers as Tiffany Thayer, Frank R. Paul, Raymond A. Palmer, Richard S. Shaver, and others. Included were the ‘contactee’ stories (those who claimed physical contact with UFO pilots) of George Adamski, Howard Menger, Daniel Fry, Truman Bethurum, George Van Tassel and others. Only a few writers, unfortunately, suggested more than one cause for the sightings. Religiosity seemed prevalent among “speculators” of any Cult (including the Debunker Cult) in which adherents spoke, as their ‘Believer’ nemeses often did, only in terms of the “Absolute.”
And – again – as events in the subject developed and further lectures and papers by Hynek came out, the doctor, indeed, had said something paranormal seemed to be going on in that phenomenon: This I did pick up from his lecture on November 24, 1967, and wrote about it in my magazine..
HYNEK’S REAL THOUGHTS.
The Late Major Donald Keyhoe spoke about Flying Saucers .
It was amazing that two listeners’ notes I discovered on that lecture (one set of notes personally written on 12/21/67 by Moriarty Wild) did not record or pick-up on Hynek’s reference to the ‘paranormal’ as I did: so strong was the willingness to “cleanse” any thought or perception in Hynek’s words that a new and strange phenomenon may be involved including the metaphysical. Major Donald Keyhoe of NICAP (National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena) fought vigorously against any such notion of the spiritual or paranormal, even to the extent that he avoided those bizarre and strange humanoids were sometimes reported. The following reveals the growing tendency – even before 1967 — of Dr. Hynek to suspect an origin other than just ‘classical’ machines from the far distances and regular worlds in space:
Dr. Hynek spoke on this point in a June 1975 Fate Magazine interview: “I always start with the incontrovertible facts that UFO reports exist and humanoid reports exist. I don’t like it ___ I’d much rather talk about nocturnal lights and daylight discs but no scientist throws out data just because he doesn’t like it. If he does he’s not a scientist. The data of the reports are there. If you go through the files of the Flying Saucer Review you have case after case. NICAP threw them out for years. They just refused to think there could be anything like that; therefore they weren’t going to touch it. But that’s not science.” (p. 51.)
It was odd that Dr. Hynek – on the same weekend he gave his Graham Chapel lecture – also was interviewed on WIL radio on November 25, 1967, and made similar allusions on UFOS: “…that’s a terribly loaded question…Do we really have an unexplained phenomenon? I think so. But it’s only after I have, or somebody has, the data really in form to study, in an appropriate form to study, then one is ready for theorizing…The problem is, within the framework of our present-day science, we have no conceivable means or ideas of how that civilization could communicate with us because the distances are so utterly, utterly vast…it may also turn out to be something that we just don’t know about at all, in the same sense that a hundred years ago, the whole concept of nuclear energy would have been totally foreign to our way of life…I rather use the term ‘UFO’ than ‘flying saucer’ because ‘flying saucer’ is a loaded word, it…already carries with it an answer…UFOs…do did not seem to be explainable in the present scientific framework.…reports of extremely strange sightings made by reputable people in many cases…” It was apparent that on November 25, 1967, just one day after his lecture, that Hynek was still disenchanted with expressed flying saucer machines from normally envisioned interplanetary worlds.
The staff writer for the University College News, Washington University (January, 1968), speaking of the lecture (“Air Force Consultant Discusses…”), missed the opportunity to outline Hynek’s inclusion of the paranormal in the phenomenon; the writer did catalog Hynek’s disenchantment with the “visitors from outer space theory”: “The next step is conjecturing how some cosmic navigator might set out to find our Earth…Once such a navigator had found Earth, there would still remain the unbelievable problem of getting here from such great distances. And yet there are UFO’s…It is a great, huge question, still unanswered after 20 years of scientific searching.” (Emphasis added by Steve Erdmann.)
Mark Rodeghier, formerly director of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), said on January 21, 2012: “You are correct that Hynek was open to a paranormal (or really, extra-dimensional) explanation for the UFO phenomenon…back in the 1960s while still a consultant to the Air Force, he was very cautious and expressing such ideas in public, he felt he had to wear his conservative hat. So while you can find things he wrote in the earlier years, it will not be as open about the source of UFOs as his later public statements.”.
Dr. Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS.
THE EVOLUTION OF A SUSPICION.
One can see Dr. Hynek’s growing suspicions and his increasing evolution about the true nature of the UFO reality even before 1967, having lived with the UFO phenomena “up close and personal.” In 1953 his suspicions leaked out into an April 1953 article in the Journal Of The Optical Society Of America wherein he said true UFOs may be an unknown terrestrial phenomenon: “But, do we have a natural phenomenon?”
The September-October,1966 issue of the now-defunct APRO Bulletin chastised Hynek for hiding a more liberal viewpoint on UFOs before that time, when, in fact, he had suspicions that a really unusual phenomenon existed: “(Hynek would)…bide his time until an opportunity came to arouse the interest of other scientists…a psychic revolution…”
As early as October 10, 1966, about a year before his Graham Chapel lecture, Hynek said in Newsweek Magazine, “Science And Space: UFOs For Real?” – page 70: “ ‘I’m not saying we are being visited by extraterrestrial beings,’ Hynek told Newsweek Richard Steele, “…UFOs might even be, according to Hynek, ‘something entirely new to science…the question must remain open…’”
Two months later, in the December 17, 1966, also one year before his St. Louis lecture, Hynek said in the Saturday Evening Post article “Are Flying Saucers Real?”: (speaking of the August 5-6, 1953 Black Hawk and Piedmont, South Dakota, and Bismarck, North Dakota UFO entanglement with a F-84 aircraft) “In my report, I noted that ‘the entire incident, in my opinion, has too much of an Alice-in-Wonderland flavor for comfort’…964…people with good reputations…continued to describe ‘out-of-this-world’ incidents…the scientific probability of life elsewhere in our galaxy? I don’t know. I find no compelling evidence for it…we are dealing with some kind of natural phenomenon that we as yet cannot explain or even conceive of…who can say what startling facts we will learn about our world In the next 100 years?…compare new sightings with old and trace patterns of UFO behavior.”
Another case in point (apparently circa 1967-1968): in Leslie Kearn’s 2010 book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, Government Officials Go On The Record (Harmony Books, New York, 2010) speaking about the Condon UFO Project and the subsequent July 1968 Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Kearn reminded us on page 113 of her book quoting Hynek’s early belief: “As Hynek pointed out at the time (emphasis, mine…SE), Condon and his supporters mistakenly equated the notion of UFOs with something extraterrestrial…” Again, this appeared to be about 1967-1968..
JUST TWO YEARS AFTER.
On December 27, 1969 (just two years after his speech at Graham Chapel) at a General Symposium of the American Association For The Advancement Of Science, 134th meeting, Hynek, conjoining and speaking of Canadian Philosopher of Science, Thomas Goudge, indicated that a genuinely new-empirical observation and new explanation scheme (including new, basic concepts and new scientific laws) needed to be established, and that the reported occurrences violated the “methodological criteria governing the advancement of science”: new observational data must occur, allowing new concepts, explaining new observational data. Hynek quoted Schreedinger: “…be curious, capable of being astonished and eager to find out…”
Hynek said in his 1972 book The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry (Henry Regnery Company): “…do humanoids and UFOs alike bespeak a parallel ‘reality’ that for some reason manifests itself to some of us for very limited periods? But what would this reality be?… Its appearance of operating outside the established laws of physics, and its peculiar preferences for certain situations…exhibiting at times near-zero inertial mass yet able to leave physical traces of their presence, is surely a phenomenon beyond the pale of mid-twentieth century physics…quite unable to illuminate the darkness of the future…The problem was – and remains – whether the phenomena of UFO reports from more than one hundred countries represent something genuinely new to science, quite apart from any preconceived theory (such as ETI) to account for the reports…The ETI hypothesis…there was no real evidence that it constituted the real problem. Fred Hoyle has conjectured that it is possible that a great intergalactic communication network exists but that we are like a settler in the wilderness who as yet has no telephone…such ideas, once forbidden and even revolting to our geocentric minds no longer shock us as we slowly grow out of our cosmic provincialism…or the more esoteric notions of time travel or of parallel universes…scientific progress tends to be revolutionary rather than evolutionary…despite their bizarre nature, merely imaginative extensions of current concepts…One of the most exasperating and even repugnant features of the subject is its apparent irrationality…it cannot, at least at present, be separated from the social condition in which it is embedded…behavioral sciences from the physical sciences…inextricably mixed…a mighty and totally unexpected quantum jump.” (pp. 139, 194, 195, 201, 232, 233, 234).
.Dr. Hynek spoke on February 23, 1973, at the Marriott Motor Hotel in St. Louis for the Northwestern University Alumni Club of St. Louis: “…the problem of the Northern Lights…nobody knew what caused it, because, simply, we didn’t know enough physics yet. And we may be in a sort of a similar situation with the UFO phenomenon; it may be opening a totally new domain of nature that we are, as yet – after all, just because it’s 1973 doesn’t mean that we know the things that we’re going to know about the universe in the year 4000…There remains no doubt in my mind that a real UFO phenomenon, of some sort, exists, which may, or may not, have an extraterrestrial origin. Indeed that is the problem…these persons, adjudged responsible by all ordinary standards…to hold that they furnish as data that may be of decided, potential, scientific value…” These notes were recorded by Moriarty Wild in March 1973.
At a 1973 MUFON Annual Symposium in Akron, Ohio, Hynek said in a piece called “The Embarrassment Of The Riches”: “…but many thousands every year? From remote regions of space? And to what purpose? To scare us by stopping cars and disturbing animals and puzzling us with their seemingly pointless antics?”
New Scientist of May 17, 1973, quoted Hynek thus: “…the numerous perplexing reports of unidentified flying objects – UFOs – may describe a branch of the natural world not yet investigated by science…maybe we don’t know enough physics to understand UFOs…”
In the Spring, 1974 issue of Probe The Unknown Magazine, Dennis V. Waite commented on and quoted Hynek on these matters: ‘‘‘To say that life (as extraterrestrial-alien-visitors…S.E) has visited us — that’s another question…ships from outer space.’” “…explanation may just be too pat. Something is happening, Hynek says, something very real and frightening to many people…We have to take this phenomenon seriously whatever it is’…There’s no conclusive evidence, he points out, that UFOs are ‘nuts-and-bolts hardware…not with a predetermined judgment that they do not exist or that they are alien spacecraft, but with an open, constantly probing and thorough scientific sleuthing.’”
In the January 20-22, 1975 AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences meeting in Pasadena, California, Hynek said in “The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem”: “Eyewitness reports of actual space ships and actual extraterrestrials are, in themselves, totally unreliable. There have been numerous eyewitness reports of almost everything that most rational people do not care to accept…formulation of a hypothesis – or hypotheses – that encompass the established parameters of the UFO phenomenon – no matter how far beyond the boundaries of present-day science it may have to be…the trouble is, that whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it comes and goes unexpectedly. There is no way of examining it systematically. It appears suddenly and accidentally, is partially seen, and then it’s more or less inaccurately reported…the signal-to-noise aspect of the UFO problems aggravated to a high degree because the signal is a totally unexpected signal, and represents an entirely new set of empirical observations which do not fit into any existing framework in any of the accepted scientific disciplines…the signal itself signals the birth of a new scientific discipline…It is indeed sobering, yet challenging, to consider that the entire UFO phenomenon may only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg in a signaling an entirely new domain of the knowledge of nature as yet totally unexplored, an unexplored and as unimagined as nuclear processes would have been a century ago…”
Likewise, speaking at a January 23, 1975, Annual Meeting and Banquet of about 900 assembled Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Hynek said: “We have an unidentified phenomenon which we are trying to study…The UFO phenomenon poses a research problem, and the hypothesis of visitation by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization is only one of several possibilities.” (These quotes were transcribed by Moriarty Wild ).
The September 27, 1975, Joint Symposium of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Los Angeles chapter of the World Futures Society proceedings recorded Hynek as saying: “But what is by far the most appealing things about UFO facts is that they are not acceptable pieces in the scientific jig-saw puzzle. They are pieces that seem to belong to an entirely different jig-saw puzzle…Bridge and tennis are just two different games and are played by different rules. And it seems clear to most of us that UFO’s don’t obey the rules of the present day scientific game…All these things seem to call for a Paraphysics, a metaphysics, of a transcendental physics…”.
Hynek Lecturing at the Milwaukee Paranormal Conference
(TO BE CONTINUED: The world of dark debunkers and Dr. J. Allen Hynek battle in an egalitarian clash)
What Did Dr. J. Allen Hynek Believe About UFOs in 1967: And When Did He Say It? And A Philosophical – Psychological Debate: The Debunkers: And The Telling of the Curious Case Of Moriarty Wild: The Man behind It..
“The power of imagination makes us infinite.” John Muir.
“I didn’t arrive at my understanding of the Fundamental Laws of the universe through my rational mind.” Albert Einstein.
.“But everything has its beginnings, and we selectively pick November 24, 1967, when the public and Forteans went to listen to Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s lecture on his investigations into the UFO phenomenon as he spoke at the St. Louis Washington University Graham Chapel (“The UFO As A Scientific Problem”). I had taken note of and later presented his comments in my small fanzine Dissenter/Disinter, also marking Hynek’s comments that he was beginning to suspect that the oddities in that phenomena indicated a metaphysical or psychic aspect in its nature…Wild…shocked me at my front doorstep…saying that I was a ‘liar’”…” (Steve Erdmann, Part I) The analysis as to what led a youthful ‘debunker’ to attack an early record of Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s sayings continues….
INTERPLANETARY VISITORS DOUBTFUL.
Hynek said in the Cincinnati Horizons Magazine of October 1975: (If we were to be space visitors) “We might condition them slowly, make appearances, and do strange things…But we surely wouldn’t travel the great distance involved to do prankish things like stopping cars and frightening animals. It would make no sense.”
The October 4, 1975 issue of Nature contained an interview by Ian Ridpath, quoting Hynek: “…not support the idea that UFOs are nuts-and-bolts spacecraft from other worlds…It seems ridiculous that any intelligence would come from such great distortions to do reportedly stupid things like stopping cars and frightening people. And there are too many reports.”
Dr. J. Allen Hynek (left) and Jacques Vallee (right)..
A 1975 book co-authored with Jacques Vallee, The Edge of Reality (Henry Regnery Company), recorded Hynek: “One of the differences is that UFOs seem to be under some sort of intelligent control, and natural phenomena are not under intelligent control…they apparently exhibit what would be called theatrics…humanoids…resemble large versions of the Little People…called Elementals in the occult literature…salamanders, undines, sylphs…a UFO is a ‘jealous phenomena’ in that it seems to show itself preferentially in a particular area; a UFO seems to be localized in both space and time…The top scientific brass…military brass themselves didn’t understand it; much too difficult for them, much too complex…I had internal misgivings about Blue Book policies as early as 1953…We need to line up all the things that a viable theory needs to explain; we don’t have anything in the present framework of science that would explain it…on a psychic plane…signaling that there’s a reality that the physical scientists…aren’t at all conscious of, but exists!…take into account the paranormal phenomena that are being written about and apparently being experienced…why do poltergeists move something…undoubtedly has physical effects but also has the attributes of the psychic world…other universes with different quantum rules or vibration rates…space-time continuum could be a cross-section through a universe…interlocking universes…same way that a poltergeist can produce very real physical effects…almost tangible…a physiological construct…an opportunity to move towards a new reality…increasing the borders of our awareness…another science and another knowledge.” (pp. 61, 62, 66, 67, 145,189, 199, 240, 257,258, 259, 261,262, 263).
.Hynek was quoted in the June 26, 1976, Daily News of Chicago: “(Are UFOs interplanetary?…) Not likely. It’s just too far a distance to travel…We couldn’t possibly do it with our technology. Of course, there might be a more technologically advanced civilization out there. Maybe they could travel here, but it probably wouldn’t be in anything like a flying saucer…We just don’t have enough information to answer that. Whether they are from outer space, or something even more bizarre than that, like visitors from a parallel reality…”
A June 1976 published interview in FATE Magazine No. 315, Hynek had a lot to say: “…(Life in the universe) it does not follow that this explains UFOs in the sense of nuts-and-bolts hardware which is as far as most scientists are willing to go… (why) done entirely on the physical plane?…communication and exploration.…not in the ordinary sense…There are other planes of existence ___ the astral plane, the etheric plane and so forth…that space and time are essentially interchangeable. Suppose it was possible to travel in time rather than in space…The new puzzle pieces are being given to us by the whole parapsychological scene ___ ESP, telepathy, the Uri Geiler phenomena, psychic healing, and particularly psychic surgery…They clearly are parts of another jigsaw puzzle…there’s going to have to be an interface between these two pictures and this is part of that psychic revolution…This relates to the whole UFO picture; I have come to believe UFOs are part of the larger paranormal picture which has two aspects…physical effects occur apparently without physical causes…’psychic construct’ is a loaded term…modern UFO investigators tend to slough it off…doesn’t belong in our UFO wave. But it does…related to other paranormal phenomena and possibly is part of a slow conditioning process…this psychic construct has the ability to imitate, camouflage or mimic…if you once talk about consciousness and intelligence existing apart from protoplasm…it has paranormal aspects but certainly but certainly it has very real physical aspects…We haven’t come up with an answer. People always seem to want answers and I keep telling them, look, it’s a research problem. In research, you don’t know the answers.”
In an August 16, 1976 People Magazine interview, Hynek had this to say (p. 53): “(Do UFOs come from outer space?) It doesn’t seem possible, but who knows?… People get excited at the thought UFOs might be from outer space. But it would be just as exciting if UFOs were from inner space, from an alternate or parallel reality…through expanded consciousness we were able to come into contact with a parallel reality?…that an entire parallel universe exists in these spaces between the parts of an atom…if the sheer weight of evidence finally forces us…a mighty and unexpected quantum jump.”
Furthermore, an interview with Hynek published in April 1977 OUI Magazine (Jerome Clark, Carl Mackie), Hynek made his theories much clearer: “One might even begin to speculate that the UFO itself, even though it manifests physical effects, may not be completely physical. We don’t know. We don’t really know, when a UFO is ‘seen,’ if there is an actual image on the retina…a relationship might be discovered eventually, but in the poltergeist phenomenon we have something that has physical effects without being physical itself…the subject is much more complex than any of us imagined when we first got started in it. It’s naïve to expect a simple solution…something that is far more complex than mere hallucinations or apparitions. UFOs, although they may have no physical reality, can and do affect matter…the universe is not all that simple. Mystics, for example, have always talked about how matter vibrates at different rates of speed, but the scientist doesn’t know what the mystic is talking about…there is a lot that the spaceship concept doesn’t explain about UFO phenomena. You have to disallow or neglect and overlook all sorts of things if you accept the idea that nuts-and-bolts craft is coming here from outer space…the so-called extraterrestrial hypothesis…We’re going to have to broaden our scope and admit other things into our playing field of science…But it would be wrong if we pursued that path to the exclusion of everything else. If the evidence suggests that there is a paranormal dimension to the phenomenon, we’re going to have to pursue that.”
Speaking of the Edward Condon UFO Committee/Report, J. Allen Hynek wrote in The Hynek UFO Report (1977): “The main conflict was whether UFOs were extra-terrestrial phenomena rather than whether they constituted a unique phenomenon…but whether a phenomenon existed (regardless of origin)…” (p. 298, Sphere Books).
At a 1977 International UFO Congress in Chicago, Hynek said: “I hold it entirely possible that a technology exists which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental…there may a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man…million-year-old civilization may know something that we don’t…I hypothesize an ‘m and m’ technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology.”
In the November 21, 1977 (p. 97) edition of Newsweek (“The UFO’s Are Coming”) by Peter Gwynne and Katrine Ames, Hynek was quoted as saying: “We have the questions, not the answers”. The authors said: “But he emphasizes that speculation should not be limited to flying saucers. UFO’S, he says, may be psychic phenomena and the ‘aliens’ may not come from outer space but from a ‘parallel reality’”: (Hynek) ”…I will speculate that a very advanced civilization might know something about the connection between mind and matter that we don’t.”
During a February 1985 interview in Omni Magazine, Hynek also said: “…the UFO phenomena is no longer a physical, but a psychological problem…(visitors from outer space) it’s hard to accept…the E.T hypothesis is untenable, that it just doesn’t make sense to a scientist…several things that render the E.T hypothesis unlikely as well…Cheshire Cat effect…they might even be an interface between our reality and a parallel reality, the door to another dimension…”
Dr. Hynek said in 1985, and recorded on camera: “When the long-awaited solution to the UFO problem comes, I believe that it will prove to be not merely the next step in the march of science, but a mighty and totally unexpected quantum leap.”
In the December 1998 Saturday Evening Post Hynek was quoted: “The fourth possible explanation of UFOs is that we are dealing with some kind of natural phenomena that we as yet cannot explain or conceive of.”
(We are currently trying to track down the verbatim transcript of the Hynek speech of November 24, 1967, possibly someone who tape-recorded or transcribed word for word; investigators are welcomed to help locate same).
(TO BE CONTINUED: The world of dark debunkers and the possible causes that led a debunker to attack a Dr. J. Allen Hynek comment continues…).
.What Did Dr. J. Allen Hynek Believe About UFOs in 1967: And When Did He Say It? And A Philosophical – Psychological Debate: The Debunkers: And The Telling of the Curious Case Of Moriarty Wild: The Man behind It.
.“If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.” (Mother Teresa.)
“But everything has its beginnings, and we selectively pick November 24, 1967, when the public and Forteans went to listen to Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s lecture on his investigations into the UFO phenomenon as he spoke at the St. Louis Washington University Graham Chapel (“The UFO As A Scientific Problem”). I had taken note of and later presented his comments in my small fanzine Dissenter/Disinter, also marking Hynek’s comments that he was beginning to suspect that the oddities in that phenomena indicated a metaphysical or psychic aspect in its nature…Wild…shocked me at my front doorstep …saying that I was a ‘liar’…” (Steve Erdmann, Part I.) The analysis as to what led a youthful ‘debunker’ to attack an early record of Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s sayings continues….
MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
Sadly, no apology came from Wild; Wild apparently felt it was his imagined “academic” duty to psychologically assassinate his friends (and I did, somehow, consider him my friend at those moments even though I suspected over the years that his personal attacks had their own peculiarities). Just as the so-called “UFO fanatic-believer fringe” carried oddities, the Debunker Fringe was likewise laden with the same religious propensities. To quote Eric Hoffer: “This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength. Though his single-minded dedication is a holding on for dear life, he easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life to demonstrate to himself and others that such indeed is his role. He sacrifices his life to prove his worth.” (The True Believer, “Fanaticism,” Perennial Library, 1951, p. 80). Moriarty Wild seemingly lived in a wondrous world of religious “purity,” or the pretense of doctrinal “purity”; pure lifestyles, pure grammar , pure religion, pure jokes, pure remarks, pure 19th/20th century behavior, pure clothing designs, pure ‘thinking’ (claiming either, atheism or agnosticism, Wild’s avoidance of many things ‘modern’ – such as television, clothing styles, slang, even music, and sounds – seemed a blend of “beyond Luddite” at times and extreme Christian Fundamentalism). But, even if an “innocent prodigy,” Wild shouldn’t have been “wrong” in the case of Dr. Hynek (or many other of his perfect, political crusades) — he was not permitted that in what could be called the schizoid “PERFECT WORLD” – – – was that the ‘world’ taught to people in that Secret–Debunker–Finishing–School?.
.I recalled Wild going about social and public circles back through years 1967 (circa the 60s to the near present), smirking, like some little J.R.R Tolkien hobbit, cackling, usually in whispers: “idiots!” – “you’re a liar!” – “trash!” – “crazy!” – “junk!” – and other symptoms of seeming schizoid Tourette-like coprolalia (normal acid drollery or stereotypic movement disorder? Sometimes a victim of ego-syntonic, Wild said he didn’t remember going about making such remarks).
Paul Braternab spoke out against such philosophical intolerance on January 23, 2012: “The idea of a single scientific method is a myth and the damaging one at that. As P.B. Medawak pointed out, there are numerous different styles of doing science, although all of them have certain things in common: the interplay of observation, reason, and imagination…and willingness in principle to revise and refine…” Elmer Rich III likewise concluded on January 23: “The scientific method is neither deduction from a set of axioms nor a way of making plausible guesses, but that is a matter of successive approximation to probability distributions.”
Michael Guillen, PH.D., Senior Science editor for ABC-TV had a much more refreshing use of the language (1998): “my goal is to report accurately and open-mindedly any interesting and credible goings-on within science, be they orthodox or iconoclastic…apply the scientific method…only through rigorous studies…can we get beyond the endless and largely emotional-philosophical arguments between ’skeptics’ and ’believers’…they’re open as evidenced by the continuing disagreement among intelligent, well-educated people…many of today’s research results…are routinely contradicted by some subsequent study…it’s not the nature of science ever to know anything with absolute certainty. Which is why Mr. Park’s remarkable ability to know exactly what is and isn’t possible, to distinguish between ‘good’ and ’bad’ science with such complete confidence strike me, well, as just so much voodoo…”.
MORE THAN MISGUIDED PHILOSOPHIES
“How few there are who have courage enough to own their faults, or resolute enough to mend them.” (Benjamin Franklin.)
Wild’s philosophical misstep was one that is shared by many debunkers around the globe. ”Both they who convert and they who are converted need the fervent conviction that the faith they impose or are forced to adopt is the only true one,” said Eric Hoffer (The True Believer, Ibid, p. 99), “without this conviction, the proselytizing terrorist, if he is not vicious, to begin with, is likely to feel a criminal, and the coerced convert see himself as a coward who prostituted his soul to live.” .
Eric Hoffer – Philosopher.
Over the years, even more so recently, Wild has aligned himself with Right-wing or Ultra-right-wing causes (because they supposedly preach against poor behavior), and he stayed close to friends or ‘icons’ he deemed sympathetic to those causes and images, often castigating robustly those who disagree or challenge his Doctrines. “The game of history is usually played by the best and worst over the heads of the majority in the middle…they see their lives and the present as spoiled, beyond remedy and they are ready to waste and wreck both…,” Eric Hoffer, Ibid, pp. 29-30. It is important that Wild’s ‘heroes’ have treated him extremely kindly (though that quality is not always, apparently, given to those he disagreed with). Though he has debunked supernatural stories and paranormal phenomena as so much claptrap and malarkey as part of his march towards Truth, he also defended ‘icons’ (not that his friends are not congenial or humane at times) that just happened to be or purported to be Ultra-Christian (and some as technophobic) because of their stand against the decadence of society. You would think that this would have contradicted his disbelief of the paranormal, in as much as Catholicism and other Christian religions are chuck-full of supernaturalism and the paranormal.
In August 2010, Wild gave a list of characteristics he believed every virtuous human should live by, which should, I suppose, had included him. (“Though they seem at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end…thumbing a ride on any eternal cause that rolls by…he sees intolerance a sign of weakness, frivolity and ignorance…,” Eric Hoffer, Ibid, p. 83).
And since some of his closest ‘icons’ are purported Christians, you would think that would demand those ‘icons’ to attempt to lead strict Christian lives. They seemingly did not; some aspects were somehow quite pharisaical and questionable. To get even a passing glimpse of what Christ taught and how he lived one should read Jesus: A Biography from a Believer by Paul Johnson (Penguin Group, Harper & Row, 2010): Compassion for the poor and needy was one of His requests. His message was “love’’ as opposed to militant pharisaic politics.
(One of the organizations Wild belonged to was a Conservative White Supremacist group consisting of fairly educated, professional and congenial people, but they nonetheless were also a potpourri of human oddities and regional peculiarities. Another ufologist was a friend to Wild (though the friend claimed to be in a sober Conservative/Christian stance), Erdmann discovered the friend to have told convincing “tall-tales.” None of the people that Wild spoke about, many that I had known personally, had unencumbered, faultless, innocent lives that I know of, and, usually, upon further examination, made variable errors like all the rest of humanity. Wild had kept himself in a ‘pivotal’ position which seemed to accommodate and encompass, both, their faults as well as their positive aspirations).
I thought sometimes, looking back, that Moriarty took himself far too seriously, that he had turned into a snob of sorts, always on a quest to find enemies that were out to quash his imaginary and weakly constructed style-of-living, however Scrooge-like that might have been at times, even though he was one of us ‘common persons’ after all. It was hard to figure out all the twists and turns in his mind. Having read his past comments on the worthlessness of homeless vagrants in the city, I thought of Wild one freezing, cold night when I comforted a hobo huddled over a window heat vent in 10-degree weather. Would Wild – or even I – be able to necessarily temper continually a fanatical crusade for “justice,” and any attached and dubious icons’ societal disparagements this may entail when confronted by such hobos cringing towards a rush of hot air from a window’s air vent?
And what will mankind do for each other when the full effect of the current worldwide 600-trillion-dollar “financial hydrogen bomb” of CDO, derivative, and default swap debt crisis hits “people,” human beings, with many more dropping out of the middle class; when multitudes of hobos will appear and seek warmth at “alley window hearths”?
I noticed (in personally sharing personal dementia common to many humans) that one’s “cynicism” (along with one’s cantankerousness) often seemed to increase in one’s philosophical/political repertoire as one grows into old age (and it cannot be denied that one is possessed by personal idiosyncrasies, in as much as this writer even occasionally suffers from glossophobia and post-traumatic stress). However, could particular cynical fanaticism (such as disparagements critical of the lifestyles of hobos in the city or even humans as a species) also be something born beyond – even if in combination with – camaraderie adjoined to dubious human cynic–heroes or debunker books entirely?.
‘DEBUNKING-DEMENTIA’ ALSO LAYS ON THE PERSONALITY SCALE
“We have met the enemy and it is us!” Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1953.
“There is no ‘they’, only ‘us.’” Anon..
Donald Michael King in the May 1991 Fate Magazine (Vol. 44, No.5, pp. 5-6) noted that “CSICOP is not for skeptics. It is for debunkers….some members of CSICOP want to be more: they want to be thought police….they want to able to determine what you and I should believe. They want to limit the possibilities that are available to us. This attitude is what I call religious fascism.” This led readers such as Jim Brasfield (Fate Magazine, November, 2006, Vol. 59, No, 11, pp. 84-85) to label such debunking as “the Religion” of debunking: “If a group of people must resort to such disrespectful and groundless attacks in order to protect their ’religion,’ then looking at others’ sides’ views seems more warranted than ever.”.
Dr. Donald Michael King – Center – with Associates,
Noted in the past “I See by the Papers” column in Fate Magazine several years ago that a chemical was medically discovered in the bodies of ‘debunkers’ that might be a clue as to their cynicism. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to locate that item since, in those voluminous pages, but the topic has inspired more discussion and led to more discoveries; recently, moreover, studies on epigenetics [the study of how people’s experiences and environment affect the function of their genes] seemed to indicate that chemical markers set-up a biological competition between maternal and paternal genes leading to impacted behavior at the epigenetic level..
TOWARD THE CORE PROBLEM.
Dr. Andrew Newberg, director of the Myrna Brain Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, traced a lot of human pessimism to the limbic brain system where there was an overabundance or under-production of neurotransmitters norephrine/noradrenaline in the history of certain individuals..
Dr. Andrew Newberg.
Another study by British scientists at Essex University, Elaine Fox, and Chris Ashwin, Bath University, explored genetic tests, described in the proceedings of the Royal Society B, that compared short, even or long genes that controlled serotonin in the amygdala of the brain, some variations causing cynicism or pessimism.
Dr. Joseph Depenza, a biochemist at Rutgers University with a Bachelor of Science Degree, spoke of neuroplasticity and the chemicals involved in brain evolution. Depenza spoke of how the body can be knocked out of homeostasis by stress and other actions and having the Limbic Brian send a flow of peptides creating a neurochemical condition in the cerebellum.
Doctor Joseph Dispenza.
Norman Doidge/Michael Merzenoch spoke of studies where excessive levels of neuronal growth led to spasticity with tonic paralysis and excessive release of neurotransmitters causing adverse synaptic rewiring which were highly maladaptive. (Chaney, Warren, Dynamic Mind, 2007, Las Vegas, Houghton-Brace Publishing, pp. 33-35, ISBN 0-9793392-0-0. Doidge, Norman (2007), The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the frontiers of brain science, New York: Viking, ISBN 9780670038305. Draganski et al. “Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of Brain Structure Changes during Extensive Learning,” The Journal of Neuroscience, June 7, 2006, 26(23):6314-6317. Chaney, Warren, Workbook for a Dynamic Mind, 2006, Las Vegas, Houghton-Brace Publishing, p. 44, ISBN 0 0979339219.
[Other laboratory studies indicated a variant of serotonin receptor 2A gene – 5HT1A and 5HT2A – in male carriers of T/T genotype of 5HTR2A (UCL School of Life and Medical Science, 2007). Genotype-phenotype correlations of personality traits revealed that genes determined ‘belligerence’ (bel), ‘cynicism’ (dub), ‘lack of personality’ (dul-1), plus others such As ‘obsessive-compulsive behavior’ (pic-e)]. Additional studies likewise indicated genetic variants for creativity as “optimism,” “wonderment,” etc., as well, and just as equally; there are various chemicals included in these functions: serotonin (mood), norepinephrine (flight or fight), popamine (motivation), glutamate (learning) and others (www.mja.com.au)]..
NATURE VERSUS NURTURE .
The Nature versus Nurture arguments concerned how environmental factors could add to altering behavior along with genetic factors (even after the “critical period” of early development), showing the factors involved in plasticity to be flexible, dynamic, and transmutable.
Ponti, Giovanna; Peretto, Paolo; Bonfanti, Luca; Reh, Thomasa . Personal–Project.org – Annual Review of Psychology, 1995. Science 21, September 1984.
Sharon Begley commented that humans were “hardwired in their biology” with a Religious Sense as part of their DNA to see the Profound as an “essential dimension” of their brains (but, as in the debunkers’ case, as the Anthesis against the Thesis). This seemed to have included “debunkers” as well as “believers” (as Eric Hoffer explained in his book on Fanatics, ibid), explaining why even debunkers approached topics so religiously and attempted to find deep meaning and purpose in even their theories.
The Mind And The Brain: Neuroplasticity And The Power of the Brain, Harper Books, New York, 2002. Newsweek, November 3, 2008, pp. 56-60..
Researcher Sharon Begley.
Recent studies of the neuropeptide vasotocin in zebra finches and vasopressin in mammals showed how animals can be made to be social or anti-social.
AWASH ON PEPTIDES.
Candice B. Pert, Ph.D., saw this as part of a rational, masculine, materialistic world that placed too much emphasis “on competition and aggression,” awash on peptides of negativism, and an attack on our hypothalamic, pituitary and limbic Cortical Releasing Factors (CRF’s)
Molecules Of Emotion, Scribner Publishers, 1997, pp. 269, 270, 315..
The late Candace B. Pert – scientist
Autism was discovered in combination through environmental causation as “de novo” genetic mutations, some at an early embryonic stage of human development and seemingly spontaneous (Dr. Evan E. Eichler, professor of Genome Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle and Dr. Mark J. Daly of Harvard).
Oregon-based Professor of Sociology and environmental studies, Professor Kari Norgaard, believed she had detected a cultural resistance, an aberrant sociological behavior on the part of debunkers..
Professor Kari Marie Norgaard
Such controversies had been played out in the scientific community before, such as the curious case of George R. Price who studied altruism as a genetic link: his Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS), also known as Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection and the ‘Hamiltonian spite.’ Price evolved from a comparatively stable atheist to a vagabond hobo Christian trying to prove his equation until the time he died.
VICTIMS OF REALITY.
Could those “environmental factors” have involved and included the gossip, family upbringing, organizations, books and novels, and other social and political settings and pressures of “debunkers” and “believers” alike, indicating we are all victims of reality and ‘no one’ can claim a “pure and clean world that each lives in”? Colin Bennett saw these personality traits, these temperaments, in his biography of the late Captain Edward Ruppelt (Flying Saucers Over The White House, Cosimo, Inc., New York, N.Y. 10011, 2010, pp. 40, 41, 44, 45, 104, 146 – (speaking of the destruction of UFO files by military personnel):
“….whenever these things enter the UFO area, they appear to enter a permanently unstable region where reference, definition, and materiality become so doubtful…consists of the kind of Max Escher…behave in a strange way as if they have been switched on by a highly selective impulse, and they do things that they would never do under normal circumstances…implicit, pre-conditioned, almost as if they were some quite automatic function of a bio-electric switch, shutting off certain planes of information within the brain…This is the implicit conspiracy, as distinct from the explicit. We have no problem in admitting that our bodies are robotically programmed, but we have great difficulty…As with many believers, in few skeptics do we find considered intellectual reaction. Rather do we find quite genuine anger and resentment and bitterness as if the phenomenon not only offends them intellectually but also offend some deep, very private thing which they hold dear…human beings have a desperate need to disbelieve, we are forced to consider that all cultures navigate by engineered denials…the ultimate state of the life-long prisoners of the military industrial complex which is Goethe’s Leidstadt, Eliot’s Wasteland, and the corporation rolled into one.”.
Author Colin Bennett.
I personally cannot claim to be above the fray, as do some debunkers, and in admitting inclusion of the same in my mental faculties; I certainly can’t claim to be sinless; I cannot claim perfection; I can only say that I am human..
“Strong people welcome new ideas and make them their own, weak people run from new ideas.” (The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-deception in Human Life, Robert Trivers, Perseus Books Group, 2011, p. 315).
A New Age of Science was upon us (provided we wouldn’t blow ourselves to bits). There was The Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness or the Society for Scientific Exploration; these were a part of a growing number of such avant-garde’ groups consisting of legitimate scientists. I’m not about to call them idiots as Wild would. Wild would call Einstein an idiot if it served his Religion.,
.And he might have included Brian Greene, Michio Kakui, Charles Seife, Martin Rees, Marcelo Gleiser, Ralph Alpher, John Wheeler, David Bohm, M. Talbot, Alan Guth, David Gross, Paul J. Steinhardt, Burt Ovrut, Kip Thorne, David Deutsch, Lawrence Kraus, Phil Marshall, Dian Greene, Andrea Ghez, Phil Plait, Max Tegmark, Andrea Ghez, Rita Berabei, Jonathan Butterworth, Joe Silk, Brian Josephson, Frank Tippler, Andrew Cleland, Joan Swartz, Amanda Peet, Michele Thaller, Stanley Love, Geoff Marcy, Hal Levison, Edward Whitten, Joseph Linken, Nick Poplawski, Andre Linde, Frank Wilczek, Peter Higgs, Stephen Hawkings, Phil Rivera, John Jackson, Ray Downing and a whole host of others like them. Might as well, they are pushing the Outer Limits of science and I’m just not prepared to castigate them. Wild can do that. Neither am I able to adjudicate and ostensibly expatriate the fate of Carl Jung or many other scientists. Maybe after I get to attend that Debunker Finishing School which Moriarty Wild attended? However, maybe I can hope and see Magic still going on in the universe. Maybe………….
(“Take a bolt out of the blue…Fate steps in and sees you through…when you wish upon a star your dreams come true…,” On Disney Songs The Satchmo Way, Louis Armstrong, May 16, 1968).
(“The revolution was entirely inward, a revolution against selfishness and greed, cruelty and prejudice, anger and lust: a revolution from self-love into love for all and fellowship with everyone.” (Jesus: A Biography From A Believer, Paul Johnson, Viking Penguin, Penguin Group, Inc., page 160, 2010) .
Regrouping and salvaging a damaged storage garage in 2013, Steve Erdmann came upon some sketchy notes from the 1967 Hynek lecture, and while it was not a verbatim quote and only a paraphrase of Hynek’s comments, it did indicate the direction and sympathy of Hynek’s beliefs (Erdmann’s comments later in the Dissenter/Disinter Magazine were further based on extended memory), as follows:
“(UFOs concern) things in physics right around us…phenomena which is beyond our understanding, yet will (eventually) be natural.”
Those wishing to reach Steve Erdmann can write him directly – or through downloads – at emails email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org. He may possibly still be reached through the editor of UFO Digest Magazine and also Facebook at stephen.erdmann1.
You can also visit his articles at the following:
Steve Erdmann – Independent Investigative Journalist – on far left – 1967
August 7, 2012.
 Later, in Amazing Stories Magazine, October 1957, Arnold revised his opinion: ”[In 1947] Ray Palmer told me in a phone call that nobody would find out what the flying saucers were, or capture one – and today, ten years later, that boy is right!…I’m fairly well convinced that there is a type of living creature in our atmosphere. At least some of the things I’ve seen exhibit the characteristics of a living thing more than they do of a mechanical thing.” (FATE Magazine, September 1994, p. 26)
Some UFOs act like living Creatures.
 Last heard, Moriarty Wild, after living several years on the West Coast, had moved overseas and was said to have possibly died from cancer.
 “From the name Charles Fort, a pioneer in cataloging strange phenomena…any natural phenomena which does not seem to have a logical or scientific explanation.” www.boards.straightdope.com/definitionoffortean. “Etymology: from Charles Fort, famous investigator of anomalous phenomena.” En.wikionery.org/wiki/fortean.
 “….The UFO Study Group of Greater St. Louis in 2010, who [sic] print and tell stories that are more fantastic than those the flying saucer contactees told in the 1950s….” (Moriarty Wild, August 2010)
 In his quest to vanquish enemies and obtain Debunkers Truth, as it might be called, Wild has stated and also challenged poor grammar as if substantiation of same also validated George Orwell and his character Winston’s war against Crimestop/ Thoughtcrime and the evil Newspeak and Ingsoc as shown in Orwell’s novel 1984. Wild’s worry about the misuse of European and British syntax is almost Fundamentalist Puritan consternation, same as Orwell’s alleged insights on The Party’s tricky and slovenly used language. To the contrary: Orwell was ‘against’ such fanatic wrangling: “Most of us have a lingering belief that every choice is between good and evil, and that if a thing is it is also right. We should, I think, get rid of this belief…..in politics one can never do more than decide which of two evils is the lesser…”
(“George Orwell: Writers and Leviathan”, Summer, 1948. Orwell.ru/library). “…he was equally aware of the importance of the individual’s private life and the matters of everyday existence…his faith in the instincts of the common people and distrust of intellectuals…”
 The Science TV cable show “The Mystery Dinosaur” (2006) made this comment: “There is no such thing as a Rosetta Stone in science.” Educator Shelly Blake-Plock said on April 18, 2011, in his article I Don’t Want More Professional Development, www.teachoaoerless.blogspt.com: “…nothing trumps the fact that the world is not a well-oiled machine…there is no such thing as perfect grammar. There is no such thing as a right answer…there are only relationships between things…the world is not professional…the world…is social…meandering path of the ever-changing social development…” Hidden behind a phobia masking Wild’s syntactical, grammatical, and even social belief in “Purity” was the real world of humans and how they contended with their hopes and dreams.
 “See, I’m not a monster, I’m just ahead of the curve…this town deserves a better class of criminal…Do I really look like a guy with a plan?… I took your little plan and turned it upon itself…introduce a little anarchy, upset the established plan, and everything becomes chaos…” (The Joker in the movie The Dark Knight, 2008.)
 Shades of: “A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the ‘bad’ parts of technology and retain only the ‘good’ parts…technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back – short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.”
Ted Kaczynski was angry but some felt with Good Reason.
 “…personal responsibility, hard work, self-discipline, proper dress and conduct….(against) bandwagon-jump(ing), trend-following…play toys (of) modern technology…trendy cell-phones, wide-screen TVs…purpose of weakening American heritage…Fabian Socialist infiltrat(ion)…Alter girls, women Lectoresses…Christian rock music…(women as) soldiers, sailors, mayors, governors, security guards, bus drivers, and police officers…poison like ‘feminism’…wealthy Jewish Communists…ordinary people who were way too eager to believe in wondrous things…” (Moriarty Wild, August 2010). In past letters to Steve Erdmann, Wild has described himself as a “misanthrope,” and I certainly found that to be true in as much as his political, social views on mankind’s destiny and abilities, though far from being totally inaccurate, oft times seemed deep, dark, all-encompassing and unyielding in what more likely could be seen as schizoid fanaticism, inhumane abnormality far beyond the reach of human compassion and retrievability: “I do not offer these remarks as an excuse for my failure to be more cheerful in my letters…At one point many years ago, I developed a capacity for sarcasm…But I sure developed an ability to be sarcastic, and I used that ability…” “Yes, I take a dim view of the human race…a vast ocean of parasites and parasitism…I have no hope for the human race, or for the future of the U.S. It is too appalling even to think about.” “I am a curmudgeon…too many people, too many distractions, too much commotion, and too much noise…Abolish modern culture…transforming American culture into a sewer of degradation…almost all the heroes are dead…the enormous wave of revulsion I feel…American society began a downward spiral into the gutter…more sympathy for the Japanese and German enemies…World War II…than…younger generations…today.…ore respect for the cackling of a barnyard full of chickens….my only impulse is to throw up…” “…I told you what a curmudgeon I have become.” “Whenever I get fed up with the human race – which is to say: practically every day…certainly not some abstraction called ‘humankind’ or ‘brotherly love’…an emotion I shall never feel for the human race…” “I am wrestling with powerful emotions: Sometimes I win, sometimes they do. But this cannot go on indefinitely…Whenever you hear the word ‘misanthrope’ or ‘curmudgeon,’ think of me. I have just about ‘had it up to here’ with the human race…this country largely a sewer of degradation…Did you count the vacant or boarded-up buildings as you walked by them? You are absolutely right: downtown is not quite the same, festive, happy place it was in the 1950s-1960s. I wonder why that could be, ha, ha…each entrance-way, a sign is posted, reading: ‘This is not a bathroom’…adopting the standards of the (white leftist) counterculture and the (black) thug-and-whore culture…lowest common denominator in the white leftist counter-culture and the black thug-and-whore culture…our dumbed-down, adolescent culture.”
Moriarty Wild, Letters, November 8, 2001, March 24, May 22, June 30, September 15, November 12, 2002, February 5, 2006, September 9, 2008.
 Brian May said: ”If we do open the door wide, can we, as concerned scientists, artist, and human beings, find a way to propagate just the decent, noble parts of our compassion? Not greed, but generosity. Not conflict, but cooperation. Not war, but peace, in which all men, all women, all creatures, share the glorious gifts of nature – the glorious gift of life.” (Astronomy Magazine, p. 31, February, 2012.)
 “It’s not that simple; with the Joker, it never is.” (The Batman in the movie The Dark Knight, 2008.)
 This trait was found in the personality of the adventurer Stanley Livingston, spoken about in Willpower (Ray F. Baumeister and John Tierney [Penguin Books] and Stanley: The Impossible Life of Africa’s Greatest Explorer, Tim Zeal): “The creation of order can only have been an antidote to the destructive capacities of nature all around him…Stanley’s belief in the link between external order and inner self-discipline have been confirmed recently in studies…”
Dr. J. Allen Hynek
Dr. Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS
Eric Hoffer – Philosopher
Author Colin Bennett
Dr. J. Allen Hynek (left) and Jacques Vallee (right).
Professor Kari Marie Norgaard
Researcher Sharon Begley
Doctor Joseph Dispenza
Dr. Andrew Newberg
Dr. Donald Michael King and Associates
The late Candace B. Pert – scientist
Another Moriarty Mastermind from ‘Sherlock Holmes.’
Some UFOs act like living Creatures
Ted Kaczynski was angry but some felt with Good Reason
Graham Chapel Washington University Campus
Hynek Lecturing at the Milwaukee Paranormal Conference