UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Jul > Jul 27

Re: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap

From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:51:24 +0100
Archived: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:21:15 -0400
Subject: Re: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:05:15 -0500
>Subject: Re: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap

>>From: Franck Boitte <franckboitte.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:56:54 +0200
>>Subject: Re: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap

>>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:19:09 +0100
>>>Subject: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap

>>>It raises a question: are ufologists working on the
>>>'orthoteny' hypothesis?

>>The answer is a polite and definite, No.

>Orthoteny is one of those things, like the Mars correlation,
>that remain in ufology's early history and in its rear-view
>mirror. Basically, summed up as: it seemed like a good idea at
>the time.

Thanks Franck and Jerry, for your information and opinions.

However, it has to stay on my radar and in my bookmarks for
several reasons:

First, as Charles Fort repeatedly queried in his books, there
seems to be a dichotomy  between our scientific picture of Earth
as a rotating (and orbiting) sphere in space, and incidences of
incoming (or visiting) aerial phenomena which _should_ be random
in timing and across the face of the Earth (according to that
picture) - but which in fact seem to operate to a geophysical
_and_ chronological pattern or patterns.

Second, as Stanton Friedman and Don Ledger said in the foreword
for Paul Kimball's 'Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings'


those aerial phenomena seem to have been essentially unchanging
throughout all of our history, and. as Mac Tonnies implied in
his tailpiece for the same video, their most important aspect is
their influence on human minds, in forming our concept of 'the

[A vital point from Mac was that the phenomena could be physical
or 'para-physical' (or a combination maybe?) and that "I don't
think we have the proper vocabulary for that - frankly".]

Lastly, I'm fond of asking the 'naive question' (as recommended
by Buckminster Fuller for research and discovery), because that
tends to cut through the undergrowth of faulty assumptions,
propaganda and trendy science-fashion (often only formed by
repeated propaganda - like "black holes", "dark matter", "dark
energy") which mostly surrounds the concepts which we (and the
PTB) think are most important.

As an example, a battered copy of 'The New Background of
Science' (1933) by James Jeans, still provides one with the best
skeleton outline of classical and quantum facts, free of most of
the maybe false assumptions concerning the 'conscious observer'
which clutter our minds today. (All one has to do is bear in
mind the extra evidence obtained since 1933, which you can get
from Penrose's 'Road to Reality' maybe.)

It would be great if a similar book or series of books did the
same job on the aerial phenomena, and all their  epiphenomena,
considered without bias or assumptions; including contacts,
abductions etc. and therefore having to also include all claimed
'religious events' - ie. the supernatural and the paranormal.

Charles Fort made a good start - see:


(it's just a pity that some sort of classification or even
content-indexing weren't in vogue back then).


Ray D

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com