A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[Burnt State]

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.

so then perhaps not a civilization or collective in a way that we imagine civilization to be then..... just for the sake of the crypto argument, but perhaps something else then.

 

[marduk]

Burnt, I love your last post except that I don't think perception is necessarily magical realism.

I mean, it's verifiable. I can plunk a ball down on a table, as others if they can see it, measure it's displacement, poke it with a stick, and do 3-d laser topography of it.

And all those things usually line up pretty well together.

 

[Trajanus]

We have a reasonably complete fossil record.

Right and no indication whatsoever of any other lineage evolving toward high intelligence. Furthermore UFOs and occupants are almost invariably observed to fly around --quite odd for a subterranean civilization.

 

[marduk]

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.

Which sounds exactly like a machine to me.

A really cool one.

 

[marduk]

so then perhaps not a civilization or collective in a way that we imagine civilization to be then..... just for the sake of the crypto argument, but perhaps something else then.

That's hand waiving, Burnt.

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt, I love your last post except that I don't think perception is necessarily magical realism.

I mean, it's verifiable. I can plunk a ball down on a table, as others if they can see it, measure it's displacement, poke it with a stick, and do 3-d laser topography of it.

And all those things usually line up pretty well together.

they line up and measure very well but the red ball in your head is just a symbol of a red ball and the one in my head is different than yours but very similar as we describe our observations and share in our identical measurements.

however, if the red ball is much bigger and is floating the sky, and perhaps started to move over both our heads and emit the sound of a million bees buzzing in the air, i bet we would describe some pretty interesting differences of experience after we get past the whole feeling of having reality split open for a period.

but even more interesting is what we would have to say about it 1 year from now or 5 or 50.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Why do you say that? What do you mean by "ANY REAL level of understanding"?

Do you believe anything about alien visitation?
That all depends on how you look at the claim. On a literal level, the "phenomena associated with the UFO riddle" has been identified by virtue of the fact that we've identified phenomena such as: Light emission, flight characteristics, a number of shapes, material that reflects radar, non-conventional propulsion, humanoid occupants, general behavior, and other "phenomena" associated with UFO reports. So maybe what you're really saying is that we haven't identified the cause of the phenomena?

If that's the case then I'd say that for some people and for some cases that's certainly true, while for other people and other cases that isn't true. Like for me personally, there's no question in my mind that some people here on Earth have observed alien craft ( UFOs ), and the rest of the other "phenomena" e.g. crop circles, missing time, abductions, MIB, and so on are peripheral, but still part of the study of the phenomenon in general ( part of the field of ufology as a whole ). Out of all that, there's been plenty of identified causes including misperceptions of mundane objects or phenomena and hoaxes.

I am greatly enthused to see @Burnt State currently contributing here in this thread! My goodness, his perspective is always both welcome, and invigorating. Thank you for taking the time to do that as you can Burnt State. I know first hand that time is not always in abundance, and I do sincerely apologize to you if ever I seem over eager to read your thoughts here. While I do in fact agree with you in almost every sense, I would caution you not to get too hung up on the intersecting cultural relevancies that the phenomena in question many times comes to represent, and the offshoot belief systems that have far too often found themselves falsely and vainly aligned within the limiting productions of myth and religion. Not because I think you are wrong, because frankly I contend precisely the same thing as yourself in this sense, it is rather because there are so very few UFO curious individuals, even many long term overly curious persons like myself and others here, that can honestly "see" that perspective objectively minus the detraction of overt emotional attachments. I know that I have myself been guilty of eliciting far too much discourse due to this sensitive observation.

For instance, when a UFO person like you or I forwards the contended notion that "aliens are observing a directive whereof they are introducing themselves gradually to humanity" we understand the utter dogmatic nature of that belief, and the systematic nature in which it is derived from the prejudice of a person's core UFO relevant belief system. By virtue of what is an unbiased position within the consideration minus any devotion to a personal belief system, one conforming to a responsibly factual upholding of linearly aligned raw information, rather than the paraphrased arrangement and construction of that information, we clearly understand that no such process of gradual introduction actually exists. We can't possibly falsify such a position or claim, so how can we rationally determine it as being existent? There are VERY few of us that manage to progress objectively to this critical a stance concerning the matter.


@ufology,
Looking back, that was a very poor way of explaining "my personal take" on arriving at a real level of understanding for the big UFO picture, solely based on a witness's description of events. Those were statements made and presented linearly in the context of my last few posts. I realize now that taken apart from the context at face value, the statements could serve to ultimately disillusion the sincere hope that an eventual explanation of the UFO matter represents, so I do apologize. I will always, always, ALWAYS, be utterly fascinated with any and all UFO witness reported documentation, as will I with cryptid or humanoid encounters, outside or apart from what I personally deem to be the obvious contrived nonsense that make up hoaxes and pranks. Even some of that is entertaining, if for nothing else but the "witness" psychology involved.

I do however stand firmly by the statement that descriptions of paranormal events, in and of themselves, will never yield a true understanding of what is the particular phenomenon being witnessed. No matter how fascinating they are. This is logical because if we did know in and of reporting alone what these phenomena truly were, they would no longer be classified as phenomena even now.

Two things are critical in my estimation before I go any further, in best order that no one misunderstand this perspective position which many do in fact hold. 1.) The view does not seek to discredit witness veracity in the least, and 2.) nor does the view contend that what are presently classifiable as paranormally rendered experiences, be they UFO, or whatever type of paranormal phenomena, are somehow solely the product of the mind. IMO, neither is the case because the evidence clearly does not support that irrationally dismissive contention in the least.

It's also important to be clear that I am not referring to trace evidence, coinciding radar evidence, or any other types of further substantiating evidence attached to reported witness sightings or experiences. This evidence, as I just mentioned, is in fact critical and is of indispensable value to understanding the reported events.

However, reports in and of themselves do in fact bear out much objective value when we analyze the raw data that they contain. When we carefully dissect the raw information contained in the event's described and reported accounts, we can arrive at numerous small but exceptionally relevant correlational certainties. Fragments likened more so to building blocks, than what has been the all too common approach that supposes that we are secondary witnesses to small pieces of fabric that are awaiting their fateful stitched placement within a predetermined consensus variety of visionary quilted designs.

What I am referring to is that UFOs, and in fact much of what is Fortean Phenomena, are as of right now very much paranormal in nature. The terming of UFOs as being "Paranormal" to some may seem to be somewhat of a detraction because of a lessened associative valuation of the UFO subject itself. In and of a word itself, "paranormal" may seem very inappropriate, and at times, even utterly ridiculous. However, I can well assure you that it is not in the least. In nothing short of what is one of the most critically import considerations possible, the paranormal itself presents science with one the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced. We have literally thousands upon thousands of credible case clues, yet the mystery that the paranormal holds is utterly fathomless despite it being everywhere imaginable. What area of existence doesn't it touch, and what does that fact in and of itself relate precisely? When viewed within the actual definitive light of that which is unquestionably paranormal in nature, a nature denoting what is observed and interactively experienced as being subject matter that is clearly beyond the scope of present objective scientific understanding, UFOs are no different than Cattle Mutilations, Dogmen, Bigfoot, Discarnate Beings, Elves, Fairies, Humanoids, Environmental Phenomena, or for that matter, missing persons of the David Paulides 411 variety.You see, everyone of these subgroups contain case that present clear and evident trace conditions. Foot prints, dead cattle, objects moving, voices heard and recorded, physical trauma, objects disappearing, apparitions seen and recorded, people never seen again, shoes, and articles of clothing found in places no one could have gotten to minus a helicopter, the lists go on and on for every single aspect of what is the paranormal. In truth, when one adopts as objective and unbiased a posture as is possible, in light of scrutinous examinations, no type of paranormal occurrence is really more or less substantially encouraged via available evidence no matter how sparsely the evidence avails itself. It's true that the missing persons cases in which victims vanish into thin air minus any explanation whatsoever holds a far more voluminous degree of tragedy and deep emotional outrage, but really, is it ANY more thoroughly bizarre and obtuse than any other?

It seems that all of these phenomenal identities have specific core relevancies that have been recorded and passed down through time. These all producing context derived IDs or definitions that have themselves evolved according to our species' social associative awareness. Every single paranormal identity that we consider has basic descriptive attributes that we reference by association within what are specific mundane relevancies used to attach a definitive context and identity to them. For instance, these basic mundane relevancies being animals/nature, men/women, means of transportation/guides, elementals/odd natural phenomena/out of place weather, etc. are how we lump them into paranormal assigned categories. But there are several aspects associated with all these rarely witnessed phenomena that are almost always overlooked, due to the overshadowing appearance of the utterly extraordinary within these events. We tend to be by nature more so elated and fulfilled by that which conforms it's unfolding with our own egocentric preferences and beliefs for what the experiences represent. What does this in and of itself tell us?

I do not feel that the paranormal represents unintentional or intentional trickery. I suggest rather that it offers up a perspective lesson within our own considerations hinging on it's very most embryonic uptake. We need to look very deeply into how the paranormal has influenced us to think, and the manner in which it's seeming incomprehensibility might present itself as a stumbling block of golden proportions. If anything, we need to consider how the paranormal incites a level of awareness that doesn't allow us to look away. The same way that our instinctive attention is commanded of us, during which possible time that we are being confronted by a great devouring beast. Ultimately we need to choose whether the paranormal is subjective evidence of the obvious, or is it objective evidence of the obliviousness, with which we observe it?

 

[Burnt State]

That's hand waiving, Burnt.

 

[Trajanus]

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.

Impossible?? Depends on its speed and whether it's moving in a straight line. Some UFOs have been observed to move slowly or hover.

Time, speed, focus, distance, clarity, access all come into play, making it often impossible to produce anything much of worth.

Often, perhaps, but not invariably impossible.

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.

As matters now stand, maybe so. I can't say I'm certain any clear pic is genuine although some people are "certain" they all aren't.

 

[marduk]

they line up and measure very well but the red ball in your head is just a symbol of a red ball and the one in my head is different than yours but very similar as we describe our observations and share in our identical measurements.

however, if the red ball is much bigger and is floating the sky, and perhaps started to move over both our heads and emit the sound of a million bees buzzing in the air, i bet we would describe some pretty interesting differences of experience after we get past the whole feeling of having reality split open for a period.

but even more interesting is what we would have to say about it 1 year from now or 5 or 50.

If you mean by 'symbol' that there's a representative model constructed out of patterns of neuronal activity in my brain, sure.

But that's like saying that the word doc on my hard drive is a symbol of what I see on the screen when I open it.

Language exists to transmit ideas from individual to individual. We don't describe things in totality - we sample them down like an MP3 samples sound to achieve compression.

But all that only says that I don't experience what you describe because of abstraction. Not that you didn't experience it accurately.

As I'm fond of saying, if you throw a rock at a UFO, will it bounce off of it?

I think it would.

 

[technomage]

There are caves and oceans and plenty of unexplored areas. There are out of place artifacts. There are megalithic structures not easily explained.

The CTH doesn't require a break in the laws of physics or require us to have understanding of a new science like the Interdimensional or Ultraterrestrial hypotheses. You just don't think there is sufficient evidence to warrant it.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

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

Your argument that they couldn't fool investigators because they were simple minded is ludicrous. Ever see the two guys with a piece of wood with a rope attached to it fool all the hot shot "experts" & investigators regarding crop circles? Person + wood + rope fooled many people. What's your excuse for that?

 

[marduk]

There are caves and oceans and plenty of unexplored areas. There are out of place artifacts. There are megalithic structures not easily explained.

The CTH doesn't require a break in the laws of physics or require us to have understanding of a new science like the Interdimensional or Ultraterrestrial hypotheses. You just don't think there is sufficient evidence to warrant it.

Nowhere big enough to create a civilization capable of throwing miles-wide stuff into the sky that just hangs out for a while before taking off at multiples of the speed of sound.

Hell, where would you land the things?

 

[technomage]

Nowhere big enough to create a civilization capable of throwing miles-wide stuff into the sky that just hangs out for a while before taking off at multiples of the speed of sound.

Hell, where would you land the things?

Maybe the big ones are ET, but the little ones that come out of the water are from an underwater civilization.

 

[marduk]

Maybe the big ones are ET, but the little ones that come out of the water are from an underwater civilization.

OK, where?

Let's say some fishy cryptos run around in Lazar's 'sports model' type saucers. Smaller, zippy, cruise-around-go-beep-beep-at-the-primate models. How exactly would that work?

There is zero evidence for any underwater civilization. We've mapped the entire ocean floor. Dudes go looking for atlantis all the time using the data.

And... nada. Zip. Nothing. No industrialized civilization whatsoever. No pollutants. No heat sources. No evidence of mining, manufacturing, power plants. And no evidence whatsoever of any fishies developing intelligence enough to create even a stone age civilization... ever.

What, do the saucers just coalesce in the undersea mud and go shooting off into the air to scare the hairy bipeds? Or did they just wake up from the Jurassic period like the Silurians from Doctor Who?

 

[Burnt State]

If you mean by 'symbol' that there's a representative model constructed out of patterns of neuronal activity in my brain, sure.

But that's like saying that the word doc on my hard drive is a symbol of what I see on the screen when I open it.

Language exists to transmit ideas from individual to individual. We don't describe things in totality - we sample them down like an MP3 samples sound to achieve compression.

But all that only says that I don't experience what you describe because of abstraction. Not that you didn't experience it accurately.

As I'm fond of saying, if you throw a rock at a UFO, will it bounce off of it?

I think it would.

i guess you don't recall that case the Vallee narrates where the soldier at a base fires three shots at a UFO. the first one bounces off of it like it's hit something metallic. the second one sounds like it thudded through a phone book and the third just whistles clean through it. they do dissolve don't you know - it's one of their more odd characteristics, along with floating through trees, as described in another case. i believe both those cases were described in detail on the same Paracast episode.

 

[Ron Away]

Loving this debate,its like being at a really interesting thought provoking lecture.Well played everyone for keeping it mainly civil and grown up.This is why I come here.

 

[marduk]

i guess you don't recall that case the Vallee narrates where the soldier at a base fires three shots at a UFO. the first one bounces off of it like it's hit something metallic. the second one sounds like it thudded through a phone book and the third just whistles clean through it. they do dissolve don't you know - it's one of their more odd characteristics, along with floating through trees, as described in another case. i believe both those cases were described in detail on the same Paracast episode.

Sure, I was talking generalities. Was that the case where they found a bullet that was turned inside out?

At any rate, the bullets seemed to hit something, which implies that something was there. And then they went through it, implying it was no longer there.

But bullets don't usually bounce off of ideas, hallucinations, or well-written and oft spoken mythologies.

 

[technomage]

OK, where?

Let's say some fishy cryptos run around in Lazar's 'sports model' type saucers. Smaller, zippy, cruise-around-go-beep-beep-at-the-primate models. How exactly would that work?

There is zero evidence for any underwater civilization. We've mapped the entire ocean floor. Dudes go looking for atlantis all the time using the data.

And... nada. Zip. Nothing. No industrialized civilization whatsoever. No pollutants. No heat sources. No evidence of mining, manufacturing, power plants. And no evidence whatsoever of any fishies developing intelligence enough to create even a stone age civilization... ever.

What, do the saucers just coalesce in the undersea mud and go shooting off into the air to scare the hairy bipeds? Or did they just wake up from the Jurassic period like the Silurians from Doctor Who?

Maybe Ivan T. Sanderson would have an answer. I think the ETH is more likely than the CTH.

 

[Jeff Davis]

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.

Nope.

Actually, none of this will work. Very little works with respect to a real level of probability in favor of the ETH. For any proposition in question to be an actual hypothesis, it must first conform to scientific standards. Science is not built on mights and maybes concerning what we have never knowingly observed. Science is a mirror of nature, not a mirror of possibilities yet known to exist. Nor is it built upon probable correlations between chimpanzees and dolphins. If the matter came down to these types of over simplified generalities and comparative probabilities that you are alluding to here, we would still be living in the dark ages. By the logical reasoning that you are proposing, we should be routinely visited by highly advanced versions of ourselves and that's it. When looking at the data in documented reports, this is hardly the case. Instead they are filled with nonsensical events that in no way align themselves with space travel as we understand it, or ourselves as we understand ourselves to be.

What you are proposing here is belief system derived speculations, not scientific hypothesis. There really is no reasonable hypothetical grounds for the false comparisons that you're making. even stating that beings too advanced to be comprehensible to us is merely a false notion. It is not real because there is no logical grounds on which the premise can stand.