Views on self seduction.

[Derek Wood]

Im becoming increasingly bemused with the models and mechanisms purported and purveyed, in quasi-academic terms, to explain and advance UFO thinking.

Santa Claus does not exist. But I recently stumbled across a forum which discussed the possibility that in fact Santa Claus does exist. They agree that the vast majority of sightings of this phenomenon can be explained by aircraft or stars, planets or fireworks. They point out that most presents delivered on Xmas day are in fact false positives and the mere by product of parental generosity. However they state that there are some exceptional cases of presents that cannot be "explained away" as the consequence of supermarket purchase by aunties and uncles. They argue that we are "fools" to discount the increasing body of evidence that Santa Claus exists and highlight the fact that "fake" Santa Clauses in shopping centres etc only obfuscate this picture. Signal and noise. You get the point I'm making. The whole UFO debate is perpetuated by selective evidence and a lack of honest rigour.

I love listening to the show. But a recent episode where BurntState guested illustrated to me the huge worry I have with this "field".

Researchers are packing layer upon layer of unsupported hypothesis and unsupported "fact" upon layer upon layer of regurgitated science fiction. Just as the sophistication of UFO sightings has has evolved over time since the 60s (simplistic flying saucers) we now see "sightings" taking on more complex forms and behaving in more ways interpreted via a loose understanding of physics. We now have "inter-dimensional" models of explanation and these are simply the next explanatory fad. They are what is fashionable now.

Conversations of "tricksters" and "trickster elements" as well as all the other spurious hypotheses only serve to add more nonsense to this mix.

To be clear. I do believe life exists in many places apart from our earth. The evidence for visitation and the conversation surrounding it is however more out of this world than the actual visitors to this planet will ever be. We need to discuss what we can test and support, not speculate on what we cannot. By doing the latter we only add further nonsense to debacle filtered black water.


Derek

 

[Oakenwulf]

The thing with santa claus is hes a folklore character, you can believe in him or not, Santa claus came from a lineage of gift giving characters beginning with the gift giving goat from Norway/Scandinavia areas.. look at krampus ( a real trixter element) hes the one who pre started the naughty/nice thing , hes the devil companion of claus who would give the koal to children and beat them,.. my point is you need to look up some history on things many beliefs come from folklore and what our ancestors created or tried to explain what they observed, thats how we still try to explain things today as well, we will (most of us) attempt to explain things and keep prefer things supernatural if it isnt, on the other hand we (or some of us) are so bent on destruction, especially with being skeptical ( nothing wrong with that to a point), that even if we do see a actually entity, we just simply wont recognize it... now isnt that the manipulation of the trixter? not sure if my point came across.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Conversations of "tricksters" and "trickster elements" as well as all the other spurious hypotheses only serve to add more nonsense to this mix.

"Spurious hypothesis"? Well dude, you know what they say: opinions are like A**holes... Obviously you haven't been paying attention to my definition of a hypothetical trickster MECHANISM, or you would have used the correct term. At least we have some creative thinkers getting their hands dirty out there in the world—instead of sniffily pontificating from the safety and comfort of their overstuffed armchairs...

 

[Derek Wood]

Chris there is no need for your ad hominem. You need to learn to be more accepting of other people's viewpoints when they deviate from yours. I actually like listening to you on the show and find your rationale sound and well conceived for the most part. Just because I quite rightly question grand and unsupported ideas verging on the ridiculous does not a priori mean I'm "sniffly pontificating". You have a good weekend.


Derek

 

[Burnt State]

For those who need an introduction to Krampus, here you go. He will kick your ass anytime you want.

 

[Burnt State]

There's historical Krampus of folklore:

 

[Burnt State]

And then there's the reality of Krampus who, unlike Bigfoot, likes to come down from the mountains and mix it up with the humans and pose for the camera, so long as they don't mind getting the occasional whipping. As seen here, the Krampus can be both seductive and engaging if you treat him right:

 

[Burnt State]

Researchers are packing layer upon layer of unsupported hypothesis and unsupported "fact" upon layer upon layer of regurgitated science fiction. Just as the sophistication of UFO sightings has has evolved over time since the 60s (simplistic flying saucers) we now see "sightings" taking on more complex forms and behaving in more ways interpreted via a loose understanding of physics. We now have "inter-dimensional" models of explanation and these are simply the next explanatory fad. They are what is fashionable now.

Conversations of "tricksters" and "trickster elements" as well as all the other spurious hypotheses only serve to add more nonsense to this mix.

To be clear. I do believe life exists in many places apart from our earth. The evidence for visitation and the conversation surrounding it is however more out of this world than the actual visitors to this planet will ever be. We need to discuss what we can test and support, not speculate on what we cannot. By doing the latter we only add further nonsense to debacle filtered black water.

Derek

I think you are limiting the field of Ufology and it's dynamic approach to dealing with a mostly impossible problem. As illustrated on the show there are different models for how to look at the phenomenon: there is the actual phenomena itself, the experience of the phenomena and then there are the effects of the phenomenon - their sociological impact. I would add a fourth element to this Vallée model and that would be who was the witness prior to the event. Studying the actual phenomena itself is extremely hard - there are only bits and pieces of evidence to work with. Consequently, we spend a lot more time on what's in front of us which is the witness, their experience, who they were prior to the experience, and the collective impact on society as a result of these experiences. So it's not really layer upon layer confusing the study. What you have is a multi-faceted approach to different aspects of a very confusing set of phenomena.

If you read Hansen and Vallée carefully there is no seduction going on. These are credible academics offering detailed thinking about the mystery, studying different aspects of it. Vallée contextualizes the discussion in a lot of different ways across his books to look at the many aspects of the data in order to provide new perspectives and that's helped to make what is a mostly intangible conundrum, breaking our rules of physics right under our noses, become slightly more tangible.

Is what you are asking about the nuts and bolts hypothesis or the idea of nuts and bolts studying as that's getting discussed at the Debunking Vallée thread up right now? And yes the field is a bit of a quagmire to be sure.Debunking Jacques Vallee | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

Yes, there is something very seductive about the study of the UFO as it brings with it an unprecedented sociological history in the modern era of reporting and communications about it. Know that there are there those are quietly breaking down the science of it the best they can, with the limited funds available and we will hear very, very little about it because of the quagmire of ufology that is primarily a sociological study for reasons stated above. They are keeping it to themselves. If you happen to run into an exceptional, non-publicized UFO case I suggest you keep it to yourself and bring all the best science 2015 has to offer on top of it, or that you can afford, and squeeze it out from every angle, from biological sampling to psychological profiles of your witnesses and cultural contexts of the regional geography of the sighting. And then repeat that process as often as you can. Look for patterns.

Now who do you know has done that? Do they share? Who is collecting all the data right now and do they share? Don't forget that a lot of the thinking about UFO's are welcome into the uncharted waters of the field, and good ideas always do rise to the top, and they stand beside really bad popular ideas. And, as there is no UFO college or Open UAP university to hang out in the masses will interpret these ideas as best they can. Hence what we have.

 

[Burnt State]

Meanwhile, back in Krampus culture I see that Huizenga has got a lot more money for productions and has actually updated her seductive take on Krampus:

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris there is no need for your ad hominem. You need to learn to be more accepting of other people's viewpoints when they deviate from yours. I actually like listening to you on the show and find your rationale sound and well conceived for the most part. Just because I quite rightly question grand and unsupported ideas verging on the ridiculous does not a priori mean I'm "sniffly pontificating".

When someone calls the results of my decades of investigation and research "nonsense," "ridiculous," and "spurious," I'm justifiably annoyed, a bit insulted, and I push back. I did not attack you, I merely expressed my annoyance at your remarks. FWIW: I am staying out of the "Debunking Vallee" thread because I don't want to splash the mud puddle dry over there w/ my annoyance.

It's one thing to have an opinion Derek, quite another to sit back and take off-hand pot shots at another's years of hard work and analysis. You call yourself a "researcher." What have you researched? Where have you published? If you have published, post something real and we'll comment on your thinking. And thanks, I will have a nice weekend.

 

[Derek Wood]

The thing with santa claus is hes a folklore character, you can believe in him or not, Santa claus came from a lineage of gift giving characters beginning with the gift giving goat from Norway/Scandinavia areas.. look at krampus ( a real trixter element) hes the one who pre started the naughty/nice thing , hes the devil companion of claus who would give the koal to children and beat them,.. my point is you need to look up some history on things many beliefs come from folklore and what our ancestors created or tried to explain what they observed, thats how we still try to explain things today as well, we will (most of us) attempt to explain things and keep prefer things supernatural if it isnt, on the other hand we (or some of us) are so bent on destruction, especially with being skeptical ( nothing wrong with that to a point), that even if we do see a actually entity, we just simply wont recognize it... now isnt that the manipulation of the trixter? not sure if my point came across.

And this is striking right at the heart of the matter. Everything which has been touched on above is just creative thinking: period. Ideas and fictions which have passed into heritage and which still even to this day influence thinking and serve only provide a shaky bedrock (superstition, folklore, non-testable assertion) from which a series of observations (lights in the sky being the most prevalent) are subsumed into a grand equation with outputs which to all intents and purposes unsupported, bizarre and as creative as they are inelegant. The supporters of these notions continue to shave with a very dull Occam's Razor indeed.


Derek

 

[Burnt State]

I don't know. If you read the literature in the field & what the best of it has to offer you can see that the strongest models defined so far can only go so far given the evidence obtained.
Heretic Among Heretics: Jacques Vallee Interview - UFO Evidence

 

[Oakenwulf]

And this is striking right at the heart of the matter. Everything which has been touched on above is just creative thinking: period. Ideas and fictions which have passed into heritage and which still even to this day influence thinking and serve only provide a shaky bedrock (superstition, folklore, non-testable assertion) from which a series of observations (lights in the sky being the most prevalent) are subsumed into a grand equation with outputs which to all intents and purposes unsupported, bizarre and as creative as they are inelegant. The supporters of these notions continue to shave with a very dull Occam's Razor indeed.


Derek

more than creative thinking, how could you even name it ficticious, do some research, krampus could be named after a serial killer that was observed ( or an actuall demon or otherworldly entity) back then, we couldnt explain things back then as we are able to do now. Everything comes from something, not everyhthing our ancestors saw as a possible ufo was a only gas and reflected light in the atmosphere. Those who spend their time, using just whatever to dam up the "the truth" sure shaves with a dull razor, Occams or not..it just hurts...., Today we can just merely storytell and do it to make money, our ancestors stories were the documenting of their world, their aims were educating and learning, not profit..theres a difference