Supplement to Jung’s Flying Saucer book?

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc.

This rare book by Otto Billig [1910-1989], one-time Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, might be considered a supplement to Jung’s Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky.

Professor Billig, himself, is an obscure, brilliant interpreter of Jungian Analytical Psychology, and presses UFO interpretations into the mold that Jung did with his own book. (I’ve presented, in the past, some material from both books here.)

While most of us are corrupted…er, concerned…with the current UFO cycle being pressed upon us by wayward ufologists and news media, let me present here one of the sightings that is dissected by Professor Billig, a sighting that takes on the appearance of a José Caravaca Distortion Theoryexample.

The Billig analysis appears as Appendix V [Page 227 ff. in the paperback] and took place in Nashville, Tennessee, July 1972.

A woman and her 30 year-old daughter were sitting in a car, a few minutes before 9 p.m., waiting for their son/brother they were picking up to take home from work.

A craft that looked like “one saucer turned over another …with a flat surface underneath, and a red light on top … [making a continual ‘Beep, Beep’ sound. This craft had tiny or small windows around the middle … The craft itself was Metallic, like aluminum, with no means of identity or classification on the outside. Inside the craft  through the small windows were softly lit colors in yellow, pink, and pale green. Inside the craft were objects [sic] as people that seemed to be dressed in green (!)  coveralls, pressure ‘space’ suits or some coverings, moving back and forth as if hastily at work. However the colors could be caused from reflections inside the ship, as these objects [sic] were covered completely. The space craft or ship moved slowly at times without a rotating position, but moved forward or backward in a straight line. Other times the craft traveled in rotating movements, [traveling] very swiftly.” [Page 228]

(Since the daughter confirmed the sighting, Professor Billig writes that the episode may be a folie à deux.)

Apparently the mother got out of the car as she reports (in her letter to Professor Billig) that she “ran as fast as [she] could toward the craft” fearing that “they” would spot her or “give chase or throw out some beam toward [her, but] They did nothing, as they seemed not to notice.” [ibid]

“All during this time the people aboard were busy at work … [seeming] to be busy on computers or machinery … [She] began counting the men or objects [sic]. First there, 7, 8, then 9, then I seemed to count up to 12 but at this point [she] began to realize [her vision could be getting somewhat confused, so at 15 [she] stopped counting … [But she thought] there were a good 9 persons inside the craft.” [ibid]

The witness wondered why the craft’s occupants might be interested in the park/cemetery over which they hovered.

And she noted that she “was near power lines and … [and] seemed to hear noises as humming and peculiar sounds …. At one point there was one or two cars traveling [by] … [but] Others passing the scene did not seem to notice the ‘space craft’ … ” [Page 229]

Professor Billig made no conclusory comments, but from his “folie à deux” insertion, one can assume that his explanation of the incident would be psychological.

This is a report or tale that appears nowhere in UFO literature, except in the book, as it came to Professor Billig as a private letter.

There are hundreds of such episodes, as I’ve noted, many from the Albert Rosales’ Humanoid Encounter series of books and the Facebook UFO groups are replete with many like-accounts.

This is where we have to ask “what have such stories to do with the Tic-Tac AATIP videos or pending (non) “disclosure” report from U.S. agencies?”

The above offering was in 1972. Were there, then, advanced craft moving around or over mundane geographical areas, to be seen by members of the hoi-polloi?

Or are there a plethora of psychologically induced sightings and/or incidents that come under the rubric Distortion Theory? And if so, why?

We have a bifurcated raft of UFO sightings or reports, some with evidence such as video or camera images, even radar stimuli, and many that just seem to be an episode of psychic mischief, and a few actual reports of an actual happening that are as real as one can experience normally.

That is, we have evidenced events and hallucinatory-like accounts, from persons without psychological or neurological taint.

Which is it? Chimerae or hard-core, evidence-flush sightings?

Either way, the UFO phenomenon continues to intrude, remaining enigmatic now just as it was when crazy Ezekiel made a record for his Biblical chapter.

RR

http://ufocon.blogspot.com – The UFO Iconoclast(s)