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!
Are We Doing Enough to Learn the Truth about UFOs?
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?"
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.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.
"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 ), 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.
Yes.Ufology,
Have you read Leslie Kean's book?
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 UFOIf 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?
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_truthUFOs 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.
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.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.
Ouch that hurts ( I think ) . 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 sounds like Pontius Pilate questioning Jesus Christ (not to imply Jeff is like Pontius Pilate and Ufology is like Jesus Christ).
Jeff I have no idea what you just said.
Oh, I get it now, thanks for the clarification.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.
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.
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.
Yes we do.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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?