Bryan Sentes and Luis Cayetano in conversation

Luis Cayetano (“Ufology” is corrupt) kindly conducted a wide-ranging, freewheeling chat with me about UFOs, ufology, and the UFO mythology, among many, many other things.

Cayetano’s questions, prompts, and curtness allowed me free reign to opine and reflect on topics usually passed over or still to be addressed here at the Skunkworks. This format sometimes saw (heard?) my verbal energies outrun my reflective faculties, but I’m grateful to Luis for the opportunity to explore the field in this way. I may not have been my most eloquent or pithy at all points, but I was, at least, I think, coherent.

Because of technological limitations, viewers/listeners will be treated not to two hours of looking at us yack but to a montage-commentary, often funny and wittily commenting on what’s being said. Thanks to Cayetano for going through the trouble.

You can see the interview, here.

7 thoughts on “Bryan Sentes and Luis Cayetano in conversation

  1. I largely like the conversation – don’t really disagree with much – but I do feel a need to warn you that the Fatima story is more about bad data than mass hysteria (a term I strenuously avoid since the field of psychology dropped hysteria from the DSM in 1980 due to problems in its usage). Stanley Jaki’s God and the Sun at Fatima (1999) points out that while many people were present at the The Dance of the Sun, virtually no testimony was gathered at the time, most coming decades after the event. The earliest accounts he finds are rather different from the later ones and has components of simple meteorology like crepuscular rays and retinal biology – spinning colors are a common aspect of oversaturation of the retina when people look directly at the cloud-veiled sun. My review in Magonia Supplement here – – I hope will inspire you to get Jaki’s book and form a less ufo-centric impression of what was actually reported at the time.


    1. Martin, thanks for the welcome comment. I don’t know if I remarked during that long, sometimes rambling conversation, that my views of the Fatima Event were based primarily on Vallée’s version and my passing acquaintance with Farnandes’ and Armada’s three-volume study. Thanks, surely, for the recommended supplemental volumes!

      I do wonder if I made it clear enough in that interview that my interests have always respectfully shied away from the questions and controversies around the reality, nature, or being of these phenomena, which would clarify why, e.g., my offhand conversation of Fatima was so ill-informed. To do it all justice is such a black/rabbit hole, however curious the matter (See some of Mike Cifone’s comments here, as well his own Entaus blog).

      In the same breath, I still remain unpersuaded about how well-grounded / articulated a psychosocial approach is, as I have never had the happy chance to come across a thoroughly set-out account for the mechanisms whereby the rumour (if you will) is supposed to _work_. But then I enjoy reading German Idealism for pleasure… And, as I often have to make clear, my own interests are essentially hermeneutic and cultural critical (all with an eye on the creative work!) rather than explanatory or sociological.

      Thanks, again, for your always welcome intervention. I promise to be more circumspect in future interviews!

      Might I share your comment here over at the YouTube conversation? The information illuminates the Fatima discussion in a way that calls for wider dissemination–let me know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s