Holographic Projection

UFOs: Myths, . . .

Book Review:

UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities by John B. Alexander, Ph.D.

The Long of It

I would hazard a guess that no one has made as extensive an effort to find a center for hidden UFO activities within the US Government/Military complex as the author of this book. This is especially true when one considers the kind of access that was made available to him. His knowledge of the inner workings of government, military and international organizations is quite complete. Once I got past the organizational alphabet soup and acronyms (a glossary of these would have been helpful) I found his conclusion quite convincing — no such deep black budget center exists. In addition he casts serious doubts on the long rumored existence of artifacts retrieved from cashed alien spacecraft, not to mention the reverse engineering of such artifacts to produce an alien reproduction vehicle.

Of course, many with near religious convictions, will find these these conclusions hard to swallow.

The Short of It

The book is not as thorough when it comes to science


First it needs to be acknowledged that UFOs exist. They exist by definition. However, the denotation of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) or, perhaps more accurately, Unidentified Ariel Phenomena (UAPs), is often contaminated with the connotation of alien spacecraft which makes for much misunderstanding, and this book is not entirely devoid of that confusion.

The author is listed as John B. Alexander, Ph.D. on the dust cover. He was employed for a period at Los Alamos National Laboratory as a project manager and that would seem to imply a scientific background.

Most of the evidence listed by the author is anecdotal in nature and really doesn’t qualify as scientific. Such evidence cannot be obtained at will and is not reproducible. Some photos, radar contacts, and physical trace evidence exist, but that kind of evidence, although recordable, cannot be replicated at will.

Any hypothesis that is created to cover the 5-10 % of reports that are not easily explained must be empirically verifiable or falsifiable. A metaphysical hypothesis is not acceptable as science. (to be fair, the author did not suggest any such hypothesis, in fact, no hypothesis at all). The presence of alien spacecraft is a valid hypothesis, also valid is the possibility of natural phenomena or domestic technologies that are not known to those doing the identifying.

There is, however, room for theoretical science, and speculation as to how it might apply to the observations listed in the book. The kind of information provided by Carol Rainey in the book Sight Unseen which she co-authored with Budd Hopkins would have been a nice addition.

An example of the kind of scientific speculation that could have been made applies to the sighting described at the bottom of page 30:

“He reported seeing an object moving across the dark sky with a stream of light trailing behind it. According to him the object abruptly stopped and the light seemed to be sucked into the source, much like a string of spaghetti might be vacuumed into one’s mouth. The light did not go out, but it seemed to withdraw into the UFO; something that lights don’t do.”

It is my understanding that a particle beam sent into the atmosphere can produce a ball of plasma which when maneuvered can produce this kind of effect. In fact, such a beam can produce many of the observed maneuvering characteristics of UFOs that would be impossible for a nuts and bolts craft. For more on this, search on “Particle Beams and Saucer Dreams” by Tom Mahood. Of course, even if this is true it still leaves open the question of whether the beam came from above or below and who sent it.

In the Epilogue the author states:

“There is little doubt that some unidentified flying objects are real, three-dimensional solid objects, which are physically present and observable.”

Some may indeed be real, but my “guess” is that they are a some kind of interactive, holographic projection whose purpose is long range remote sensing. This fits better with the way their movements are usually described. For more on this, search on “Alien Spacecraft: Real, Physical or Virtual?” by yours truly. Or go to The UFO Experience Reconsidered: Science and Speculation

Having said all that I nevertheless highly recommend this book on the strength of the parts which are the author’s long suit.

Robert L. Mason

Mendocino, CA


Tags: , , , ,

Monday, February 28th, 2011 UFOs: Myths . . . No Comments

UFO: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean

In the Introduction to her book, author Leslie Kean states she uses the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Objects) and UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) interchangeably even though she realizes that UAP is the broader term. She might have been better served if she had maintained a strict separation. In those residual cases that truly are unidentified, not only do the objects appear not to “fly” in the normal sense of the word (aerodynamically), but there is the distinct possibility that they are not “objects” in the normal sense of that word either. In addition, as she points out, the term UFO has come (incorrectly) to connote “extraterrestrial” to such an extent that its strictly correct meaning is now probably lost for good. “UFO” is dated and should be consigned to the scrap heap along with “flying saucer.” UAP reflects current thinking best, but probably wouldn’t be as catchy for the title for her book.

The book is well written and carefully researched over a considerable period of time, but despite advocating “militant agnosticism,” a preference for the extraterrestrial hypothesis by the author, and many of the contributors, is implicit. Some of the contributors don’t even attempt a neutral position.

Also in the Introduction, the author states that what is being observed is “a solid physical phenomenon” and she reiterates this position at various other places in following chapters. This may be one adjective too many. It could be a physical phenomenon without being solid. Many of the observed characteristics which are so puzzling for an object which is, in fact, solid are easily explained by an apparent object which is virtual. Without violating any of the currently understood laws of physics, what I am suggesting is some kind of interactive holographic projection (IHP). How do you do that? Good question!

For a particularly astute piece of analysis on this, search on “Particle Beams and Saucer Dreams,” an on-line essay by Tom Mahood. This essay speculates about events observed over Area 51 in the late 1980s and early 1990s and points the way to what may have become a highly developed black budget project.

In Chapter 23 Author Kean does an excellent job of introducing us to the world of classified information and touches on the category of Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (UASAPs). So, let’s pursue that for a moment. Suppose, following the line of thought developed by Tom Mahood, that a technology has been stumbled upon that has highly significant strategic implications. Maybe it’s some combination of a particle beam’s ability to produce a ball of plasma in the atmosphere that can maneuvered with ease, and also has the ability of the standard cathode ray tube as found in traditional TV sets to produce a detailed image. That’s just a wild guess based upon existing technologies, but whatever it is, it has profound implications. They will, of course, need to test this thing, trying it under different circumstances, possibility even putting it in a satellite. We know that there are many classified satellites that the military has put into orbit. The problem is that these tests are highly visible and people are bound to see them from time to time. As Mahood says at the end of his essay “You can hide the program but you can’t hide the physics.” In order to avoid having to explain what is going on, some kind of disinformation cover is required. Serendipity comes to the rescue, that kind of cover already exists — it’s UFOs! Now all the military/government complex has to do is cast aspersions on the whole idea of UFOs and they’re home free.

Most of the above constitutes a domestic technology explanation for UAPs, but does that mean the extraterrestrial hypothesis is invalid? It does not. There is no reason why extraterrestrials wouldn’t make use of the same technology and we would have to expect that it would be in a highly developed state coming from that quarter. For more speculation along this line go to:


Congratulations are in order to author Leslie Kean for providing a clearly written framework for thought on this subject.

Robert L. Mason

Mendocino, CA

August, 2010

Tags: , , , , , ,

Friday, August 20th, 2010 UFO: Generals. . . No Comments