Unpopular opinion, the case for non-disclosure…

[Trajanus]

I started reading it and abandoned pretty early on when I saw how the real grand design was the author picking bits and pieces of UFO history to suit his thesis

Quite a few "bits and pieces." Most people would abandon it because its overall view is contrary to what nearly everyone wants to believe.

So again, I would have to say that basing ideas about what the ufonauts might be up to on contactee fantasies is just a non-starter for me.

But contactee nonsense, such as Adamski's, still has a purpose--to sully certain ideas. Just like physical concealment, it's a way of maintaining secrecy.

 

[Randall]

Quite a few "bits and pieces . . .

Just a head's up on a post that I'd like your feedback on. The full post is here.
The most relevant question is reiterated below ( with minor changes for clarity ).

Earth's geography and human physiology hasn't changed much over the last few millennia. So a race as advanced as is being suggested by you and @Burnt State should have completed their preliminary study phase prior to this "familiarization" phase long ago — before the rise of ancient Egypt.

After that, if we assume that the aliens did such good a job that no more study was needed, they'd have determined that our adaptability as a species, would have enabled us humans to adapt to them long before now. So what's the big delay?

Do we just trash the Ancient Aliens Hypothesis and assume that they've only been around since the 1940s? Or what exactly? They just took an extended vacation? Or does it make more sense that they've been studying us all along, and the only reason they've revealed themselves on purpose is to study our reaction to them — for their reasons as opposed to any type of large scale societal conditioning?

Personally — I get the impression that what we think of them outside the parameters of their mobile lab experiments, really doesn't matter much to most of them, unless it has something to do with why they bother. For example, to discern how much we really know, how much we can be manipulated, and how much of a problem we might be for them if they had to start playing by our rules — which clearly they're not.

 

[Burnt State]

Quite a few "bits and pieces." Most people would abandon it because its overall view is contrary to what nearly everyone wants to believe.

Quoting parts of ufology is like quoting parts of the Bible You can make it say whatever you want. That's why I appreciate detailed researchers who don't make assumptions based on flimsy evidence such as contactee reports and then extrapolate these to prove their thesis.

Donovan's convictions regarding the political belief systems and structures of a singular alien race, that has a long term project management approach to us earthlings based on a single alien mind that is controlling the whole show, is just not anything close to provable. His thesis goes way beyond putting the cart before the horse. He has a concrete belief that he wants to push which makes him no different than Jacobs or people who believe in lizard people controlling all the major governments of the planet.

I'll stick to theorists and researchers who use evidence in a more thoughtful hurtful manner and don't put their convictions ahead of UFO witness reports. These reports themselves can often only be taken as an anomalous experience report and not an actual event experience the way Donovan uses contactee confabulations as actual events.

 

[Burnt State]

@Randall the only way I can respond to your larger meta question is to consider the discussions of our current leading theorists and their preferred theories. Because the phenomena is so difficult to define I've long thought an interdisciplinary approach is the way to go. This is something we are only just starting to see unfold via the Archives of the Impossible new annual lecture series that are drawing experts and experiencers from various fields to contemplate the problem.

The one major consideration that you bring up is whether or not the phenomena have been with us all along, ever since human beings started to walk about on this planet. This implies long-term study or a source that is more terrestrial than extra terrestrial.

When you invoke the sociologist lens you move in a couple of directions - that of the folklorist and the evolution of a new religion. Vallee warned us of this in Messengers of Deception. We have a lot of constructed religions based on Ufology and even contactee, Whitley Strieber, supported the notion of an alien ship inside the comet just before the Heaven's Gate disaster. These are the dangers of belief before proof.

Pasulka has been been making the suggestion that long term manipulation of humanity can be seen in early Catholic documentation. if I remember correctly the location of where one of the European bilocating nuns appeared in America is also a well known supposed UFO crash site.

This kind of long term observation and contact suggests everything from being in charge of a control system to actual cultural manipulation on a much larger scale. Jesus was an alien etc.....There's certainly a lot of interesting evidence in this area to explore ,but I'm not a fan as I'm more Clark than Vallee.

And besides, the only thing we really can observe is the effects of UFO's on us and our culture as there's no real concrete evidence that they are the instigators of anything themselves. It's all human beings who start religions and make claims that they were abducted by aliens, and that's how one version of Islam was born in America.

What the folklorist has on their side is the fact that Passport to Magonia still makes a lot of sense, and even Clark agrees, and Cutchin has really magnified the point, that there is a folkloric continuity that currently takes the shape of aliens from outer space, as did the little people once upon a time, abducting us and taking us away to their magical realms.

There's something slightly tangible there as the phenomena is great at dressing itself in various costumes to suit the times, or witnesses simply can only report and describe experiences based on the cultural front loading and knowledge that they have.

That's why, there's only so much extrapolation we can make based on witness testimony. These are great stories, but we can't take it all on face value. they are simply describing things the best they can. In the 1800's a large object descends down from the sky and lands in a farmer's field. He says a door opened in this large oval and out drove a horseless carriage.

Anyways, I hope I haven't steered too far away from your question, but I am a firm believer in the word 'maybe', like you do Randall. I don't think we can judge intent at all. We still know next to nothing about the phenomena. Where, who, why and what are still all beyond us.

I don't see them conditioning us. I see us conditioning ourselves based on our response to these wonders in the sky. I invoke that title because the phenomena is definitely much older than the 1940's.

I was struck by philosopher, James Madden, during one of his many Plato's cave analogous discussions on the UFO Rabbit Hole podcast where he described the UFO phenomena as just a bit of a finger poking into our reality attached to something that we still can't grasp or begin to know.

 

[Randall]

Because the phenomena is so difficult to define I've long thought an interdisciplinary approach is the way to go.

The "phenomenon" ( as distinct from UFOs per se ) isn't too difficult to define. What's difficult is getting some sort of consensus on it. Probably the most widely accepted approach in serious ufology, is that of CUFOS, and As you suggest, the interdisciplinary approach is certainly the way to go.

The one major consideration that you bring up is whether or not the phenomena have been with us all along, ever since human beings started to walk about on this planet. This implies long-term study or a source that is more terrestrial than extra terrestrial.

Humans have been walking for 6 million years. The rise of ancient Egypt was around 5000 years ago. The Maya's was around 4000 and the Inca's was around 800. So if as @Trajanus suggests, they're all done studying us, because as you both suggest, they're so high tech that studying us should be a really simple short-term task, and now as Trajanus suggests, they're on a "familiarization" phase — what's taking them so long?

We're only left with these choices:

1. They didn't study humans well enough to know that we're an incredibly adaptable species that could have adapted to their presence thousands of years ago, which means that they're not as smart as people think.
   
   
2. We trash the Ancient Aliens Hypothesis and assume that they've only been here since the 1900s
   
   
3. Study has always been their primary activity, and their "familiarization" plan ( if there is one ) is something new on top of it.
   
   
4. There is no "familiarization plan" ( as such ) by the aliens themselves. The "familiarization plan" is ours ( not theirs ) — and we call it "disclosure".

Personally, I think the fourth option makes the most sense. Whatever the case — If there is a plan, I just wish they'd get on with it

 

[Trajanus]

After that, if we assume that the aliens did such good a job that no more study was needed, they'd have determined that our adaptability as a species, would have enabled us humans to adapt to them long before now. So what's the big delay?

As I see it, familiarization had to wait until our species was sufficiently advanced to interpret it correctly. For all its deceptiveness, intended to preclude full acceptance of the ETH, yet, people do generally interpret it that way. This wouldn't have been possible centuries ago because people thought in terms of supernatural not super-technological powers,

Do we just trash the Ancient Aliens Hypothesis and assume that they've only been around since the 1940s? Or what exactly? They just took an extended vacation? Or does it make more sense that they've been studying us all along, and the only reason they've revealed themselves on purpose is to study our reaction to them — for their reasons as opposed to any type of large scale societal conditioning?

Lol, societal conditioning is for their reasons. The aforementioned work implies an alien presence here for at least 2k years. I don't think there was any intervention prior to that--when their plan was initiated--but there was certainly preliminary study and monitoring.
I think they're smart enough to know our reactions--societal and individual--for quite some time now. Data collection may still be necessary for updates on new generations. But studying is basically over. They wouldn't invest so much for so long just for purely academic reasons. They have a very practical longterm goal, made possible by conditioning.

Personally — I get the impression that what we think of them outside the parameters of their mobile lab experiments, really doesn't matter much to most of them,

On the contrary, the whole raisin d'etre of their appearances is to get us to accept certain ideas.

unless it has something to do with why they bother. For example, to discern how much we really know, how much we can be manipulated, and how much of a problem we might be for them if they had to start playing by our rules — which clearly they're not.

I think they're actively intervening based on what they've long known.

 

[Trajanus]

That's why I appreciate detailed researchers who don't make assumptions based on flimsy evidence such as contactee reports and then extrapolate these to prove their thesis.

Many people still dismiss all of UFOlogy as based on flimsy evidence. I don't think it's wise to dismiss an entire aspect of the phenomenon whether it's crop circles, abductions or contactees.

Donovan's convictions regarding the political belief systems and structures of a singular alien race, that has a long term project management approach to us earthlings based on a single alien mind that is controlling the whole show, is just not anything close to provable.

As far as laymen know but the record of the phenomenon provides evidence for this. Despite the incredible diversity of appearances, leading some to believe many different aliens or entities, with different goals etc, are visiting us, not one of these supposedly independent entities
has ever revealed himself openly to the public--which certainly suggests a high degree of coherence and discipline despite appearances to the contrary.

He has a concrete belief that he wants to push which makes him no different than Jacobs or people who believe in lizard people controlling all the major governments of the planet.

Na there's no valid comparison. "Lizard people" are anything but credible--except as an alien show or facade--since bona fide reptiles never came close to evolving high intelligence. It's very hard to believe an ectotherm can dominate a planet.

I'll stick to theorists and researchers who use evidence in a more thoughtful hurtful manner and don't put their convictions ahead of UFO witness reports. These reports themselves can often only be taken as an anomalous experience report and not an actual event experience the way Donovan uses contactee confabulations as actual events.

The book is not based just on contactee reports but includes virtually all kinds of reports, and is based on them.

 

[Burnt State]

Personally, I think the fourth option makes the most sense. Whatever the case — If there is a plan, I just wish they'd get on with it

I'm not sure if those are the only four options. If you get Fortran about it then we are someone else's property and it's not familiarization but management that they might be interested in.

I don't think phenomenon is correct as there's certainly more than one thing going on here, and the intersection between all aspects of the paranormal suggests that there's something weirder going on than aliens visiting from outer space. That's just a story one aspect of the phenomena gets dressed up in.

I think aliens from space already pigeon holes UFO's and that causes people to start making assumptions that might not be true at all.

Maybe it's better to come at it from largw descriptive modalities..Thinking about the weirdness that is the paranormal leads us to consider the trickster might be at work. Maybe looking more closely at what our relationship is to these phenomena and how they affect us might be a better place to start.

Another consideration is to look at how unidentified aerial phenomena have changed over time.why are they so elusive and so defined by technologies beyond our own capacity.

If we are to become properly familiar with what's taking place then we need to turn our best minds to the problem and engage in our own very serious long term study.

 

[Burnt State]

Many people still dismiss all of UFOlogy as based on flimsy evidence. I don't think it's wise to dismiss an entire aspect of the phenomenon whether it's crop circles, abductions or contactees.

It's a question of how useful is the information that comes from these aspects. Is there any evidence there that is truly useful? All three of those areas are the ones we know to be hoaxed the most.

Claims of abduction rarely have any real physical proof attached to them leaving most abductee reports as experiential and not evidentiary. I'm not saying throw them all out, because some abductee reports are very credible, but those rare cases are so diverse that there's not a lot to draw on outside of medical experimentation or positioning humanity as animals to be bagged and tagged. In some of those attempted abduction reports that do have real physical evidence the aliens appear to be utterly incompetent which makes no sense at all.

Contactees offer very little credibility historically. Too often they are obvious inventions and once they start changing their story over time they become more and more difficult to be of any use. I would include Betty Hil, Whitley Strieber and even Charles Hickson in that camp.

As for crop circles what can be said? Saucer nests as potential landing sites are definitely of scientific interest, but all those fancy patterns that those dudes made together are useless.

Back in the 90's I wasted a lot of hours arguing with the major UFO crop circle proponents and they were unable to convince me of anything at all. None of their blown nodes or crystallized soil were born out to be of any use and certainly didn't strengthen ETH claims.

 

[JamesT]

I’ve also been interested in the subject since the 70’s in every respect and after much consideration tend to agree with you. I think it’s more to do with “us” than “them”. But in any event it’s always been a very interesting hobby. I must say that the last time I got really excited in the subject was in the initial & early days of The Paracast - I thought that David Biedny and Gene made the perfect team and the guests in those days were the last of the ufo pioneers and a few hoaxers who were duly exposed, it was a great time. Now much of the subject (such as it is) has been heavily monetised is almost cult-like - whether of the “personality” or of warring factions fighting it out. The excitement has long gone.

 

[Trajanus]

Claims of abduction rarely have any real physical proof attached to them leaving most abductee reports as experiential and not evidentiary.

Same true of the phenomenon generally.

I'm not saying throw them all out, because some abductee reports are very credible, but those rare cases are so diverse that there's not a lot to draw on outside of medical experimentation or positioning humanity as animals to be bagged and tagged. In some of those attempted abduction reports that do have real physical evidence the aliens appear to be utterly incompetent which makes no sense at all.

Lol, I view abductions are just another aspect of familiarization. I don't buy "medical experimentation," and "tags" are just to add to the credibility of certain cases (hence further familiarization) with a bit of physical evidence. Perhaps most importantly, while some may argue that ETs need more info on humans, or genes (neither of which I believe) it's noteworthy that in all abduction cases, the witnesses are allowed to know that their abductors are nonhuman entities i.e. apparently hailing from another world in the Universe--also suggested by their use of flying craft and other things. Had the goal been just data collection the phenomenon could easily prevent any impression of alien involvement (e.g. disguises, blindfolds etc). Yet they definitely appear to flaunt alien-ness, with the strangest looking beings and craft clearly unlike what we see here.
Now it can be argued that is just to "test our reaction." But is it really necessary to do that with just about every appearance, over the course of 60 years plus??? In addition to probably many centuries or millennia prior to that?
As for apparent alien "incompetence" that is in fact just a show, for reasons other than or in addition to familiarization..

Contactees offer very little credibility historically. Too often they are obvious inventions and once they start changing their story over time they become more and more difficult to be of any use. I would include Betty Hil, Whitley Strieber and even Charles Hickson in that camp.

First I don't think Hickson was a contactee just an abductee. Hill and Strieber were contactees because they experienced communication. Betty Hill indeed made a poor impression at times subsequent to '61. But mental ability declines with age; what matters is her state of mind in '61.

As for crop circles what can be said? Saucer nests as potential landing sites are definitely of scientific interest, but all those fancy patterns that those dudes made together are useless.
Back in the 90's I wasted a lot of hours arguing with the major UFO crop circle proponents and they were unable to convince me of anything at all. None of their blown nodes or crystallized soil were born out to be of any use and certainly didn't strengthen ETH claims.

In a few cases at least a UFO was seen apparently making the patterns. I know this aspect, like others, has critics and issues. But at its core it has the same purpose as other aspects--get people slowly used to the idea of visitors with some evidence for them--albeit hardly conclusive, by design.

 

[Randall]

I'm not sure if those are the only four options. If you get Fortran about it then we are someone else's property and it's not familiarization but management that they might be interested in.

Agreed — I was just keeping in context of the immediate discussion ( study vs. familiarization ). If we want to widen the goalposts, management is a distinct possibility in which case, study and familiarization both might play a role in an even larger picture.

I don't think phenomenon is correct as there's certainly more than one thing going on here, and the intersection between all aspects of the paranormal suggests that there's something weirder going on than aliens visiting from outer space. That's just a story one aspect of the phenomena gets dressed up in.

Again — Like Stanton Friedman said, "I'm not interested in UFOs — I'm interested in Flying Saucers." In ufology, the broader phenomenon are of relevance only to the extent that they need to be adequately ruled-out when trying to deduce what the objects in UFO reports are. For all we know, some phenomena are glitches in The Matrix — and while that is interesting to contemplate separately, they're not the core subject matter.

I think aliens from space already pigeon holes UFO's and that causes people to start making assumptions that might not be true at all.

While that is true, it's also due to a misinterpretation of the word "UFO" by those who make such assumptions. So the fault isn't in interpreting the word UFO as an alien craft, it's in assuming that vague lights off in the distance are UFOs, simply by virtue of them being "unidentified" — when the official definition USAF Reg 200-2 ( 1958 ) of the word UFO excludes those things.

Maybe it's better to come at it from large descriptive modalities..Thinking about the weirdness that is the paranormal leads us to consider the trickster might be at work. Maybe looking more closely at what our relationship is to these phenomena and how they affect us might be a better place to start.

That's up to how the individual wants to frame their investigation. For example, USAF investigators weren't investigating ghost stories — but maybe some of the phenomena associated with ghost stories is really some sort of setup by the aliens to see how we react to such stimuli. I don't know — but to me that makes more sense than invoking mystical beliefs in such things as afterlives.

Another consideration is to look at how unidentified aerial phenomena have changed over time.why are they so elusive and so defined by technologies beyond our own capacity.

Sure, that's an interesting angle. From a ufology perspective, framed as the aliens performing a quasi-clandestine study, it would make sense that they'd disguise themselves more in keeping with the local tech rather than something more advanced. So in the 1800s they appeared as airships instead of winged craft or missiles. As our tech advanced, they started getting caught more often without their stealth tech activated, which resulted in the flying saucer reports of the 1940s.

If we are to become properly familiar with what's taking place then we need to turn our best minds to the problem and engage in our own very serious long term study.

Well — a few of us have thanklessly carried the torch. Personally, I think the alien visitation question has already been answered — it's a reality. We have yet to determine the specifics, and no doubt the PTB know more than we do, but the essential question of their reality is no longer a useful debate.

If we take that much as a given, It's distinctly possible that the aliens also don't know everything, and that part of their being here has to do with their own search for answers — hence my hypothesis that their primary purpose is study.

 

[Burnt State]

I must say that the last time I got really excited in the subject was in the initial & early days of The Paracast - I thought that David Biedny and Gene made the perfect team and the guests in those days were the last of the ufo pioneers and a few hoaxers who were duly exposed, it was a great time.

James, because there appears to be only a handful of people still using this forum I just wanted to double down on your statement here. That's exactly when I tuned back in to the UFO discussion and thought the Paracast was the best thing going for all the same reasons you listed. The focus on the early pioneers was educational and separating signal from noise and ETH debating really piqued my interest all over again.

 

[Burnt State]

Same true of the phenomenon generally.

Which is why only that very small percentage of cases that have actual evidence attached to them are worth a focussed discussion - everything else just belongs to the realms of mythology and folklore. There's no other category to place them in. Evidence based cases contribute to an ETH discussion, but the rest of the stuff can not be extrapolated on.

Cases like Stan Gordon's most oft repeated bigfoot case with the creature grabbing tracer bullets out of the air while carrying a sphere of light and a glowing UFO orb on the ground nearby, that still produced visible light after the cops got there and only the sounds of footsteps in the distance remained, are worth engaging too. They are demonstrating something that is beyond our reality but not necessarily beyond our planet.

I don't buy "medical experimentation

The most common reported event from abductees, including the most believable cases, focus on medical examination/experimentation. That seems pretty intentional.

Yet they definitely appear to flaunt alien-ness, with the strangest looking beings and craft clearly unlike what we see here.
Now it can be argued that is just to "test our reaction." But is it really necessary to do that with just about every appearance, over the course of 60 years plus??? In addition to probably many centuries or millennia prior to that?
As for apparent alien "incompetence" that is in fact just a show, for reasons other than or in addition to familiarization..

There was once a theory that types of aliens were tied to geography with different types appearing in specific parts of the planet. But then Travis Walton threw that notion out the window. And as you mention the variations of alien-ness are exponential. It begs the question: is it us? Or is it them? Or is a combination of our sensory apparatus doing the best it can with an unprecedented source operating on its own principles?

I think alien incompetence is a very interesting feature. As Karla Turner used to say, it's the really weird cases we should pay the most attention to.

Why do you think the aliens appear to be incompetent? Those are fairly rare cases and certainly not enough to build a data set with.

I don't think Hickson was a contactee just an abductee

On an audio cassette I picked up on eBay decades ago with him speaking at a small event somewhere, he certainly was sounding more like a contactee than just an abductee. Unfortunately I have nothing to play that cassette on anymore.

I find repeaters to be a suspicious bunch. I do think that Pascagoula is one of the premier stand out abduction cases, but when it happens twice in a lifetime I start to wonder how real are those subsequent incidents vs, how much of a contactee has the individual become.

In a few cases at least a UFO was seen apparently making the patterns.

I am unaware of any specific cases showing a craft making a pattern any more detailed than a saucer nest with only swirled grain stalks to look at. Maybe you could point those out to me. While I love the patterns in the field and the great wall calendars they make, they are most definitely human artistic creations and point to our response to the phenomena. We have magnified and culturally constructed the ETH alien cultural mythos far more than physical evidence from an external source.

 

[Burnt State]

I was just keeping in context of the immediate discussion ( study vs. familiarization ).

Ok, if I had to play in that specific sandbox with you and Trajanus then I would say that their familiarization program is taking far too long and because of all the mimicry taking place across time I would still end up with the notion that familiarization is not on their list at all. They're just interested in using the disguises of the age so that they can appear to be a part of our reality. And again I would say that probably has more to do with our sensory and cultural systems than intentionality on their parts. We see large airships because that's the only thing that makes sense to a 19th century mind. If there is a message from the UFO it's that don't think of yourselves as too grand humanity; because, there is always a power above you. Sounds like Vallee's control system again doesn't it?

but maybe some of the phenomena associated with ghost stories is really some sort of setup by the aliens to see how we react to such stimuli. I don't know — but to me that makes more sense than invoking mystical beliefs in such things as afterlives

It's Whitley and a few others that are really promoting the notion that UFO's are somehow connected to the human dead.

But let me throw this wrench into the system. There is a very distinct history of individual paranormal phenomena across time: mediumship, ghosts, faeries, cryptozoology, UFO's etc. However, we also see intersections of these phenomena as well as the hitchhiker effect where exposure to one phenomenon results in experiencers and those living with them experiencing other phenomena subsequent to the initial event. Can we really separate one from the other? Are they all part of the same sandbox?

no doubt the PTB know more than we do, but the essential question of their reality is no longer a useful debate.

I doubt the PTB have any more insights than witnesses or groups dedicated to their study. There's no disclosure because no one knows what to disclose. While I agree with you that their reality is not up for debate , the nature of their reality remains in question IMHO. The ETH appears and absurd and non-senwical by design. They have the tech to be invisible, yet they want to be seen, not always by the masses and more often in ways that are more clandestine and about repetition and obfuscation than anything else. Shouldn't the path of familiarization be a more consistent one that expands in a recognizable trajectory across time? Shouldn't we also acknowledge that the witness is more responsible for whatever suspicions we have of the source than the source itself?

If we take that much as a given, It's distinctly possible that the aliens also don't know everything, and that part of their being here has to do with their own search for answers — hence my hypothesis that their primary purpose is study

Ok, if aliens really are visiting us from outer space then Stanton's notion of our planet being a PhD study zone makes sense, hence the repetition of soil samples and bagging and tagging us. . What doesn't make sense is why bother showing themselves? If it's about familiarization then it's about Charles Fort and we are in fact someone else's property and they like to mess with us because they can , because it suits them, because they are like gods compared to us. I would also highlight that they are expecting us to become familiar with paradox for they are both the divine space brother, evil torturer and incompetent robot/entity all at the same time.

 

[Trajanus]

Which is why only that very small percentage of cases that have actual evidence attached to them are worth a focussed discussion - everything else just belongs to the realms of mythology and folklore. There's no other category to place them in. Evidence based cases contribute to an ETH discussion, but the rest of the stuff can not be extrapolated on.

Na there are many reports from highly credible witnesses. Testimony may not be the best evidence but it shouldn't be just dismissed.

Cases like Stan Gordon's most oft repeated bigfoot case with the creature grabbing tracer bullets out of the air while carrying a sphere of light and a glowing UFO orb on the ground nearby, that still produced visible light after the cops got there and only the sounds of footsteps in the distance remained, are worth engaging too. They are demonstrating something that is beyond our reality but not necessarily beyond our planet.

Highly likely beyond our planet as "bigfoot," in such a case, isn't a natural, earthly thing.

The most common reported event from abductees, including the most believable cases, focus on medical examination/experimentation. That seems pretty intentional.

Of course the aliens want us to think they're here just for data collection (hence the most believable cases depict them doing that) . But, as I wrote before, they could easily do this while completely concealing their nature. Instead we have myriad descriptions of strange looking abductors. That has to be intentional and designed to further the slow process of familiarization. In addition, much of the stuff they collect--biological and nonbiological--is so simple and ordinary it's very hard to believe they weren't already familiar with it, long ago. And, as the Hill case and others show, alien questions are so absurd the whole "research" and "examination" business must be phony in that they couldn't be as clueless as they seem.
Btw as for "space brother" that was meant to be discredited. Generally aliens want to appear either aloof or dangerous, as they familiarize.

But then Travis Walton threw that notion out the window. And as you mention the variations of alien-ness are exponential. It begs the question: is it us? Or is it them? Or is a combination of our sensory apparatus doing the best it can with an unprecedented source operating on its own principles?

Lol not the most parsimonious view. Physical evidence also douses some cold water on it.

Why do you think the aliens appear to be incompetent? Those are fairly rare cases and certainly not enough to build a data set with.

I've seen a number of them, like some alien with four arms describe himself as a "miscreation" on some planet.

On an audio cassette I picked up on eBay decades ago with him speaking at a small event somewhere, he certainly was sounding more like a contactee than just an abductee. Unfortunately I have nothing to play that cassette on anymore.

I find repeaters to be a suspicious bunch. I do think that Pascagoula is one of the premier stand out abduction cases, but when it happens twice in a lifetime I start to wonder how real are those subsequent incidents vs, how much of a contactee has the individual become.

There have been a number of individuals who've had encounters over the years. And the phenomenon as I've said, wants to keep us somewhat confused.

I am unaware of any specific cases showing a craft making a pattern any more detailed than a saucer nest with only swirled grain stalks to look at. Maybe you could point those out to me.

One was by a dutch kid, the other in Britain IIRC. I think the aforementioned work includes them.

While I love the patterns in the field and the great wall calendars they make, they are most definitely human artistic creations

Who exactly has been making them, exactly how and why? I don't doubt some are hoaxes but there are hoaxes in every field.

 

[Burnt State]

Na there are many reports from highly credible witnesses. Testimony may not be the best evidence but it shouldn't be just dismissed.

In order to get a purchase on the discussion I prefer to use the best of research that has come before us. The dividing line between experiential and event anomalies are made quite clear by Clark. One we can use to scratch our heads with and add it to a compendium of strange tales, and the other we can actually analyse.

Highly likely beyond our planet as "bigfoot," in such a case, isn't a natural, earthly thing.

That's why it's all called paranormal - it runs parallel to our reality. It doesn't mean it's from outer space, and definitely does not negate earthbound origins.

Generally aliens want to appear either aloof or dangerous, as they familiarize.

That also runs contrary to what witnesses say. You can't accept all credible witness testimony as valid but then dismiss the many who speak of kindness and love and "look after your planet" as the message and nature of the "aliens".

One was by a dutch kid, the other in Britain IIRC. I think the aforementioned work includes them.

Ok so these are two little known witness events, nothing with any concrete proof.

Who exactly has been making them, exactly how and why? I don't doubt some are hoaxes but there are hoaxes in every field.

Doug and Dave, the circle makers, are an extremely well known duo who claimed responsibility for the majority of the first big wave of circle patterns. It's pretty simple stuff and doesn't require a lot of accuracy when making what appears to be exquisite designs in the field. Grains are a very forgiving medium to work with. Since then, they've become advertisements and circle makers now work for earth bound corporate entities.

I hold to a position of non-belief, so that I can remain open to possibilities in this discussion. That can never find common ground with believers in aliens from outer space. Imho there have been some interesting observations and theories from McDonald, Hynek, Michel, Vallee, Clark, the demonologist Keel, Randle and Swords. Those are still good people to read.

As a final comment for me on this discussion, since we are both dug in and spinning our wheels with each other, Hynek, at the end of his days suspected that elementals were responsible for the UFO conundrum. First he started as being critical of the whole thing as a mouthpiece for the military, and then saw, through the lens of science with Vallee at his side, that in fact there was a genuine mystery present, to arriving at the conclusion that earth bound spirits, the equivalent of faeries, were behind it all. After a lifetime of seeking what a strange place for a man of science to end upon.

 

[Tyger]

Wow, there's been a lot of discussion on this thread in the week or two since I was here. Well done! I haven't been able to read it all but I thought you guys might find this prediction made on the Glenn Beck Show last week interesting.

The relevant prediction starts at 32:33 - "at least one elected official in the world next year (2026) will claim to have communicated one-on-one with non-human intelligence" - he goes on to say that the "psyop activity" is ramping up and gives examples -

.

 

[Tyger]

I had said I'd start a new thread - but its not happened. Just to say, I've always been influenced by Elon Musk's statements about the topic - and he says he hasn't seen any evidence of aliens. And if anyone would know, he would.

 

[Burnt State]

"at least one elected official in the world next year (2026)

Florida GOP candidate: I was abducted by aliens but that doesn’t define me