• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Are we doing enough to learn the truth about UFOs?


Are We Doing Enough to Learn the Truth about UFOs?

Generally speaking I would say the answer is "No", and there are three main reasons: The first is that we ( the collective ufology community ) simply isn't as well organized and funded as it needs to be to do the best job possible. Secondly, even if we were as well organized and funded as possible, ultimately, at this stage of the game, UFOs ( alien craft ) are so far beyond our means to engage them on our terms, that learning the details is up to them, not us. Thirdly, although general interest in the subject matter is sufficient, it's still not enough to motivate people to do much more than watch the latest news and perhaps attend the odd conference.

I've tried for 20+ years to grow an international interest group, and although we have thousands of members, very few are what I'd call active, and fewer do anything approaching serious field work. I don't think this deficit has as much to do with a lack of interest as it does a lack of priority. People have real lives and real families that require real time and a lot of resources to maintain. Ufology is simply not a high priority for them, and that is completely understandable. So the rest of us are left to scour the Internet, do some sky watching, participate in a few forums, and so on.
 

It's a realm filled with speculations, post the BEST quick response examinations possible. The truth is that there have been some extremely quality scientific investigations, both secretively here in the UNited Snakes (sic) and openly upon the continents of Europe and South America for what are multiple decades.

Here is the bottom line: UFOs are REAL. As real as real gets according to exceptional scientific studies as afforded to us via legitimate ardent scrutiny. Denying the reality of the presence of UFOs is like denying the unpredictable nature of weather. Still in yet, how many weather men (and women) are employed? Tuned into routinely by the desire rich masses in an effort to know the unknowable. What a racket! ;)

UFOs play upon the nature of mankind due to mankind's highly inquisitive unknowing nature, and the ensuing desires underlined above. We are the perpetuators of such an effect and as much is rampant throughout most societies.

UFOs may in fact be beyond the concept of truth, or absolutes. Truth is that which is within our grasp to know now, temporally speaking. UFOs go and come from the concept of as much like you and I go to, and come from, our dwellings, or even better, our sleep each day.

UFOs force the vital questions of "What is reality?" "What is truth?"
 
It's a realm filled with speculations, post the BEST quick response examinations possible. The truth is that there have been some extremely quality scientific investigations, both secretively here in the UNited Snakes (sic) and openly upon the continents of Europe and South America for what are multiple decades.

Here is the bottom line: UFOs are REAL. As real as real gets according to exceptional scientific studies as afforded to us via legitimate ardent scrutiny. Denying the reality of the presence of UFOs is like denying the unpredictable nature of weather. Still in yet, how many weather men (and women) are employed? Tuned into routinely by the desire rich masses in an effort to know the unknowable. What a racket! ;)

UFOs play upon the nature of mankind due to mankind's highly inquisitive unknowing nature, and the ensuing desires underlined above. We are the perpetuators of such an effect and as much is rampant throughout most societies.

UFOs may in fact be beyond the concept of truth, or absolutes. Truth is that which is within our grasp to know now, temporally speaking. UFOs go and come from the concept of as much like you and I go to, and come from, our dwellings, or even better, our sleep each day.

UFOs force the vital questions of "What is reality?" "What is truth?"

"What is reality?" "What is truth?" Great questions; and a lot of people do seem to struggle with them or have completely unhinged ideas as to what they mean; so if one is asking those questions with respect to UFOs, it's little wonder some people are confused. In the widest sense, I also think you're right that UFOs are beyond our grasp to know all the details about, and the topic in general is certainly wider than any specific absolute or notion of truth. Yet fundamentally, at its core, its a very simple concept to grasp. UFOs are alien craft - craft from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our civilization, including any detailed knowledge about them, like where exactly they originate. So long as we begin with that foundation, then UFOs become the nexus - the hub ( or sometimes the hub cap :D ), connecting a myriad number of fascinating topics that make up ufology as a whole.
 
Generally speaking I would say the answer is "No", and there are three main reasons: The first is that we ( the collective ufology community ) simply isn't as well organized and funded as it needs to be to do the best job possible. Secondly, even if we were as well organized and funded as possible, ultimately, at this stage of the game, UFOs ( alien craft ) are so far beyond our means to engage them on our terms, that learning the details is up to them, not us. Thirdly, although general interest in the subject matter is sufficient, it's still not enough to motivate people to do much more than watch the latest news and perhaps attend the odd conference.

I've tried for 20+ years to grow an international interest group, and although we have thousands of members, very few are what I'd call active, and fewer do anything approaching serious field work. I don't think this deficit has as much to do with a lack of interest as it does a lack of priority. People have real lives and real families that require real time and a lot of resources to maintain. Ufology is simply not a high priority for them, and that is completely understandable. So the rest of us are left to scour the Internet, do some sky watching, participate in a few forums, and so on.
My only disagreement is that they are so far beyond our means that we can't engage them. I mean, sure, right this second that's true.

But I think we're more than capable of sorting out their basic propulsion mechanism if we actually gave it a shot.

Other than that, I completely agree, and would just like to add that having a bunch of sloppy thinking pseudoscience pandering is also more than a boat anchor on the subject; it's downright sinking the damn boat.

Of course, one could say that it's actually science's fault we tolerate the Farrells, the Griers, and the rest... because they fill in the vacuum left behind when science exited the field.
 
"What is reality?" "What is truth?" Great questions; and a lot of people do seem to struggle with them or have completely unhinged ideas as to what they mean; so if one is asking those questions with respect to UFOs, it's little wonder some people are confused. In the widest sense, I also think you're right that UFOs are beyond our grasp to know all the details about, and the topic in general is certainly wider than any specific absolute or notion of truth. Yet fundamentally, at its core, its a very simple concept to grasp. UFOs are alien craft - craft from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our civilization, including any detailed knowledge about them, like where exactly they originate. So long as we begin with that foundation, then UFOs become the nexus - the hub ( or sometimes the hub cap :D ), connecting a myriad number of fascinating topics that make up ufology as a whole.

There actually is no such thing as "unhinged". There actually is no such thing as "truth". There is no "proof" of anything. There is only possibility. This is what consciousness teaches us. UFOs teach us this: "Technology" (craft) is a truth, and therefore a transient form of yesterday's "unhinged", "Alien" is what we are not, and therefore the essence of what we might be.
 
There actually is no such thing as "unhinged". There actually is no such thing as "truth". There is no "proof" of anything. There is only possibility. This is what consciousness teaches us. UFOs teach us this: "Technology" (craft) is a truth, and therefore a transient form of yesterday's "unhinged", "Alien" is what we are not, and therefore the essence of what we might be.

I would dispute the claim that there is no such thing as truth. Indeed there is more than one kind of truth. I would say the same regarding proof. I'm not sure exactly what consciousness has to do with substantiating your point of view, or what you're trying to convey in the last part ( above ), but am willing to discuss the concepts further in the Philosophy, Science, & the Unexplained thread.
 
Ufology,
Have you read Leslie Kean's book? If you have, then you know that state of our best active science and the credibly reported and studied UFO. Can you please cite one prominent scientist participating within the scope of these studies that have lasted now for multiple decades, that makes that absolute (truth) claim that UFOs are in fact Alien Craft? Not just their personal speculative suspicions and opinions on the matter, but rather one that lends itself to an official definition that they can proclaim? UFOs simply do not conform to our notions of what is reality, and again, that is ultimately because there is no such hard and fast thing. As there is no truth. Ultimately, have we not seen proof over turned enough, just within the tiny segments of time that out lives represent alone, to know that there is only possibility awaiting furthered definition and temporary comprehension, and a transitory definition at best? Man strives for control. The notion of truth is merely the vain vice that serves our need to quench our insecure thirst for survival.

A dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream...should I keep going? Like all things bound to the concept of perceptual time, all such things pass away because ultimately these truths are bound to the finite minds of humankind.

There is only possibility.
 
Ufology,
Have you read Leslie Kean's book?
Yes.
If you have, then you know that state of our best active science and the credibly reported and studied UFO. Can you please cite one prominent scientist participating within the scope of these studies that have lasted now for multiple decades, that makes that absolute (truth) claim that UFOs are in fact Alien Craft? Not just their personal speculative suspicions and opinions on the matter, but rather one that lends itself to an official definition that they can proclaim?
To be clear, when talking about UFOs and making the claim that they are alien craft, I'm talking about what they are defined as for the purpose of providing a solid foundation in ufology. I'm not making the claim of having verifiable, material, scientifically valid evidence sufficient to prove where UFOs come from. Also, I don't need Leslie Kean's book to back-up my position. Although her book is a cut above many, I don't give it the same rave reviews her fans do. I've arrived at my position through independent analysis of official documents, independent sources, and deductive reasoning. You can read how I arrived at the definition here: Unidentified Flying Object - Official Definition & Etymology of The Word UFO
UFOs simply do not conform to our notions of what is reality, and again, that is ultimately because there is no such hard and fast thing. As there is no truth. Ultimately, have we not seen proof over turned enough, just within the tiny segments of time that out lives represent alone, to know that there is only possibility awaiting furthered definition and temporary comprehension, and a transitory definition at best? Man strives for control. The notion of truth is merely the vain vice that serves our need to quench our insecure thirst for survival.
Those are mostly proclamations rather than explanations. On the other hand one of the most common ways of defining truth is by correspondence, often called the Correspondence Theory of Truth. In fact you can verify that claim is true by following this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

I use a slightly modified version of the correspondence theory that as of yet does not appear to have any holes, and therefore can be said to be coherent within the context we are talking about here. It works like this: When someone makes a claim, and we can verify the accuracy of that claim, then we can say the claim is true. Therefore in this version of truth ( as differentiated from religious truth ), truth is a confirmation of a given reality within the context in which it is formed. One of the most simple proofs of this would be the claim that in a triangle, the square of the length of the side opposite the right angle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides:


1455314a78f39a594485adbaf74d63f9.png


You probably recognize the above as the Pythagorean Theorem, and it is always true within the context it has been presented. So clearly we can see from this example that truth does indeed exist, not simply because I proclaimed it to be so, but because there are reasons beyond my own personal belief for knowing that to be the case. If you disagree, then please find a flaw in the Pythagorean Theorem. As for truth as applied to the definition of UFOs as alien craft, what we have is a foundation or constant by which we can apply critical thinking in order to arrive at a reasonably accurate conclusion regarding the truth of various claims about UFOs.

If you have some particular objection to something within my article and would like to discuss it, please be specific, and if I find that there is sufficient merit in your position, I'll be happy to amend the article accordingly. In the meantime, by defining the word UFO as "alien craft", we clear-up a lot of fog and misconceptions. It lets us know in no uncertain terms what we're talking about without making unsubstantiated claims, and while still leaving the essential questions open for further research and study.

A dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream...should I keep going? Like all things bound to the concept of perceptual time, all such things pass away because ultimately these truths are bound to the finite minds of humankind.
There is only possibility.
OK I think I see where you're going with that last statement, but it's in an entirely different context to that of my posts. I'm not speaking from a subjective idealist point of view. There is far too much evidence that there is an existence beyond the "finite minds of humankind", and therefore there are many other possibilities besides those that reside within our minds.
 
Last edited:
Jeff sounds like Pontius Pilate questioning Jesus Christ (not to imply Jeff is like Pontius Pilate and Ufology is like Jesus Christ).
Ouch that hurts ( I think ) :confused: . I actually like Jeff. In fact I like almost anyone who participates with the intent of providing some food for thought, and Jeff certainly does that.
 
Jeff I have no idea what you just said.

Could you be more specific?

As far as the rest, UFOs should never be defined apart from an unknown. This is simply because we do not know what they are. If we reduce UFOs to any one specific definition, we are immediately making them the basis for a new/old religion. In other words, we are taking their identity based on faith and circumstance at which point we begin projecting in a pseudo exploratory fashion.

The serious study and consideration of UFOs can and does inspire one of two directional stances. One is a faith based definition. The other is the acceptance of the unknown as that which is inherent to our human condition. I choose the latter. To me, UFOs simply represent "possibility" and therefore are inherently relevant to consciousness. Beyond this, I have yet to find anything of real substance.

George Carlin once said “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”

I do not wish to adopt such a position with respect for what is, or is not, UFOs. Carlin was joking of course, however, I am not. When we find ourselves in a position wherein our only defense is to proclaim self asserted immunity, we have chosen to concede.
 
Could you be more specific?

As far as the rest, UFOs should never be defined apart from an unknown. This is simply because we do not know what they are. If we reduce UFOs to any one specific definition, we are immediately making them the basis for a new/old religion. In other words, we are taking their identity based on faith and circumstance at which point we begin projecting in a pseudo exploratory fashion.

The serious study and consideration of UFOs can and does inspire one of two directional stances. One is a faith based definition. The other is the acceptance of the unknown as that which is inherent to our human condition. I choose the latter. To me, UFOs simply represent "possibility" and therefore are inherently relevant to consciousness. Beyond this, I have yet to find anything of real substance.

George Carlin once said “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”

I do not wish to adopt such a position with respect for what is, or is not, UFOs. Carlin was joking of course, however, I am not. When we find ourselves in a position wherein our only defense is to proclaim self asserted immunity, we have chosen to concede.
Oh, I get it now, thanks for the clarification.

However, respectfully I disagree. There's two categories of unknowns: the unknowns you know about, and the unknowns you don't know about.

If UFOs were in the second category, we wouldn't know they were here. This is the case for a large segment of our population.

However, I know they are here (in some sense... that they exist) and I suspect you do, too. So they belong to the first bucket -- the unknowns we know about.

This bucket is exactly the domain of science, and not faith. Faith is in the second bucket.
 
Oh, I get it now, thanks for the clarification.

However, respectfully I disagree. There's two categories of unknowns: the unknowns you know about, and the unknowns you don't know about.

If UFOs were in the second category, we wouldn't know they were here. This is the case for a large segment of our population.

However, I know they are here (in some sense... that they exist) and I suspect you do, too. So they belong to the first bucket -- the unknowns we know about.

This bucket is exactly the domain of science, and not faith. Faith is in the second bucket.

Faith comes into play the moment that we assign a subjectively relative definition to "what *is* a UFO". This is because we do not know what a UFO is. We see this throughout time and recorded history via the recording of this observation based phenomena. We "know" nothing about UFOs apart from the observed consensus of mass relative contextual subjectivity. The reporting and recording of the phenomena is unequivocally based on subjective observation.

I am not certain that I understand the distinction concerning a known unknown and an unknown known. Could you give me an example of each? I don't think that via the way the human mind works that we can ever know everything there is to know about anything. For instance, water. How long have we known about the factual state that is water? Yet, we learn more about it, and it abilities due to our ever expanding understanding of it on an ongoing basis.

I was wrong earlier, or better put, very unclear, when I stated that "there is no truth". What I meant was that truth is in and of itself subjective. Therefore reality is subjective. There simply is never any hard and fast, final, purely objective, truth.

Yet people are willing to die for what they believe to be truths that conflict on a daily basis.
 
I was wrong earlier, or better put, very unclear, when I stated that "there is no truth". What I meant was that truth is in and of itself subjective. Therefore reality is subjective. There simply is never any hard and fast, final, purely objective, truth.

If truth is subjective, what about your statement "truth is objective"? Is this statement subjective as well? If yes, then truth may be objective for me but subjective for you. If no, then you're stating an objective truth, which means that truth is not subjective but is objective at least for this statement; and if this statement is objective, why can't other statements be objective as well?
 
I am not certain that I understand the distinction concerning a known unknown and an unknown known. Could you give me an example of each? I don't think that via the way the human mind works that we can ever know everything there is to know about anything. For instance, water. How long have we known about the factual state that is water? Yet, we learn more about it, and it abilities due to our ever expanding understanding of it on an ongoing basis.

Not to presume to speak for a God, but what I think He meant was that the unknown unknown is something we're not even aware of at all (e.g. Pluto before it was discovered) whereas the known unknown is something we know little of but we know of its existence (e.g. UFOs).
 
Faith comes into play the moment that we assign a subjectively relative definition to "what *is* a UFO". This is because we do not know what a UFO is. We see this throughout time and recorded history via the recording of this observation based phenomena. We "know" nothing about UFOs apart from the observed consensus of mass relative contextual subjectivity. The reporting and recording of the phenomena is unequivocally based on subjective observation.
Yes we do.

We know they reflect light in the visible range, we know they sometimes reflect radar waves, we know they have mass (because they leave marks in the ground), we know they have very high rates of acceleration but it's not infinite, etc, etc, etc.

In short, they seem to share all the properties of mass that we are familiar with in general. Sure you can talk about a few good cases where something even weirder is going on, but a general classification of the bulk of the unknowns (past the lights in the sky stuff) mean that a chunk of mass is floating in the air over there, it looks to be artificial, has non-infinite acceleration, expends energy and it leaves holes in things it bumps into.
I am not certain that I understand the distinction concerning a known unknown and an unknown known. Could you give me an example of each? I don't think that via the way the human mind works that we can ever know everything there is to know about anything. For instance, water. How long have we known about the factual state that is water? Yet, we learn more about it, and it abilities due to our ever expanding understanding of it on an ongoing basis.
Sure. Here's an example of a unknown that I know about: the weather. I know that there will be weather next week, next month, next year. But I have no idea what it will be.

A trite example, to be sure. But now that I know about what I don't know, it starts to become knowable. I can put boundaries around it, study it, all kinds of things. I would put UFO's in this category.

An example of an unknown that we don't know about (at least that we didn't know about): relativity. Before Einstien, we had no idea that there was mass-energy equivalency, or that mass changed with velocity. So there would be no way to study relativity or the high-energy stuff, because we wouldn't know that it was there.

I would put "God" in this category. We don't know if there is a God, or if there is, what that means. It's in the "unknowable" kind of category.
I was wrong earlier, or better put, very unclear, when I stated that "there is no truth". What I meant was that truth is in and of itself subjective. Therefore reality is subjective. There simply is never any hard and fast, final, purely objective, truth.

Yet people are willing to die for what they believe to be truths that conflict on a daily basis.
Chunks of reality are subjective, to be sure. I mean, I guess all of it is, but measurably so. It's subjective in as much as your frame of reference (in the Einsteinien sense) is different than mine, but still measurably so.

I cannot occupy the same space that you do, hence will never experience the universe quite the same way. However, I can measure my point of view, and how your point of view is different, and approximate your point of view to a high degree of accuracy.

As an example, I'd think you were crazy if you saw flying purple unicorns. Your universe is not that subjectively different than mine.
 
If truth is subjective, what about your statement "truth is objective"? Is this statement subjective as well? If yes, then truth may be objective for me but subjective for you. If no, then you're stating an objective truth, which means that truth is not subjective but is objective at least for this statement; and if this statement is objective, why can't other statements be objective as well?

I didn't make the statement that "truth is objective". I referred to the externalized quality of what is objective, stating that truth is never purely objective. This is because of the reflective nature of reason. One is smart to consider that both the subjective and the objective are always internally derived based upon reflective reasoning and ultimately, acceptance, or agreement, with that reasoning. And of course it's critical to stay on the topic of UFOs, so lets start there. For us, the "objective truth" pertains to our best understanding of physics. This understanding is internally derived via reflective objective reasoning. This is called projection. Yet we see UFOs performing in such a manner that such objectivity is ultimately dismissed. We can assume that is because they are more advanced than us, however, this speculative understanding is just as internally and reflectively derived. It's a speculative projection based on speculative reasoning.

UFOs are possibilities and therefore relative to consciousness with respect to our awareness of them. Their behavior does not conform to our best understanding of reality and reality is the basis for our internal reasoning. This does not mean that UFOs are not real, it does however mean that what we assume to be a "true reality" is not at all the case. We do not understand what UFOs are definitively. They teach us to accept the unknown. They teach us that the harder we struggle to know what they are, the greater the possibility of what they represent become. It's a matter of consciousness due to the progressive nature of what are relative possibilities. This is the only way that I can think of wherein we may be able to touch on the nature of what are UFOs as they intersect our less (far!) than complete understanding of reality.
 
Last edited:
We don't know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy is either, but most don't consider that we'll never understand what these things are. DM & DE aren't there to "teach" us anything, they're there because it's natural for them to be there.

Just like UFOs. I think the highest likelihood is that they are intelligently guided machines from somewhere that are here because it's natural for them to be here.

Just like if we went to another planet, flew around with tin foil hats on going "beep beep beep" we'd be doing it because we wanted to do it. Doing anything but laughing at the natives reaction would be doubtful.
 
Back
Top