A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[Randall]

... and i would call that the mythology that we have made and nothing more. it looks like aliens from space so, therefore, aliens from space ...

You make some great points, but I think that you take some of them a bit too far and sometimes put words in people's mouths in the process. Like the above for example. Studying Modern Era sighting reports in an objective manner isn't the same as creating mythology. However interpreting actual mythology such as ancient religious stories as being about aliens that are the same as those reported in modern times, could be considered a reinterpretation of existing mythology, which would fit with your suggestion. However it might also be true that some mythology is based on actual UFO experiences in ancient times.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the conclusions drawn from an objective analysis of Modern Era reports are as erroneous as those made by our ancestors, but if you are, that is a logical fallacy. For example there's no sound logic that supports the idea that we're as wrong about the heliocentric model as our ancestors were about the geocentric model. Analysis made from a position of greater knowledge about how the universe works is far more likely to be true. Also, saying that something is more likely to be true isn't the same as claiming it must be true, which is what your comment, "it looks like aliens from space so, therefore, aliens from space", implies.

Given this situation, I would agree that it would be a mistake to conclude that all aliens associated with UFOs must be from space. I also don't know any serious ufologist who does that. I don't. I've seen a lot of theories that favor the Interstellar Hypothesis, and I tend to agree that the Interstellar Hypothesis is the most reasonable, but that's a far cry from, " it looks like aliens from space so, therefore, aliens from space". To me that sounds a lot like the cheap shots that skeptics take at Tsoukalos, which in some respects are actually justified, if not entertaining. But let's not forget that guys like Tsoukalos don't speak for everyone either.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

As I've pointed out before, the truck mirror you showed is NOT an exact duplicate of the Trent UFO! I AM accurate regarding your thought/decision making process. ANY similarity between a known object and a photographed UFO suffices to sink the latter. The similarity doesn't have to be precise at all. Had Coyne photographed the UFO that buzzed him, somebody would find SOMETHING resembling it sufficiently to "prove" a hoax. If ANY evidence favoring the skeptical position is adequate to "disprove" a case, then you might as well write off the whole phenomenon as bogus.



Both Trent and his wife went to their deaths maintaining the authenticity of what they had photographed. Never once, to my knowledge, did anyone claim Trent, or Heflin, quietly told them "I faked those pictures and the suckers fell for it, ha!!" The Trents were characterized as "simple minded" even "mentally challenged." And people like perpetrated a hoax capable of fooling experts for decades??! As for Heflin, after taking his pictures he assumed the object was some kind of device from the nearby Marine base--an odd thing for a hoaxer to say and, considering the shape of the object, suggesting unawareness of the phenomenon.

If you don't see the objects for what they are concerning Heflin & Trent - then I cannot even begin to help your flawed thought process.

By your logic, Ed Walters, Billy Meier, George Adamski & "Guardian" are all the real deal.

Ridiculous.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

There are very distinct shadows on the garage in both photos, although the Trents claimed that the photos were taken around sunset. The problem is that the wall faces east, and the sun is in that position (about 90 degrees azimuth) at about 8:20 am PDT. If the photos were actually taken in the morning, then the Trents were lying about the circumstances of the incident.

In 2004, researcher Joel Carpenter (1959–2014) created a website on the McMinnville photos, making a very good case that the object was directly beneath the overhead wires and close to the camera. He suggests that the object was a mirror from an old truck. I have restored Joel Carpenter’s original McMinnville photos website (changing only the links), and placed it on the Internet Archive at http://tinyurl.com/CarpenterTrent.

One of Carpenter’s findings is that Trent’s camera was surprisingly close to the ground when the photos were taken. For some bizarre reason, Trent did not stand up to photograph his UFO, but instead crouched down. Carpenter explains,

Instead of moving toward the object and shooting the photos from eye level in the unobstructed front yard, he shot the two photos up, from a very low level, from the back yard. For reasons explained above, it seems likely that he actually used the viewfinder on the body of the camera while kneeling. The overall geometry of the positions and the attributes of the camera suggest that he was attempting to frame a nearby object in such a way as to maximize the amount of sky around it and enhance its apparent altitude.

In other words, Trent walked away from where the UFO was supposed to be and instead walked toward where the presumed model was hanging from the wires and crouched down close to the ground to make his “UFO” appear distant.

Since the camera moved a significant distance between Photo 1 and Photo 2, can the two Trent photos possibly be viewed as a stereo pair, to reveal the object’s distance? In 2010 an anonymous researcher calling himself Blue Shift did so on Above Top Secret(http://goo.gl/OEsXCi). When you cross your eyes to see the image in 3D, the “UFO” is seen to be small and relatively close to the camera compared with the distant hills. Another way of demonstrating the same thing: a montage by David Slater demonstrates that when the two Trent photos are overlaid so that the wires are lined up, the images of the “UFOs” line up as well (http://goo.gl/5JwJ6e). Both these demonstrations show that the “UFO” appears to be fixed with respect to the overhead wires.

In 2013 a group of French skeptics (IPACO) did an in-depth investigation of the McMinnville photos (http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf). They began with the usual description of the line of sight to the object in each photo, presumed suspension methods, etc. They concluded that the object is a small model.

More interesting is the second part of the report, completed two months after the first part: Evidence of a Suspension Thread (page 29 of the IPACO report). They do not claim to detect the suspension thread directly but instead statistically. They conclude, “For the TRNT1 picture, the presence of a negative peak (thread darker than the sky) was clearly observed which matched exactly to the supposed attachment point, with a significant difference of 2,38 sigma, for a tilt angle equal to -11°. . . . Application of the same method to the second picture TRNT2 provided comparable results, with a tilt angle of -10.29° and results of over 2.5 sigma.”

Now, another researcher has weighed in. Jay J. Walter of Phoenix, Arizona, the author of the suspense horror novel Blood Tree, did his own investigation. Working from high-resolution scans of first-generation prints that I sent him (scans I have now posted on the Internet Archive for anyone to research athttp://archive.org/details/TrentHighResScans), he did his own photo enhancement using the venerable program ArtGem. He said that even using a 4.2ghz quad core 64bit processor with 8 gigs of system RAM, he was still getting “out of memory” errors. However, he persevered and produced a series of photos appearing to detect portions of a suspension thread above the object in both photos. The purported string cannot be seen across its entire length, which is consistent with the French skeptics being able to detect it only statistically. It is significant that Walter and the French team were working with different scans.

 

[Trajanus]

By your logic, Ed Walters, Billy Meier, George Adamski & "Guardian" are all the real deal.

NONSENSE!! Meier had a model of a UFO, Adamski was an obvious liar--and probably working for the government (disinfo agent). Trent and Heflin were different.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

NONSENSE!! Meier had a model of a UFO, Adamski was an obvious liar--and probably working for the government (disinfo agent). Trent and Heflin were different.

Sure, ok.

 

[Trajanus]

There are very distinct shadows on the garage in both photos, although the Trents claimed that the photos were taken around sunset. The problem is that the wall faces east, and the sun is in that position (about 90 degrees azimuth) at about 8:20 am PDT. If the photos were actually taken in the morning, then the Trents were lying about the circumstances of the incident.

People on KDR's blog addressed this issue, and I already posted the link in which Rudiak refutes the truck mirror notion.

In other words, Trent walked away from where the UFO was supposed to be and instead walked toward where the presumed model was hanging from the wires and crouched down close to the ground to make his “UFO” appear distant.

Lol, Trent was awful simple minded for such an ingenious scheme....What's the use of photographing an object from a position that shows wires conspicuously above it--like begging to be called a hoaxer? A hoaxer would've found some position from which the wires wouldn't be included.

In 2013 a group of French skeptics....concluded that the object is a small model.

Of course, what else would skeptics conclude?

He said that even using a 4.2ghz quad core 64bit processor with 8 gigs of system RAM, he was still getting “out of memory” errors. However, he persevered and produced a series of photos appearing to detect portions of a suspension thread above the object in both photos. The purported string cannot be seen across its entire length, which is consistent with the French skeptics being able to detect it only statistically.

Skeptics see what they want to see, and "persevere' until they see it.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Lol @ how you think Rudiak is a god & the end all when it comes to the Trent photos. Get over it.

And the fact that u say the trents were simple minded? Yeah, maybe they were. He used fishing line & a truck mirror. That doesn't exactly require a PhD and a plethora of equipment, talent & calculus skills to pull off. Again; a truck mirror & fishing line. How much more basic can you get?

 

[Trajanus]

Lol @ how you think Rudiak is a god & the end all when it comes to the Trent photos.

Try addressing his specific points, notably refutation of the "truck mirror."

And the fact that u say the trents were simple minded? Yeah, maybe they were. He used fishing line & a truck mirror.

Investigators said the Trents were simple minded, even "mentally challenged." And such people supposedly fooled experts for decades....lol. You can't state the above as a fact. There's no proof it was a truck mirror, by now somebody would've found one which matches EXACTLY--if only some old blueprint. And Rudiak mentions additional problems.

 

[Burnt State]

The interesting thing about ufo photos is that they are often visually compelling, especially those ones with perfect clarity as being discussed above. Often they are subject to compelling arguments for and against leaving the photo in question and confirming nothing much at all except that experts can argue wrongly and passionately about anything.

My two cents goes like this: anyone who has ever personally tried to capture an object moving across the sky with any camera knows just how frustrating and impossible it is. Time, speed, focus, distance, clarity, access all come into play, making it often impossible to produce anything much of worth. Even getting the object captured in any way in the frame is a monunental event. Consequently, I'm inclined to believe any "series" of photos of a clear saucer is fraudulent. In over a century of photography there will always be a set of circunstsances that will cause incredible debate about certain photos, but no one can say with certainty just what's on film. And we can't know the truth inside the mind of the photographer either. They keep their story, or confess years later or take it to their grave.

Because I don't believe aliens from other planets are visiting us in silver metallic flying saucers as seen in 1950's movies I tend to be a real sucker for the ufo photos that show only weird blobs of light in the sky. These strike me as much more relevant and probable, especially if they are supported by many witnesses and a strong narrative. How a blob of light turns into a silver metallic saucer in one's head is what I've been trying to argue as a function of human perception trying to make sense of a stimulus beyond our senses. And, according to my logic, any photo of a stimulus we can't fully perceive properly because of its unique properties is more likely to show up on film as a blob of light before it appears as a perfect Hollywood style metal craft, or toy train wheel, or garbage can lid etc.

So while compelling, I find the perfect photos to be a waste of time. Unless people who don't know each other at a distance capture the same object, all you have is something interesting that confirms an ETH state of mind and nothing more.

 

[Burnt State]

You make some great points, but I think that you take some of them a bit too far and sometimes put words in people's mouths in the process. Like the above for example. Studying Modern Era sighting reports in an objective manner isn't the same as creating mythology. However interpreting actual mythology such as ancient religious stories as being about aliens that are the same as those reported in modern times, could be considered a reinterpretation of existing mythology, which would fit with your suggestion. However it might also be true that some mythology is based on actual UFO experiences in ancient times.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the conclusions drawn from an objective analysis of Modern Era reports are as erroneous as those made by our ancestors, but if you are, that is a logical fallacy. For example there's no sound logic that supports the idea that we're as wrong about the heliocentric model as our ancestors were about the geocentric model. Analysis made from a position of greater knowledge about how the universe works is far more likely to be true. Also, saying that something is more likely to be true isn't the same as claiming it must be true, which is what your comment, "it looks like aliens from space so, therefore, aliens from space", implies.

Given this situation, I would agree that it would be a mistake to conclude that all aliens associated with UFOs must be from space. I also don't know any serious ufologist who does that. I don't. I've seen a lot of theories that favor the Interstellar Hypothesis, and I tend to agree that the Interstellar Hypothesis is the most reasonable, but that's a far cry from, " it looks like aliens from space so, therefore, aliens from space". To me that sounds a lot like the cheap shots that skeptics take at Tsoukalos, which in some respects are actually justified, if not entertaining. But let's not forget that guys like Tsoukalos don't speak for everyone either.

First you know I respect your perspective and commitment to the pursuit but excerpting that brief phrase up against the totality of my argument belittles us both. I can see how it could be offensive but please take it in the context provided.

Vallee and Aubeck have done a strong job at documenting a deep history to the phenomenon and I don't think we can ever really extract the modern era age of sightings from our human history of seeing strange things in the sky. There is continuity in that history. Also the modern era is an information age that allows us to collect events in much more concentrated ways which in turn injects a mimetic force into the culture. Once someone starts seeing things and it's published we know this causes great spikes in people seeing things. I'm not dismissing all sightings as just an overly excited populous but just pointing out other ways human culture works and how it builds living narratives.

And the other critical point connected to that excerpt is that because we are both creatures of narrative and because our brain always works on our behalf to try and name what is being seen, no matter how strange it might be, we must acknowledge how "seeing things" works both biologically and culturally.

So just imagine for a moment that we never had the narrative of space men visiting from the stars as part of our human culture and start the analysis of strange things in the sky from that non-ideological perspective to see what else might possibly rise up to the surface. I'm saying be more open minded because maybe better ideas might spring forward from a less limiting perspective. We also might then be much more open to acknowledging the deeper role of 'high strange' in witness events so that we might see the phenomenon in a much more flexible manner as well as recognizing the critical role the totality of the witness plays in co-creating these sightings, especially the CE cases. These are the most important ones after all.

 

[marduk]

And the other critical point connected to that excerpt is that because we are both creatures of narrative and because our brain always works on our behalf to try and name what is being seen, no matter how strange it might be, we must acknowledge how "seeing things" works both biologically and culturally.

Nope.

This is a variant of the "natives couldn't see Columbus' boats because they had no word for what they were" or "had never seen them before" myth, that's been debunked about a million times as apocryphal.

And it's pretty easy to debunk it yourself.

We see new things all the time. And still see them, and our brains deal with them reasonably well. In fact, there's a well-documented behavior that happens when our brains cannot match a pattern to things it knows -- curiosity.

Now, when we try to relate it as a narrative to someone else, we may use previous mutually shared experiences or objects as metaphor -- 'like two pie plates stuck together' is a good example.

Our minds are not just narrative engines. In fact, we existed quite well before there was any evidence of language. Buddhists explain this quite well -- concepts precede the naming of them is an example of this.

Another is existentialism: existence precedes essence.

So just imagine for a moment that we never had the narrative of space men visiting from the stars as part of our human culture and start the analysis of strange things in the sky from that non-ideological perspective to see what else might possibly rise up to the surface. I'm saying be more open minded because maybe better ideas might spring forward from a less limiting perspective. We also might then be much more open to acknowledging the deeper role of 'high strange' in witness events so that we might see the phenomenon in a much more flexible manner as well as recognizing the critical role the totality of the witness plays in co-creating these sightings, especially the CE cases. These are the most important ones after all.

The reason the ETH is so prevalent is that it is logical and quite internally consistent.

1. We see other stars that are like our sun.
2. There might be planets there where intelligent life evolved in a similar fashion as we did.
3. They might have the technology to visit us before we have the technology to visit them.

That's basically it. And for what it's worth, it works. You can wring your hands about alien sex and collecting rocks all you like, but that's behavioral stuff, and doesn't invalidate anything above.

 

[Burnt State]

Nope.

This is a variant of the "natives couldn't see Columbus' boats because they had no word for what they were" or "had never seen them before" myth, that's been debunked about a million times as apocryphal.

Stop being such an absolutist. I'm talking nuance here.

It's also a big leap from not quite recognizing those really big strange shaped canoes in the bay to seeing a truly anomalous object in the sky that could be rare natural phenomenon, an unknown life form, or alien technology or something we can't imagine that exists. The hallucinatory and extreme emotional effects are astounding for those who claim close contact. This event is not like seeing a new ape or fish.

We see new things all the time. And still see them, and our brains deal with them reasonably well. In fact, there's a well-documented behavior that happens when our brains cannot match a pattern to things it knows -- curiosity.

Yup. And that's why people have been busy bashing into each other about the ufo phenomenon for oh so many decades and mostly going nowhere except they're pretty sure it's aliens from space, or so the data says. So here we are. I'm just suggesting we try something different.

Now, when we try to relate it as a narrative to someone else, we may use previous mutually shared experiences or objects as metaphor -- 'like two pie plates stuck together' is a good example.

Our minds are not just narrative engines. In fact, we existed quite well before there was any evidence of language. Buddhists explain this quite well -- concepts precede the naming of them is an example of this.

Another is existentialism: existence precedes essence.

yes I would agree existentialism is well woven thematically into the ufo concept.

When we didn't have language we sang songs or drew pictures or pointed. We communicate in metaphor. It's all about representation and understanding our relationship to the other object. So yes it's like two pie plates you said. We speak in symbol as perceived individually because we can not communicate the thing itself. Not that we don't do a great job. I know a tattoo artist who does a brilliant job with aliens, and people are getting those and space ships and abduction scenes all over their body all over the world. It says something about this particular narrative that we try to make sense of, feel we must have the power to define the unknowable.

The reason the ETH is so prevalent is that it is logical and quite internally consistent.

1. We see other stars that are like our sun.
2. There might be planets there where intelligent life evolved in a similar fashion as we did.
3. They might have the technology to visit us before we have the technology to visit them.

That's basically it. And for what it's worth, it works. You can wring your hands about alien sex and collecting rocks all you like, but that's behavioral stuff, and doesn't invalidate anything above.

there you outline the basic fact that sci-fi was inevitable as a human genre. it's part of what we know about our place in space as we look for reflections of ourselves in the sky. you obviously know the story and know which narrative fits for you as far as what you've seen and considered. we all have varying perspectives.

 

[marduk]

Stop being such an absolutist. I'm talking nuance here.

It's also a big leap from not quite recognizing those really big strange shaped canoes in the bay to seeing a truly anomalous object in the sky that could be rare natural phenomenon, an unknown life form, or alien technology or something we can't imagine that exists. The hallucinatory and extreme emotional effects are astounding for those who claim close contact. This event is not like seeing a new ape.

There aren't many nuances here.

If what you say is true, the first time humans encountered a unique phenomenon -- from electric eels to quasars -- our minds would quite simply slip a gear. And they don't. They go... "oh, that's interesting... here's a fish that hurts to be near" and "why does this small looking thing put out the amount of energy from an entire galaxy?" And then go and try to wrap our heads around it.

We find stuff that we didn't imagine exists all the time. Hell, we don't even understand QM, we just put math around it to make it sound reasonable.

Yup. And that's why people have been busy bashing into each other about the ufo phenomenon for oh so many decades and mostly going nowhere except they're pretty sure it's aliens from space, or so the data says. So here we are. I'm just suggesting we try something different.

We're going nowhere because:
a) science hasn't really been engaged at all
b) people spend more time arguing with each other than going to get new data
c) we're caught up in narratives from 50 years ago instead of doing science

yes I would agree existentialism is well woven thematically into the ufo concept.

When we didn't have language we sang songs or drew pictures or pointed. We communicate in metaphor. It's all about representation and understanding our relationship to the other object. So yes it's like two pie plates you said. We speak in symbol as peceived individually because we can not communicate the thing itself. Not that we don't do a great job. I know a tattoo artist who does a brilliant job with aliens, and people are getting those and space ships and abduction scenes all over their body all over the world. It says something about this particular narrative that we try to make sense of, feel we must have the power to define the unknowable.

We communicate in metaphor. We don't always think in metaphor. Two entirely different things.

For example, it's very easy to think about porn. It's very difficult to describe what porn is, and isn't. Or art. Or love. Or n-dimensional hypercubes, oblate spheroids, pi, or the square root of negative 1.

All ideas that are somewhat indescribable with narrative. And yet are, simply because existence precedes essence.

there you outline the basic fact that sci-fi was inevitable as a human genre. it's part of what we know about our place in space as we look for reflections of ourselves in the sky. you obviously know the story and know which narrative fits for you as far as what you've seen and considered. we all have varying perspectives.

So what?

The underlying metaphors or archetypes for human culture include bearded white guys in the sky killing us off every once in a while, caves are where you go when you die, and beauty is truth.

Not sending shiny tubes into the sky with fire.

 

[Burnt State]

You make some great points, but I think that you take some of them a bit too far and sometimes put words in people's mouths in the process.

i am an extremist i confess. i'm seeing my therapist on monday and will add that to the list. and i'm sorry if you feel i'm inserting words.

i am picking apart the narrative and the approach as we've known it just to see what happens if we stop shaking the ETH tree for a while as most of the fruit has dropped and we don't really know what else to do with it except try and capture more data or make pies. i think that's a good thing to do, by all means use whatever tools we have to augment our ability to record reality and see what we get. i'm a big fan of that idea.

but i'd really like to see some other considerations examined using specifically the greatest resource ufology has and that's the human witness. we don't really do enough of that work either, perhaps there are things to be gained by considering first how we see and how we know and how we share and the effects of that process as it intersects with whatever data you've got on hand.

 

[Burnt State]

There aren't many nuances here.

If what you say is true, the first time humans encountered a unique phenomenon -- from electric eels to quasars -- our minds would quite simply slip a gear. And they don't. They go... "oh, that's interesting... here's a fish that hurts to be near" and "why does this small looking thing put out the amount of energy from an entire galaxy?" And then go and try to wrap our heads around it.

We find stuff that we didn't imagine exists all the time. Hell, we don't even understand QM, we just put math around it to make it sound reasonable.

what i'm saying is it's not like seeing a new fish, that seeing a ufo up close is something else altogether because of whatever it is. it's a head trip. i know.

yes we are describers, using whatever form of representation we can use to describe.

We're going nowhere because:
a) science hasn't really been engaged at all
b) people spend more time arguing with each other than going to get new data
c) we're caught up in narratives from 50 years ago instead of doing science

see my other post above. i'm all for science. bring on those digital ray guns and interdisciplinary mobile megaplex observation vehicles.

We communicate in metaphor. We don't always think in metaphor. Two entirely different things.

For example, it's very easy to think about porn. It's very difficult to describe what porn is, and isn't. Or art. Or love. Or n-dimensional hypercubes, oblate spheroids, pi, or the square root of negative 1.

All ideas that are somewhat indescribable with narrative. And yet are, simply because existence precedes essence.

So what?

The underlying metaphors or archetypes for human culture include bearded white guys in the sky killing us off every once in a while, caves are where you go when you die, and beauty is truth.

Not sending shiny tubes into the sky with fire.

yes existence precedes essence but it's us negotiating existence to create essence for ourselves. listen closely to those people who have had up close contact experiences - the object/humanoids that existed for them caused them to have to negotiate a very profound context, tied to great fear and/or wonder. in describing it we speak through our lens and it's one involved in the science of how narrative, or representation, works its way through our bodies to make sense of what we saw.

are we really going to have to start talking about how we think, what thought is and what that virtual representation is in our heads and how it got there in the first place, translating light reflections through neurons to project an image that we process and figure our what it's like and not like as 90% of the information that is getting played back in that moment is a recording from past events and then we think about that, and then say, "I saw something that looked like...."

anyways, we have a lot of different stories that rule us, mostly patriarchal consumer capitalist racist homophobic misogynist tales of power. they bore me. the ufo story is an interesting one as it tries to extract itself from past narratives and the one we see ourselves in, traveling into space. they must be just like us. i try to imagine something different. why stop there, or is that all their is: effing 42 ?

 

[marduk]

what i'm saying is it's not like seeing a new fish, that seeing a ufo up close is something else altogether because of whatever it is. it's a head trip. i know.

OK. So when I did too many mushrooms and tripped out, thinking I could see indescribable things, it didn't happen to my brain because there were no words for it?

I remember it well. I just can't find the words.

yes we are describers, using whatever form of representation we can use to describe.


see my other post above. i'm all for science. bring on those digital ray guns and interdisciplinary mobile megaplex observation vehicles.

Groovy! Let's do it.

yes existence precedes essence but it's us negotiating existence to create essence for ourselves. listen closely to those people who have had up close contact experiences - the object/humanoids that existed for them caused them to have to negotiate a very profound context, tied to great fear and/or wonder. in describing it we speak through our lens and it's one involved in the science of how narrative, or representation, works its way through our bodies to make sense of what we saw.

I'm one of them. And while I think my experiences have been sometimes metaphorical or symbolic in nature, sometimes all I saw what was clearly a machined chunk of metal sitting there in the sky. As Douglas Adams would say, exactly how bricks don't.

are we really going to have to start talking about how we think, what thought is and what that virtual representation is in our heads and how it got there in the first place, translating light reflections through neurons to project an image that we process and figure our what it's like and not like as 90% of the information that is getting played back in that moment is a recording from past events and then we think about that, and then say, "I saw something that looked like...."

anyways, we have a lot of different stories that rule us, mostly patriarchal consumer capitalist racist homophobic misogynist tales of power. they bore me. the ufo story is an interesting one as it tries to extract itself from past narratives and the one we see ourselves in, traveling into space. they must be just like us. i try to imagine something different. why stop there, or is that all their is: effing 42 ?

The problem I have with this line of debate is it gets us nowhere because it devolves into ontological navel gazing. Just like the endless debates on other threads about what consciousness is (which to me is just pushing the problem around with words).

Our brain exists in the universe and is subject to the laws of nature just like rocks or starfish. Or little green men from Zeta Reticuli.

ETH has it's problems, and I don't think it's a one stop shop quickie mart solution to the UFO conundrum.

But its the only one that doesn't have to devolve into some kind of magical realism to make it go.

 

[technomage]

I think the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis doesn't require mysticism either.

 

[Burnt State]

But its the only one that doesn't have to devolve into some kind of magical realism to make it go.

well on one hand i want to say what the hell else is perception but magic realism, or naive realism as Hoffman would say, but the science of it is itself just a representation of what it means to see and then know. i'm not saying abandon the ETH ship, but just for the sake of imagination, oops there i go again getting all irrational and unpragmatic etc., can we not give some of these alternatives a try?

how many actual tools have been properly invented by the best of the curious & investigative minds to develop a proper witness interview procedure, long term studies of them, examinations of commonalities in the cohort and above all else, how it changed them. there is an exchange taking place following these events. some claim they got binary code inserted into their head. i don't know about that, but certainly on a fundamental level the close encounter witness experience is profound and certainly feels like magic realism as it's going down. if it is having such a transformational effect on them then perhaps more time spent with the experiencer witness is as critical as understanding the science of its effect on the person. they are having a very unique sensory experience that is unlike any other one could normally seek out if one wanted to go there or do that on planet earth. this is an incredible event experience that deserves more angles on it to describe it.

and just because it's a head trip does not mean that it did not happen, just that it was hard to describe or to relay the full feeling of it all including what it looked and sounded like. it happens in a big way to people - is this not worth investigating, given that the source of the damn event is long gone? is ufology to be forever a history of bits and pieces and traces of space ships. is there not more to examine, more evidence to be squeezed from the event.

 

[marduk]

I think the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis doesn't require mysticism either.

Sure it does.

We've mapped the planets surface. We've done gravitic mapping so we know it isn't hollow.

We have a reasonably complete fossil record.

There is nowhere for such a civilization to be, and no mechanism for it to have evolved without a trace.

 

[Burnt State]

I'm one of them. And while I think my experiences have been sometimes metaphorical or symbolic in nature, sometimes all I saw what was clearly a machined chunk of metal sitting there in the sky. As Douglas Adams would say, exactly how bricks don't.

ok, then shared company...mine looked like two saucers stuck together with multi coloured lights shining around the edges and the whole thing glowed. both of them glowed right up till the moment they blasted off out of the solar system to go join the stars and then get so faint they just whispered out of sight. if that doesn't say aliens from space i don't know what does. i know what i think i saw, but now i'm starting to question why it looked the way it did to me at that time and why do i still spend too much time thinking and writing and investigating the nature of these experiences.