Are we doing enough to learn the truth about UFOs?

[Jeff Davis]

If you think, "Disclosure has already happened. Completely and totally." then you're belief is based on far more faith than any which you claim I have, because for us to know full disclosure has happened, we would all need unfettered access to the most high-tech secure areas and uncensored records that exist. But we don't have that, and you certainly don't have that, and therefore you're simply making a faith based assumption.

On the other hand, we know from FOIA requests that many documents have been withheld from investigators and that many that have been released contain blacked out segments ( Example story here ). It is also self-evident that we don't have unfettered access to military tracking stations. I don't need to prove to you that you can't simply walk into the control room of any Space Command tracking station or NSA records vault. But if you need proof, tell you what, you go try it yourself. Don't forget to send us postcard from wherever the new Guantanamo Bay detention center is. So on the point of disclosure, you're just plain wrong.

On the issue of alien visitation itself. My belief is based on study of the subject and firsthand experience. Simply because I can't prove my experience was real to you doesn't make my belief faith based. If someone else believed me without question, then that would constitute a faith based belief. However there are also degrees of reasonableness that justify belief in others. Given the number of sightings of alien craft, it's simply not reasonable to believe all witnesses are misinformed, mistaken, or lying, especially after having seen one for myself. I'd have to be a totally self-centered egomaniac to think that of all the people on Earth, only my sighting is the real one. So if your allusion to my faith has anything to do with the belief in alien visitation, you're wrong about that too.

The only claim you can make that my belief in alien visitation is faith based is purely philosophical on the grounds that, because none of truly know what the ultimate nature of reality is, anything we perceive to be real may or may not be what we assume it to be. But that's not relevant to this discussion. Alien visitation is as real as anything else we are able to perceive and simply because you haven't perceived it enough for you to believe it's true doesn't mean you're assumptions about the rest of us are correct.

Ufology,
I definitely have and utilize my faith on a daily basis. We all do despite what the most ardent atheist may proclaim. As stated, the virtue of faith is not the issue, however misdirected faith can be dangerous. That's the point here. You see, the disclosure of the fact that high ranking officials in a position to know beyond question that the UFO phenomena is REAL, is certain. This *has* happened. No question. What you state as a qualifier for disclosure has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality that the UFO phenomena has been affirmed by tremendous and absolute authority. Both scientific and nation specific ruling authority. If you are waiting for "unfettered access" to a country's top secret information, whose entire might is based upon their military/industrial strength, it is simply NEVER going to happen. Get real, or better and more so humbly put, at very minimum, realistic. What power could they ever hope to maintain within the scope of rule that is ultimately based upon secrecy? That's almost the equivalent to stating that there is a conspiracy against me winning the lottery, despite the fact that I choose not to play.

The bottom line is that the best any one country has on the UFO Phenomena is uniform across the board. All of humanity has NOT, apart from superstitions and mythological lore. When you have global systems that are based on a hierarchy of military/industrial capability, the last thing they are going to be willing to do is admit that they are powerless over a possible threat that they themselves cannot even define. "Secret wars." "Alien agreements with the government." This is the type of nonsense that rules the comic book club. It's also the type of nonsense that that our precious power mongering military/industrial government uses via disinformation intelligence strategies to leverage themselves to a vantage point of imaginary power. This is precisely the game that MR. B was caught up into. The one that he allowed them to rob him of his sanity as a result of his own misdirected faith. It's a sick game Ufology, and if you are waiting for those types of governments to concede, you'll be waiting a lot longer than a kid hoping to achieve a peak at Santa Claus and his Reindeer on Christmas Eve. At least those of us waiting on Santa have the local dept. store to fall back on.

I think with respect for disclosure, what yourself, and those others that have chosen the preconceived notion of ET as being that which equals the UFO Phenomena are waiting for, is the ET version of disclosure. Some of us do not have a problem simply admitting, along with some of the best scientific minds on the planet that have been studying the phenomena ardently according to rigid scientific principle for better than 30 years now, that the UFO Phenomena is absolutely real, however we do not know what they are, nor do we understand what the Phenomena represents definitively. This being apart from the scope of the reflectively reasoned phenomena and the subsequent context bound myths that the esthetic has inspired and achieved thus far in this era of mankind.

Unless you can produce direct evidence of alien visitation, you are merely participating in the religion of Ufology as forwarded by misdirected faith en masse. The skeptic in me asks with a certain conviction of an all too familiar past rigor: Would you please pass that offering plate the other way?

 

[Randall]

Ufology, I definitely have and utilize my faith on a daily basis. We all do despite what the most ardent atheist may proclaim. As stated, the virtue of faith is not the issue, however misdirected faith can be dangerous. That's the point here.

OK.

You see, the disclosure of the fact that high ranking officials in a position to know beyond question that the UFO phenomena is REAL, is certain. This *has* happened. No question.

I never made the claim that, "high ranking officials in a position to know beyond question that the UFO phenomena is REAL." That's another assumption on your part. What I dispute is your claim that full total disclosure has already taken place. You can't weasel out of that faulty position by moving the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. My position is that it's doubtful anyone has all the answers, but that certain factions connected to the department of defense certainly know more than the rest of us civilians.

What you state as a qualifier for disclosure has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality that the UFO phenomena has been affirmed by tremendous and absolute authority. Both scientific and nation specific ruling authority. If you are waiting for "unfettered access" to country's top secret information, whose entire might is based upon their military/industrial strength, is simply NEVER going to happen.

You're probably right. Which means full and total disclosure has not happened and will probably never happen.

Get real, or better and more so humbly put, at very minimum, realistic. What power could they ever hope to maintain within the scope of rule that is ultimately based upon secrecy? That's almost the equivalent to stating that there is a conspiracy against me winning the lottery, despite the fact that I choose not to play.

That makes no sense. One doesn't have to play the lottery to determine whether or not it's transparent or fair.

The bottom line is that the best any one country has on the UFO Phenomena is uniform across the board. All of humanity has NOT, apart from superstitions and mythological lore. When you have global systems that are based on a hierarchy of military/industrial capability, the last thing they are going to be willing to do is admit that they are powerless over a possible threat that they themselves cannot even define. "Secret wars." "Alien agreements with the government." This is the type of nonsense that rules the comic book club. It's also the type of nonsense that that our precious power mongering military/industrial government uses via disinformation intelligence strategies to leverage themselves to a vantage point of imaginary power. This is precisely the game that MR. B was caught up into. The one that he allowed them to rob him of his sanity as a result of his own misdirected faith. It's a sick game Ufology, and if you are waiting for those types of governments to concede, you'll be waiting a lot longer than a kid hoping to achieve a peak at Santa Claus and his Reindeer on Christmas Eve. At least those of us waiting on Santa have the local dept. store to fall back on.

So now you seem to have made a complete about face with respect to your claim about total disclosure already having happened.

I think with respect for disclosure, what yourself, and those others that have chosen the preconceived notion of ET as being that which equals the UFO Phenomena are waiting for, is the ET version of disclosure.

I never claimed the aliens are ET. Alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial, although the ETH remains IMO the most reasonable explanation.

Some of us do not have a problem simply admitting, along with some of the best scientific minds on the planet that have been studying the phenomena ardently according to rigid scientific principle for better than 30 years now, that the UFO Phenomena is absolutely real, however we do not know, now do we understand, what the Phenomena represents definitively. This being apart from the scope of the reflectively reasoned phenomena and the subsequent context bound myths that the esthetic has inspired and achieved thus far in this era of mankind.

I have no problem admitting that the public has no access to verifiable, material, scientifically valid evidence sufficient to prove alien visitation is true. Furthermore we cannot even be sure the PTB has it. What we know for sure is that we're not being told everything, and therefore full disclosure has not happened. We also know that the craft being reported are alien, and by alien, I mean in the context that they're something from outside the environment from which they're found, like the way we call a species of plant from one ecosystem that suddenly finds its way to another an "alien" species. In this case however we're not talking about plants, but of some sort of craft, and we're not simply talking about the difference between ecosystems separated by hundreds or thousands of miles. We're talking about craft that come from beyond the boundaries and constructs of human civilization, probably, but not necessarily from space.

Unless you can produce direct evidence of alien visitation, you are merely participating in the religion of Ufology as forwarded by misdirected faith en masse. The skeptic in me asks with a certain conviction of an all too familiar past rigor: Would you please pass that offering plate the other way?

Ufology is not a religion, and not being able to provide evidence that meets scientific standards doesn't mean there's nothing to people's firsthand experiences. Nevertheless I will admit that constructive skepticism is a valuable asset, and that even a small amount of verifiable, material, scientifically valid evidence carries a lot of weight when trying to convince other people who have never had any personal experience, that a claim is true. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to simply take my word for it that alien visitation is real just because I say so. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong either, and I'm not ashamed to state my beliefs based on my my combination of study and experience. Nor should anyone else be pressured by fear of social stigmatization into silence.

 

[Jeff Davis]

OK.

I never made the claim that, "high ranking officials in a position to know beyond question that the UFO phenomena is REAL." That's another assumption on your part. What I dispute is your claim that full total disclosure has already taken place. You can't weasel out of that faulty position by moving the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. My position is that it's doubtful anyone has all the answers, but that certain factions connected to the department of defense certainly know more than the rest of us civilians.

You're probably right. Which means full and total disclosure has not happened and will probably never happen.

That makes no sense. One doesn't have to play the lottery to determine whether or not it's transparent or fair.

So now you seem to have made a complete about face with respect to your claim about total disclosure already having happened.

I never claimed the aliens are ET. Alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial, although the ETH remains IMO the most reasonable explanation.

I have no problem admitting that the public has no access to verifiable, material, scientifically valid evidence sufficient to prove alien visitation is true. Furthermore we cannot even be sure the PTB has it. What we know for sure is that we're not being told everything, and therefore full disclosure has not happened. We also know that the craft being reported are alien, and by alien, I mean in the context that they're something from outside the environment from which they're found, like the way we call a species of plant from one ecosystem that suddenly finds its way to another an "alien" species. In this case however we're not talking about plants, but of some sort of craft, and we're not simply talking about the difference between ecosystems separated by hundreds or thousands of miles. We're talking about craft that come from beyond the boundaries and constructs of human civilization, probably, but not necessarily from space.

Ufology is not a religion, and not being able to provide evidence that meets scientific standards doesn't mean there's nothing to people's firsthand experiences. Nevertheless I will admit that constructive skepticism is a valuable asset, and that even a small amount of verifiable, material, scientifically valid evidence carries a lot of weight when trying to convince other people who have never had any personal experience, that a claim is true. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to simply take my word for it that alien visitation is real just because I say so. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong either, and I'm not ashamed to state my beliefs based on my my combination of study and experience. Nor should anyone else be pressured by fear of social stigmatization into silence.

Ufology,
Can we be clear on what you are referring to as disclosure here? What are you referring to as being "disclosure" here? Disclosure for me, is an honest assessment of a governmental best understanding of the UFO situation. How do we know that they have one beyond what specific countries in Europe and South America have already offered publicly?

It seems like you are doing your level best just to disagree for the sake of disagreeing here. You have no clue what the government has and does not have with respect for material evidence from UFOs. You also do not know what they know.

You also don't seem to be able to admit that Ufology is nothing more than a false study based upon the framework of a speculative premise. Doesn't Ufology start with the premise that UFOs are alien craft? If it does, that is an utter falsehood because we do not know that UFOs are "Alien Craft". This is what the whole religious concept is about. Do you not get that?

If what you are stating as being disclosure is a complete and total transparency of all national secrets, what the heck does that have to do specifically with JUST UFOs? How can you pretend that you are certain that we do not already know all there is to know with respect to what any and all governments currently possess in terms of secret information concerning UFOs? It would seem like that premise in and of itself is completely mythologically derived.

Tell me in all honesty, apart from yours, or my own "hunches", can any of these questions be answered without 20 questions behind each? Are there ANY definitive answers to ANY of these questions apart from your personal definition of the concept of disclosure.

 

[marduk]

You also don't seem to be able to admit that Ufology is nothing more than a false study based upon the framework of a speculative premise.

OK, you had me right up to this point. Taking the word "Ufology" out of the sentence, this are of study is neither false, nor (in all cases) based upon the framework of speculative premise.

That's just utter baloney. There's plenty of physical traces, radar traces, photos, videos, and (yes) eyewitness testimony. Washing your hands of all that makes you just as guilty of a speculative premise as what you're asserting.

Doesn't Ufology start with the premise that UFOs are alien craft? If it does, that is an utter falsehood because we do not know that UFOs are "Alien Craft". This is what the whole religious concept is about. Do you not get that?

Except that it doesn't.

Some may put surmise that given the evidence, it's the simplest explanation, but that's very, very different than the cognitive bias you're implying.

Cognitive bias doesn't leave physical traces, it doesn't leave radar tracks, and it's really hard to photograph it.

 

[Constance]

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.

I do say that. We all know that. There's no excuse for science 'exiting the field'.

 

[marduk]

I do say that. We all know that. There's no excuse for science 'exiting the field'.

Yes there is.

I may not happen to agree with it, but the intermittent, nonsensical, non-rational, and populist nature of this area precludes actual science being done.

Science has well and truly done humanity a disservice in my opinion by exiting the field, but I can understand why.

I mean, imagine you're a theoretical QM physicist, of which I happen to know a couple. You get a bunch of wacky UFO people running around speculating Ansibles as the answer for how UFOs communicate with Zeta Reticuli, or how the occupants seem to have telepathy. They may try to patiently explain a few times that QM does not allow superluminal communication, but nobody's going to listen, so they just label the whole area nutty and stupid.

Now imagine you're experimenting with superconductivity. Or looking for gravity waves. Or the Higgs boson. Or whatever.

Every time you ram your head straight into the Tao of Physics effect (a book I loved until I discovered the underlying physics was BS) where the author just won't listen, and millions of people think it's amazing.

So the field shrugs, paints the whole area with the broad brush of taboo, labels it woo-woo and verboten, and throws up it's middle finger, takes its grants, and goes home.

I mean, would you rather post over and over again on boards like this one trying to correct everybody's fanciful opinions about what QM says or whatever to which you'll get continual arguing, or go and do actual science?

 

[Constance]

Yes there is.

I may not happen to agree with it, but the intermittent, nonsensical, non-rational, and populist nature of this area precludes actual science being done.

Science has well and truly done humanity a disservice in my opinion by exiting the field, but I can understand why.

I mean, imagine you're a theoretical QM physicist, of which I happen to know a couple. You get a bunch of wacky UFO people running around speculating Ansibles as the answer for how UFOs communicate with Zeta Reticuli, or how the occupants seem to have telepathy. They may try to patiently explain a few times that QM does not allow superluminal communication, but nobody's going to listen, so they just label the whole area nutty and stupid.

Now imagine you're experimenting with superconductivity. Or looking for gravity waves. Or the Higgs boson. Or whatever.

Every time you ram your head straight into the Tao of Physics effect (a book I loved until I discovered the underlying physics was BS) where the author just won't listen, and millions of people think it's amazing.

So the field shrugs, paints the whole area with the broad brush of taboo, labels it woo-woo and verboten, and throws up it's middle finger, takes its grants, and goes home.

I mean, would you rather post over and over again on boards like this one trying to correct everybody's fanciful opinions about what QM says or whatever to which you'll get continual arguing, or go and do actual science?

I've gotta respond to this. As it happens I just drafted a post in response to a similar statement you made in the C&P thread, claiming that a group of quantum physicists and philosophers of consciousness contemplating (and experimenting on) quantum processes in the brain have 'driven scientists away' from wanting to engage in investigations of consciousness in general. Here it is, applicable to the claim you just made about popular ideas about ufos justifying the abandonment of ufo investigations by scientists:

You say scientists are 'driven away' from investigating consciousness because some consciousness researchers contemplate the quantum substrate and quantum entanglement as potentially playing a role in consciousness. Really? That offends them? Why is that? It's not as if scientists themselves have yet comprehended the full scope of qm and q fields operating in nature. Is it 'no fair' if philosophers and and other researchers such as parapsychologists excluded from dominant objectivist science hypothesize and experiment on the potential cosmic workings of qm and the q field in consciousness before physicists have comprehensively understood them? If so that's an absurd and childish reaction. The interpretation of reality is still up for grabs and requires all of the above-named perspectives and more. If science is not willing to investigate consciousness as it is experienced (often anomalously) from first-person perspectives, or to deal forthrightly with the manifest ufo phenomenon, it will soon become less influential, less able to dictate our civilization's official world view. It's time for a paradigm change in science.

 

[marduk]

That's a different argument Constance -- that argument was mine.

My point was why require QM in consciousness when there's no requirement for it and experiments are underway to test whether it's required or not.

The argument I'm making here is that even though it pisses me off that science doesn't (in general) take UFOs seriously, I can understand why.

The offensive bit is that you have a bunch of people running around that QM, etc implies all kinds of things that it doesn't, which disrespects the work they've done there, and that people won't even listen to what it does say. It would be like people in the 1540s running around saying that since this guy Copernicus came up with this theory that the sun is the centre of the universe instead of the earth, that implies that the sun is where God is. He said no such thing.

And in either case, I have often experienced (and heard it voiced by the establishment) that even when you try to explain what science is actually saying instead of what we want it to be, people in general don't listen anyway.

Regarding parapsychologists and philosophers experimenting with QM and other stuff, be my guest. Science and the universe is by nature open source. Fill your boots. In fact, I encourage it.

Here's some fun home experiments you can run, if you're interested:
How to Build Your Own Quantum Entanglement Experiment, Part 1 (of 2) | Critical Opalescence, Scientific American Blog Network
http://www.arturekert.org/sandvox/quantum-eraser.pdf

Now, regarding science losing sway in the court of public opinion to 'Ufology' I would say that I would like to have some of what you're smoking.

Given that R&D spending is numbered in 100s of billions of dollars per country (List of countries by research and development spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and 'Ufology' spending is whatever pocket change people can eke out with books and tv appearances, I just can't see it.

 

[Constance]

My point was why require QM in consciousness when there's no requirement for it and experiments are underway to test whether it's required or not.

That sentence doesn't actually compute. I gather you're saying that "there's no requirement for qm in consciousness" {something you and physical scientists have no way of knowing} and yet that "experiments are underway to test whether it's required or not." There happen to be a few maverick physicists (fully credentialed, btw) experimenting with possible quantum processes in consciousness, but they are not supported by their peers.

The argument I'm making here is that even though it pisses me off that science doesn't (in general) take UFOs seriously, I can understand why.

I can't, and you haven't persuaded me yet that I should.

And in either case, I have often experienced (and heard it voiced by the establishment) that even when you try to explain what science is actually saying instead of what we want it to be, people in general don't listen anyway.

Sorry, that is a piss-poor excuse for the general lack of scientific communication with the public (except for the usually hyped press releases issued by university science departments seeking visibility and funding).

Regarding parapsychologists and philosophers experimenting with QM and other stuff, be my guest. Science and the universe is by nature open source. Fill your boots. In fact, I encourage it.

No need for the contemptuous tone, marduk. Philosophers of science (often scientists themselves) contemplate the full extent and meaning of qm processes and entanglement; philosophers of mind and consciousness follow them in entertaining these questions. Parapsychology has been recognized as a legitimate scientific discipline by the Association of American Scientists for more than a decade now, and that organization has more recently called for much more interdisciplinary research. Institutional science in general is not open to ontological thinking at present, dismisses philosophy in general, and rejects parapsychology.

Here's some fun home experiments you can run, if you're interested:
How to Build Your Own Quantum Entanglement Experiment, Part 1 (of 2) | Critical Opalescence, Scientific American Blog Network
http://www.arturekert.org/sandvox/quantum-eraser.pdf

I've read about the last two and other experiments and projects. Do I have to be able to do the experiments in order to think about them? May I and others who do not set up the experiments in scientific labs think about their possible implications?

 

[Jeff Davis]

OK, you had me right up to this point. Taking the word "Ufology" out of the sentence, this are of study is neither false, nor (in all cases) based upon the framework of speculative premise

That's just utter baloney. There's plenty of physical traces, radar traces, photos, videos, and (yes) eyewitness testimony. Washing your hands of all that makes you just as guilty of a speculative premise as what you're asserting.

Except that it doesn't.

Some may put surmise that given the evidence, it's the simplest explanation, but that's very, very different than the cognitive bias you're implying.

Cognitive bias doesn't leave physical traces, it doesn't leave radar tracks, and it's really hard to photograph it.

Honestly, I have no idea what you just stated. I do know that there is no branch of science called Ufology, yet there are many scientists that have credibly studied the UFO phenomena via science. This being minus the claim that they are "Ufologist". Why? Because there is NO SUCH THING. So yes, if we want to consider anything informational pertaining to UFOs as Ufology, then I concede. However, if alien craft comes into the scenario as synonymous with Ufology, it's clearly nothing more than a belief system. That does not mean that UFOs cannot be alien craft, it simply means that it is not the only possibility, or even the most likely one. In fact, according to science's best understanding, it's not likely at all.

The thing is, I believe a great deal that I am unwilling to lay claim to as fact. I am not going to go around claiming specific premises that can in no way be defined as fact.

Cognitive bias is impossible to avoid with respect to uncertainty. It's not a bad thing.

 

[marduk]

Honestly, I have no idea what you just stated. I do know that there is no branch of science called Ufology, yet there are many scientists that have credibly studied the UFO phenomena via science. This being minus the claim that they are "Ufologist". Why? Because there is NO SUCH THING. So yes, if we want to consider anything informational pertaining to UFOs as Ufology, then I concede. However, if alien craft comes into the scenario as synonymous with Ufology, it's clearly nothing more than a belief system. That does not mean that UFOs cannot be alien craft, it simply means that it is not the only possibility, or even the most likely one. In fact, according to science's best understanding, it's not likely at all.

The thing is, I believe a great deal that I am unwilling to lay claim to as fact. I am not going to go around claiming specific premises that can in no way be defined as fact.

Cognitive bias is impossible to avoid with respect to uncertainty. It's not a bad thing.

OK now I think we may be agreeing instead of not agreeing.

Yes - 'Ufology' is a loaded term fraught with mysticism, romanticism, and yes, religion. And it's not a recognized field of scientific study. I agree. And I also agree that that thing we call 'Ufology' has embedded within it a series of cognitive biases that may include the assumption that we're looking at alien visitors from other planets.

However, I do think there are areas of scientific study regarding things in that area as a subset that are valid. Statistical data, physical evidence, etc.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Sorry, that is a piss-poor excuse for the general lack of scientific communication with the public (except for the usually hyped press releases issued by university science departments seeking visibility and funding).

Constance,
Have you read Leslie Kean's book? Science can only do so much with UFOs as an external. What we need to do is study the mind and how UFOs intersect with it. The truth is that far and away the single most common notion among cutting edge scientific visionary's is that the single greatest leap we will make will be the in depth study of the non-material, and how it intersects and impacts the material. Spooky action at a distance is REAL, and so is the way that UFOs *occasionally* show up on radar, and in photos in which they were absent when said photos were taken. Many worlds, all of which I believe (read: non factual) consciousness transcends.

 

[marduk]

That depends on what you mean when you say "Spooky action at a distance" Jeff. In the formal QM sense, yes. As an answer for information transfer, psi, or any of that stuff, no.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "consciousness transcends" statement. Can you elaborate?

 

[Randall]

Ufology,
Can we be clear on what you are referring to as disclosure here? What are you referring to as being "disclosure" here? Disclosure for me, is an honest assessment of a governmental best understanding of the UFO situation. How do we know that they have one beyond what specific countries in Europe and South America have already offered publicly?

When I used the word disclosure in the post that kicked this off, I meant it in the sense of "coming clean" in a very general sense under hypothetical circumsatnces. More specifically I mean letting us see all the evidence for ourselves. Without that there is no way to determine whether the governmental assessment is either honest or complete. It may be the case that those who have made statements to the effect that there's nothing beyond what we've been told, are being honest because they are themselves in the dark. We've been told before that there is nothing more to be had, only to find out that via FOIA requests that there was indeed more.

It seems like you are doing your level best just to disagree for the sake of disagreeing here.

I don't post simply for the sake of disagreeing. My intent is to illuminate the subject matter with whatever evidence or analysis may help move us closer to the truth, and one of the best ways to do that is to consider a claim and then try to verify it. If in the course of doing so we find conflicting claims, then the responsible thing to do is consider those claims, even if they are contrary to our personal feelings about them. The other choice is to simply believe what we're told in order to feel good about our beliefs and assumptions. Which would you prefer?

You also don't seem to be able to admit that Ufology is nothing more than a false study based upon the framework of a speculative premise. Doesn't Ufology start with the premise that UFOs are alien craft? If it does, that is an utter falsehood because we do not know that UFOs are "Alien Craft". This is what the whole religious concept is about. Do you not get that?

Let's steer clear of loaded questions and consider what ufology is in a more rational context: http://ufopages.com/Content/Reference/Ufology-01a.htm

If what you are stating as being disclosure is a complete and total transparency of all national secrets, what the heck does that have to do specifically with JUST UFOs?

I never made that claim.

How can you pretend that you are certain that we do not already know all there is to know with respect to what any and all governments currently possess in terms of secret information concerning UFOs? It would seem like that premise in and of itself is completely mythologically derived.

I'll grant that outside the context in which our discussion started, there are some assumptions being made that are based on my personal belief. But others aren't, specifically the number of documents withheld under the FOIA exemptions from investigators who have made requests for them. I have no reason to seriously doubt that such documents do exist and that they are of relevance to UFO reports in some as of yet undetermined manner.

Tell me in all honesty, apart from yours, or my own "hunches", can any of these questions be answered without 20 questions behind each? Are there ANY definitive answers to ANY of these questions apart from your personal definition of the concept of disclosure.

I think that saying, "They know more than we do and they're not telling us." is definitive. Exactly how much more they know is a matter of speculation, but returning to the point where we kicked off this round, the idea of disclosure came up as a possible response to a hypothetical situation where we civilians manage to acquire substantial evidence of alien visitation. So we've moved off a bit from the initial context. If civilians were able to get sufficient verifiable evidence that proves alien visitation is true, then the cat would be out of the bag ( so to speak ), people would start demanding answers, and that might be sufficient cause for disclosure. That is the extent of my initial comment. Exactly how much the PTB knows that we don't [know], is another matter.

 

[marduk]

Randall, given that reports up here are public and not definitive of anything, why would we assume any different for our brothers to the south?

Just because everything is a secret to those guys doesn't mean that they have evidence of anything.

In fact it would both hide their incompetent handling of the situation and add a sense of omnipotent mystique about their military.

In short, I don't really give crap anymore about what they are hiding and I wouldn't believe them even if they came clean.

 

[mike]

Im reading an excellent set of books by William H Keith jnr under the pen name of Ian Douglas

The Star Carrier quadrilogy


The first book in the epic saga of humankind's war of transcendence
There is a milestone in the evolution of every sentient race, a Tech Singularity Event, when the species achieves transcendence through its technological advances. Now the creatures known as humans are near this momentous turning point.
But an armed threat is approaching from deepest space, determined to prevent humankind from crossing over that boundary—by total annihilation if necessary.
To the Sh'daar, the driving technologies of transcendent change are anathema and must be obliterated from the universe—along with those who would employ them

He has coined a nice term

Xeno Sophontologists

I hope one day we will be able to do our doctorates in XS at universitys

 

[Jeff Davis]

That depends on what you mean when you say "Spooky action at a distance" Jeff. 1) In the formal QM sense, yes. As an answer for information transfer, psi, or any of that stuff, no.

2) I'm not sure where you're going with the "consciousness transcends" statement. Can you elaborate?

1) What evidence is there to support a compartmentalization of QM as being isolated and unique from the rest? Is not QM a relative part of the nature in which we live? Do we see this same separation within the rest of nature when going from the micro to the macro?

2) IMO, space and time are like the ocean. The oceans represent specific environmental relevance for the life supported within them. As in the case of our vast oceans and the immense diversity of indigenous life within them, we find consciousness permeating our own biological being, as well as containing the whole of our environmental relevance. Consciousness transcends time and space because time and space are relevant to consciousness, contained within it, not the other way around. In the future, as mankind adapts technologically to this environmental whole, time and space will become no different an obstacle than the ocean depths present themselves to represent to a caveman minus a nuclear submarine. IMO, this is what UFOs are. When we witness them disappear in a blur, we are witnessing their navigation of environmental consciousness as a whole, relevant to our cognitive dependence on the same, not the fantastic air speed travel often associated with the alien sci fi theme concurrent in this temporally relevant era of phenomenal observations. We know via the laws of physics and inertia, via our own time era's present caveman relevance, that the latter is simply not possible. We have no real scientific footing that I am familiar with in the doorway of the former. Thus is the potential non-material scientific stance that I referred to earlier. UFOs equal the relevant unknown, and very possibly, ourselves at the same time. The statement that consciousness transcends seems like some mystical mumbo jumbo, but then again, so does the preposterous notion of a nuclear sub to a caveman.

 

[mike]

We know via the laws of physics and inertia, via our own time era's present caveman relevance, that the latter is simply not possible. .

Now where have i heard that before.........

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.


To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.


History is full of such pronouncments all proven wrong later.


However, there's a loophole in Einstein's general theory of relativity that could allow a ship to traverse vast distances in less time than it would take light. The trick? It's not the starship that's moving — it's the space around it.
In fact, scientists at NASA are right now working on the first practical field test toward proving the possibility of warp drives and faster-than-light

The Alcubierre warp drive is still theoretical for now. "The truth is that the best ideas sound crazy at first. And then there comes a time when we can't imagine a world without them."


It’s apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It’s my conviction that when someone says something is “impossible,” what they really mean is “our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries.” –Richard Obousy
Warp Drives: Making the 'Impossible' Possible : Discovery News

 

[manxman]

Yep Mike, everything is possible, and everything is finite [eventually].

Truthfully ive often chewed on a joint pondering 'knowledge'.
I mean as a species our knowledge grows and is documented on an hourly worldwide basis, 'we learn' we ask question's, then work to find the answer, we find the answer, which in itself, begets more questions, and more answers, and at this point you would think the cycle is infinite, but i dont believe in 'infinity' or maybe my brain just doesnt get 'it'.

This is the way my drug addled brain see's it, one day after all the thirst for knowledge has been quenched, there will be a final learning, a final answer, which doesnt beget anymore question's that we dont already know the answer to, the last piece of the jigsaw has been put in place, we know everything there is to know.

What then?, some kind of transcendence, an awakening, what is consciousness, why am i able to even contemplate any of this.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Now where have i heard that before.........

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.


To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.


History is full of such pronouncments all proven wrong later.


However, there's a loophole in Einstein's general theory of relativity that could allow a ship to traverse vast distances in less time than it would take light. The trick? It's not the starship that's moving — it's the space around it.
In fact, scientists at NASA are right now working on the first practical field test toward proving the possibility of warp drives and faster-than-light

The Alcubierre warp drive is still theoretical for now. "The truth is that the best ideas sound crazy at first. And then there comes a time when we can't imagine a world without them."


It’s apparent to me that a lot of people seem to want to prove why a technology is not possible, rather than think of ingenious ways to make something possible. It’s my conviction that when someone says something is “impossible,” what they really mean is “our current level of science cannot explain this, and I don’t have the motivation to explore beyond its boundaries.” –Richard Obousy
Warp Drives: Making the 'Impossible' Possible : Discovery News

Whereas I realize that at one juncture or another, with every advancement in technological capability, there was a predictible proceeding denial of that possibility, it seems more so pertinent to look at the larger scientific leaps that redefine relevant context stages in which possibilities become considerations, rather than to imagine that a subset of possibilities relevant to a specific stage is that which could never be progressively rendered to a realm of the impossible. The trick of predictions then is not the notion of the speculatively determined possible, or the impossible, but rather the "workaround" that defines an entire new stage realm of subset possibilities achieving the same goals.

For instance, there is nothing that we know of that can achieve instantaneous speed and distance minus relevance to the laws of inertia, let alone the need for tremendous relevant energy to do so with. So in order to do so, one would require a new paradigmatic stage on which to achieve such a goal.

This is why I lean to considerations that are broadened understandings of the relevant context of environment rather than the quick fix that sci fi dictates. Getting past gravity, friction generated heat, inertial mass considerations, and the like is serious business.

What I emboldened above Mike, is that which I see a variable consciousness matrix interface as being that which makes for such an aforementioned "workaround" concerning a speculative stage of progressions. The manipulation of the boundaries of reality relevant to ourselves, to achieve speed and distance simply impossible within the realm of propulsion navigated time and space. It's more of that beyond consciousness stuff. A place where mind and machine become one.