UFO Conjectures

Friday, June 02, 2017

Consciousness and memory for ufologists

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The book pictured here (the paperback version; I have the hardcopy) is essential for a discussion of consciousness and memory, as referenced by Michael, Terry, and Tim in comments earlier here.

The author is noted (at Amazon) thusly:

Stanislas Dehaene was trained as a mathematician and psychologist before becoming one of the world’s most active researchers on the cognitive neuroscience of language and number processing in the human brain. He is the director of the Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit in Saclay, France, the professor of experimental cognitive psychology at the Collège de France, a member of the French Academy of Sciences and of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed scientific journals and is the author of The Number Sense and Reading in the Brain. He lives in France.
The idea that memory is beclouded by time and/or aging isn’t exactly true as Professor Dehaene provides in his book (and others, such as Oliver Sacks have noted).

Memory of past events are added to, and corrupted by passages of time or age but such vicissitudes of memory depend upon the individual; some people remember accurately and some do not.

Professor Dehaene writes in his book “ … cortical regions are strongly connected to additional players, such as the central lateral and intralaminar nuclei of the thalamus …, the basal ganglia …, and the hippocampus (essential for memorizing the episodes of our lives and for recalling them). [Page 171]

Many factors affect memory, and while it may be easy (0r acceptable) to suggest that memory is awash in false accretions, that isn’t exactly so. It may be but not as a generality.

Therefore, we can’t throw out “recall” as necessarily flawed.

Ufologists need to curate a UFO report to determine if provided details are intact and actual. This is daunting, assuredly but that’s why I continue to write that ufologists and UFO researchers are inept; they do not have expertise or wherewithal to subject witness accounts to proper scrutiny.

And in the case of Roswell, the “witnesses” are either dead or proven to be liars by the persistence of such UFO investigators as Kevin Randle, who has gone over the details extant to see what fits, what is true and what is not.

Kevin is almost alone in doing that. Roswell investigators go at the incident with an ingrained bias, of the ET hypothesis or some other forlorn theory or speculation. He doesn't (now).

They corrupt the memory of witnesses. It’s wasn’t the memory, per se, of witnesses that was faulty. It was the suggestive techniques of interviewers that corrupted witness memory.

This is what happened to Jesse Marcel Sr. I think.

Memory may be afflicted by additional input that intrudes over time. That’s why psychoanalysts eschewed hypnotism, in part, as a way to get at past events (memory).

But more importantly hypnotism was eschewed because the hypnotist’s demeanor (latent and subliminal suggestions) often entered into the psyche of those hypnotized, corrupting the material and thoughts (the unconsciousness) being vocalized.

(This may be why the Betty/Barney Hill psychiatric transmissions have been dismissed by science.)

At any rate, memory (and consciousness) are complex and taking a cavalier stance about memory is an avenue to error.

Some accounts of UFO witnesses should not be discredited out of hand, while some can be, as Kevin Randle has shown by a scrutiny of detail that surrounds some UFO witness stories, details that are not a part of memory but gathered to provide certitude to a tale made up.



  • It’s wasn’t the memory, per se, of witnesses that was faulty. It was the suggestive techniques of interviewers that corrupted witness memory.


    1) Yep, it is an important variable. In my 2010 book about the Roswell myth, I insisted to this "dance" of suggestion/suggestibility between "witness" & investigator. Marcel is probably a good example, and I would be curious to hear about the first phone or in live interview sessions done by S. Friedman with him, the first not "formed" to (cognitive) interview tools... ;)

    2) Recently, we have the Roswell slide fiasco. Do you remember the methodology used by A. Dew when coming to E. Benavidez? He presented him only his slide and him acknowledging. WTF? Of course, it is no how to process (forced choice, slide already introduced as "Roswell" or "alien", Benavidez already part and ingredient of the Roswell myth and books, etc.). "Au minimum", as I suggested early in this saga, Dew must have mixed the slide between another "false targets", like mummies, physiological curiosities, deformations or "false" alien photos. I had been curious if Benavidez taked the "Roswell slide"... ;)

    3) In my blog, I focused on how Cynthia Hind or (worst !) John Mack have interviewed the children for the so-called Ariel case: It is a disaster..... They did exactly what must NOT be done with children... It is a perfect example imho about what you are pointing here in this thread.

    4) Now, our French GEIPAN have formed the investigators to the cognitive interview (adapted for UFO sighting record/witness) in order to minimize such variables where the interviewers may "corrupt" witness memory. They called for it French university specialists of memory and interview (like Jacques Py) to realize this new tool.
    Good thing!

    Best Regards,


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Saturday, June 03, 2017  

  • Merci, Gilles:

    UFO buffs and "ufologists" don't want to accept the idea that they bring (or have brought) their own suggestions to a witness report.

    The Marcel scenario is a prime example, as you note.

    I don't think anyone -- you will correct me here perhaps -- has ever determined who was in contact with Jesse Marcel Sr. in 1947 or, better, after 1978, besides Friedman.

    And what was their position on flying discs or UFOs when they contacted him?

    Those contacts (or contact) determined the Roswell path to the ETH, from which the incident has never recovered.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 03, 2017  

  • Yes, it is interesting me too.

    After the first contact, it had been important to "study" or to have elements about Marcel "UFO background" or another aspects.

    Concerning attested interactions/contacts with others (and related to the Roswell affair involving Marcel) than and previous Friedman, and then before Friedman talk to Marcel after the Baton rouge episode in 1978, we have some clues, but allowing us to only ruminate or to make few speculations...

    We seem to know (but other may correct me) that during a at Baton Rouge talk called Flying Saucers are real (^^), Friedman was warned/alerted to meet Jesse Marcel who "handled the wreckage one of those things", explained the station director when Stanton was making a series of promotions for his talk.

    The station director (according to Friedman in Crash at Corona book, so it is a legacy/testimony) added "I have known him for years, he is a very reliable witness."

    If he known him for years, what were the interactions between them? They already talk about UFO? What were the details Marcel delivered and then less "contaminated" ? And many more questions...
    It is a whole slice of the Roswell history/myth for which I still remain interested/focused and which have maybe not yield its secrets.



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Saturday, June 03, 2017  

  • Rich, Gilles -

    Let me promote my book Roswell in the 21st Century because I take a long, hard look at the Marcel tale. According to Friedman, he called Marcel from an airport on his way out of town. It then seems that Marcel gave him the whole story but I believe it was cobbled together later, as Marcel talked more about it. In other words, Marcel wasn't quite as detailed about it during that telephone conversation but we'll never know because there was no recording made of it.

    However, we can deduce the importance that Friedman attached to it because it was more than a year before he and Bill Moore jumped on the case, and then only because Moore had found a picture of Marcel in one of the 1947 newspapers. So, I believe that Friedman and Marcel had a short conversation with Friedman writing down a thing or two. Then, in his book, Friedman plugged in the material that he had learned in the years after that initial contact. The story as told in the book is the truth as Friedman put it together which is not to say that it was based in reality.

    Again, you should look at the chapter on Marcel in my book, which will make me no friends in the world of the UFO.

    By Blogger KRandle, at Sunday, June 04, 2017  

  • Yes, Kevin...

    You cover and conjugate the Friedman Roswell escapade in your book (and at your blog).

    I recommend readers here to grab your newest Roswell book for a feast of truisms that have gotten lost in the transmission of Roswell drek by others.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 04, 2017  

  • i realy want the aliens on the earth. i watch all day https://www.alles-live.com/space-live to see if there are ufos

    By Blogger Lisa Goddess, at Tuesday, June 20, 2017  

Post a Comment

<< Home