The Tassili Paintings – what do they really tell us?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.


Spanish UFO researcher Jose Caravaca has been kind enough to provide us with a slew of images from the Tassili paintings created between 4000 B.C. and 2000 B.C.

You can also Google Tassili and see many more. (There are about 15000 discovered drawings by the Neolithic tribe from the Saharan Desert region in and around Algeria.)

The paintings have received notice by painters, anthropologists, Ancient Astronaut theorists, and culturalists inside many scientific disciplines.

There is a story, a history, that one can derive from the drawings, but that story hasn’t been discerned in any significant way.

The paintings should be grist for serious examination, as they provide some kinds of seminal truths about early man and early attempts at social civilization, maybe even something about contact with the Tassili humans by externals – externals from outside the Earth or externals from other areas of the Earth -- externals who were extant in 4000 B.C.

Some of the paintings intrigue; others are prosaic, mundane actually, depicting hunting and tribal rituals.

One painting, noted below, is the only painting that is realistic, in the modern sense.

The rest are either symbolic representations or presentations of what the artists actually saw, and provided for posterity, as if the artist knew how important and/or significant what they had seen was.

Look at these images and tell us what you see.









Two detailed images from the painting above:











This painting has pictured what one might see in African tribes today:















This painting is very interesting, as we see it:































JS/RR

UFOs and Egg Nog

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.



The January/February 2012 magazine The Atlantic
has an article – The Nutmeg Bender by Wayne Curtis [Page 31] – that reports how the ubiquitous spice, nutmeg, produces (in regular quantities) hallucinogenic effects on the people ingesting it.



“…nutmeg has been ‘reported to mediate visual, auditory, tactile, and kinaesthetic hallucinations (notably the sensation of floating)’

…the Benedictine abbess Hildegard of Bingen noted the mind-altering effects of nutmeg all the way back in the 12th Century.”

The writer, Curtis, reported that another writer, after having some nutmeg “when walking…felt as though he was “floating to his destination.”

Curtis also cites Malcolm X (in his autobiography) writing, from his prison experience, that “a penny matchbox of nutmeg had the kick of three or four reefers.”

And after trying spoonfuls of nutmeg, Curtis, himself, felt a slight floating sensation, and days later still feeling “as though a mild electrical current is passing through my brain.”

In the UFO literature there is little or no mention of nutmeg or other food accoutrements eaten by those who’ve reported UFO or alien encounters: the Hills, Travis Walton, Hickson and Parker, et al.



That is, no UFO researcher queried or queries what foods UFO witnesses had or have partaken of before their “experience.”

What did Betty and Barney Hill eat before their New Hampshire trek home in 1961?

What were Hickson and Parker eating while fishing off the pier in Pascagoula?

What did Walton and his co-workers eat just before he was “abducted”?



No one asked?

One might assume that the crew accompanying Mr. Walton and Walton, himself, had access to weed (marijuana) and even used it on occasion.



Did they do so the night that Travis Walton was, allegedly, pulled into a flying saucer?

Or did they have food that has side-effects, like that of nutmeg, in their lunch pails?

Of course, LSD and opiates, generally, have been suggested for UFO visions and encounters.

But no one has researched – and it’s too late to do so now – what foods UFO abductees or those, like the people in Jose Caravaca’s “distortion” events, had partaken of before their experiences.

Something as common as nutmeg is found in cakes, egg nog, and other main dishes.

Could such an ingredient have produced the visions and experiences that we follow as UFO encounters of a tangible kind?

Further on in The Atlantic, a piece by Cullen Murphy ( a name used in a noted Seinfeld show about a Nazi advocate whose name and persona George Constanza adopted to amusing consequences) – Torturer’s Apprentice [Page 72 ff.] – cites this caveat by philosopher John Locke:

“…no matter how much certainty is in our hearts, human beings cannot know for sure which truths are true, and that believing we can leads us down a terrible path.”



This is what happened in the UFO incidents cited here (and others): researchers believed what they wanted, but never really asked all the questions that needed to be asked, even something as simple as “What did you eat right before your UFO sighting/encounter?”

RR

Anti-Semitic Socorro?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

One of our readers discovered a United Press article [4/20/64] about the Socorro sighting which you can read by clicking on the link here:

UPI
From UFO Digest

In that article, the false Socorro symbol is proffered:



This is the symbol that Hynek, the Air Force, and Ray Stanford tried to foist off on the public and media as the insignia that Lonnie Zamora saw.

Their contrived insignia didn’t fly as ufologists and researchers subsequently discovered the original drawing that Officer Zamora provided:



But there is an interesting aspect of the concocted, fake insignia:



The contrived symbol resembles an image used by anti-Semitics, as in the cover for the despicable Protocols of Zion:



Why did they select and promote use of the Zion symbol they wanted the public to see as the insignia of an unidentified craft?



Or is this just a mere coincidence?

RR

The Socorro Imbroglio: ET, Hoax, Mistaken Observation, or ?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.



I’m sorry to regurgitate the Lonnie Zamora/Socorro sighting of 1964 but it keeps rearing its head, even when we attempt to take only an element from it – the insignia that Officer Zamora said he saw.

Steve Sawyer, a “ufologist” on the fringe of the UFO community, without blog or web-site, who parasitically attached bromides to others’ sites and blogs or inserts infrequent commentary at UFO UpDates, insists that the Stanford “mythology” that Officer Zamora was induced to draw an insiginia/symbol that was different from what he actually observed.

We’ve addressed the issue over and over again, as have others who visit here.

And we concluded that the story of a concocted symbol, to thwart hoaxers from duplicating Zamora’s observation, was a shill by the Air Force, Hynek, and ultimately Ray Stanford’s treating it as real occurrence, to throw off UFO investigators; that is, the disinformers wished to side-track UFO researchers, because the symbol is the vital clue as to what Zamora actually saw.



Mr. Sawyer perpetuates, or tries to, the concocted mythology, because he’s an intrepid supporter of the views held by the UFO old-guard, and wishes to remain in their good graces for some obtuse reason, not quite clear to me and others.

Here’s Zamora’s quoted observation:



That aside – we dismiss Mr. Sawyer’s sad attempts to keep the UFO phenomenon attuned to the ET scenario as espoused by UFO geezers – let’s see what we have experienced of late about Socorro…

Anthony Bragalia bludgeoned me yesterday [2/7/12] with his litany of circumstantial “evidence” that Officer Zamora was “punked” – Bragalia’s word.

Mr. Bragalia says that Officer Zamora was a cop who hassled New Mexico Institute of Technology students so they set out to create a UFO hoax to get back at him.



Mr. Bragalia has marshaled, I admit, some intriguing material that indicates a hoax may be a possibility.

And a hoax has been on the Socorro table since the sighting (in 1964).

We, like others – David Rudiak among them – dismiss the hoax hypothesis as ludicrous.

The observation by other witnesses takes Bragalia’s pyrotechnics and balloon scenario out of the reach of possibility.

Moreover, Mr. Bragalia hasn’t got a confession from any hoaxer, even after much diligence to find one.

He has found hints, but no one will admit to hoaxing the 1964 event, even after forty-eight years.

Mr. Bragalia’s “theory” is exquisite in its wayward presentation but too convoluted to pass muster with sensible people.

It is a fiction hoping to pass as fact.

Then we have those who think that Zamora observed an extraterrestrial craft, which is supported by other observations in the same time-frame: La Madera et cetera.

I accept the possibility but have leaned toward the idea that Officer Zamora observed a Hughes prototypical lunar lander that went astray, as explained by this man:

From the History Channel

Our hypothesis can be found earlier here, at this blog,, and at our RRRGroup blog, among other places, for those still interested at this point.

There was an Indiana University engineer who recalled a story he read in a magazine, in the 60s, about a balloon escapade by a paper company, a balloon excursion that went awry and came down in New Mexico.

We looked for that magazine article fro a very long time, and everywhere – internet archives, library archives, et cetera – to no avail, although some paper company logos do look like Zamora’s symbol -- the one he drew – the real one!



(In that vein, a contributor to our blog – Matthew Gilleece – found Hughes logos that also looked like the Zamora symbol drawing.)



My point here is that a seminal UFO sighting is rife for interpretation and debate still, after all thse years.

And why? Because it has elements that can be seen to support a number of explanations.

The ET explanation isn’t easily ruled out, in context of other sightings at the time.

The hoax scenario is a possibility and has been one since 1964, supported by much circumstantial material found by Anthony Bragalia recently.

The IU engineer’s balloon tale is still slightly open as I see it.

And my Hughes Aircraft/Toolco/CIA/Raven prototype misadventure remains viable for those who really understand what was going on the New Mexico area in 1964 pertaining to space adventures and experimentation.

But the bottom line for me has been that symbol - - that insignia that Lonnie Zamora saw and drew.

The problem is that the drawing has been compromised by the Stanford story and its promotion by such peripheral UFO stalwarts as Steve Sawyer.

If we can agree on what the actual symbol was, we might be able to trace it back to its originators: ET, NMIT hoaxers, a paper company, or Howard Hughes….

RR

What UFO species should we be studying?

We have a slight dilemma here, and it’s this…

Some of our rabid visitors wish to pursue, forever, the Roswell incident. (We don’t.)



Some like Alien Abduction stories. (We don’t.)



Some like archived anomalies seen in the sky. (We don’t.)



UFO lights in the night sky or shiny UFOs in the daytime sky have fans.



Encounters with strange beings or weird aircraft are popular fare for some.



Some believe that UFOs are a psychological operation (or psy-op) of governments and/or military constructs.



And then there are those who think the whole UFO phenomenon (or phenomena) is a neurological or psychological aberration, reconstructed from mass media imagery.



Thus we have a fragmented topic that needs, we keep writing, specialization or a division stratification not unlike that in biological classifications: phylum (or phyla), genus, species, et cetera.

We’d be interested to know what UFO category is your favorite, or the one that you think needs the most attention.

RR