A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[Randall]

1) "map out the other possibilities." How exactly?

It's surprisingly easy to map out the possibilities in an orderly fashion by beginning with what one is searching for. Let's use some other examples to illustrate the point: Black Holes. They were theoretical, but because they were well defined and scientifically possible, when astronomers went looking for them they could eliminate a huge array of possibilities and narrow down their search to specific types of astronomical phenomena. The same approach is used in particle physics. Physicists hypothesize the existence of a particular well defined particle and then go looking for it amid all the other possibilities.

We use this approach in everyday life too. Most of us have gone shopping and when we do, we often have some idea what we're shopping for. Sometimes the store doesn't have what we want. Sometimes the product doesn't even exist. But by having a good idea about what it is we're trying to find, we can narrow our search to particular departments, then particular aisles, and finally particular sections in each aisle. A library is pretty much organized the same way, and so are most better non-fiction books, particularly those with an Index. The subject of ufology deserves no less better organization, so what better way to begin than by establishing exactly what we mean by the subject's core subject matter?

It would seem that by applying an identity to that which has not been objectively identified, and furthermore using that which is ambiguous as an objective base on which to springboard multiple tangential hypothesis, we may only really be agreeing with what has already been an historic tail chasing contest.

You bring up what Jacques Vallée called the most "treacherous" word in ufology with respect to UFOs, the word "unidentified". The fact is that the meaning of the word UFO is not the same as the literal interpretation of the words that make up the acronym. However it's fairly common for those unfamiliar with the subject matter to make incorrect statements based on that assumption. News people are particularly bad for doing so, but even those with an interest in the subject sometimes get hung-up on it.

So we're not, "applying an identity to that which has not been objectively identified". We're only giving the core subject matter a clear definition. That is why not all UFO reports turn out to be reports of UFOs, just like not all the people in missing people reports turn out to be actually missing. In both cases we have a good idea about what it is, within the context of each report, that we're looking for. We don't get an amber alert and go out looking for a missing child, but find a missing cat and then claim we've found the missing child, and then go on to debate that what we really meant by an amber alert, and that it could mean almost anything including missing cats.

But if we happen to find a missing cat or something else of interest, then great! Just like if when searching for an alien craft at the location of a UFO report, we find something else of interest instead. If we do, then we can say we didn't find a UFO, but we did find the remains of a re-entered satellite, or something else, in which case we could then say: "The object in the UFO report turned out to be the remains of a re-entered satellite." However it would not be accurate to say: "The UFO was the remains of a re-entered satellite." because the satellite was always a satellite. It was never a UFO.

Also, hardly a "tail chasing contest", and the observations in some UFO reports are anything but ambiguous. For example in Ruppelt's classic, The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects, he cites a radar/visual incident where a USAF pilot spots a UFO, gives chase, and opens fire on it. It happened during daylight, he was within about 1000 yards of the object, and the pilot's description is clearly that of some kind of disk shaped craft:

Ruppelt: "Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely round and flat -- saucer-shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole."
​

This was only one pilot's report among others that Ruppelt alludes to involving USAF pilots."

Ruppelt: "The colonel believed in UFO's because he had a lot of faith in his pilots -- and they had chased UFO's in their F-86's. He had seen UFO's on the scopes of his radar sets, and he knew radar."​

In addition to the above, the numerous other reports that exist which describe what seem to be craft, in some cases to the point of them being touched or boarded provides overwhelming objective evidence for what is meant by the word UFO. That is what we're discussing here. I'm not making any claim that there is scientifically valid material evidence sufficient enough to prove to every skeptic on the planet that UFOs are real.

What you're proposing is where we have been right along with respect to investigations. We've been getting nowhere for the last 75 years using this same contextually derived hypothetical ideal or meme.

There are plenty of valid reasons based on the content of many UFO experiences to consider the core phenomena of the subject matter to be alien craft, and by extension alien visitation. If the craft were not alien in nature, then logically we'd know more about them. We don't. Therefore until they are explained, the word "alien" fits the phenomena better than any other word I can think of. It's not simply an idea somebody dreamed up for a comic book. Plus on a cultural level, it's obvious that we've made huge progress in accepting the idea of alien visitation, and in the subject of ufology, the cultural facet is huge. So progress has been made in some ways and not in others.

2) Again, IMO this is streamlining a possible falsehood for the sake of appearances. Certainly this is not how science works.

I gave a couple of examples above that indicate that science and other forms of investigation actually do apply similar principles of critical thinking in their search for what they are trying to find. But apart from that, let's not get ufology confused with science. Ufology isn't science and it never will become a science unto itself. That is because the cultural facet is so large that it cannot be ignored, and within that facet alone are several sub-topics that are outside the scope of the scientific method. That isn't to say that science shouldn't be applied when and where possible, preferably at arms-length to the field. It should be.

In order for science to work you have to have some form of an objectively determined parallel apart from the fantastic.

The "fantastic" is a subjective term. Science should be objective. A couple of centuries ago if you claimed we'd illuminate our homes with light from something that doesn't burn or get hot, many people would think it fantastic. Now I use LED bulbs, and now I can touch my lamp without burning my hand. So in order for science to work, you need a clear understanding of what you're trying to achieve.

Some element or aspect of nature apart from the human sociologically evolved condition on which to build and pattern your model. I do not doubt the reality of an external agency as being responsible for the UFO phenomenon, but how precisely can we achieve some real element of control when such a hypothetical agency has demonstrated time and time again that *it* is in control, fully and completely, as long as we regard it as being separate from the human condition?

Good point. Any ideas?

It is critical to understand that just because you link it, or rather the natural perceived force achieved via it's own condition in tandem with our own, that you're not discounting it's possible independent volition. Nor are you attributing the phenomenon's potential to one in which the experiential human agency involved bares some singular responsibility for the phenomenon. All we can hope to achieve is enough control to readily demonstrate and better understand the potential capacity within ourselves to enter into such experiential states of awareness. The state of awareness wherein natural co-environmental affinity for matters relevant to the Fortean nature of the UFO phenomenon can by virtue of real science be identified and studied. Who knows what potentials lay and wait therein.

Valid points. It is possible that one might "attribute the phenomenon's potential to one in which the experiential human agency involved bares some singular responsibility for the phenomenon." provided that we think of the "phenomenon" as the scope of subject matter within UFO reports. Then that could certainly be a possibility because the "phenomenon" described in some reports may not be UFOs. It could be something else.

3) ET is not a fair assumption any more than Aliens, Angels, Trolls, Fairies, Elves, Demons, or Gods are.

The point above cannot be reasonably substantiated. Life on other worlds and interstellar travel are scientifically possible. The rest of your examples are based on pure myth and folklore.

When getting caught up in origins, the notion of "environment" becomes critical. I tell you as solemnly as anything I have ever conveyed, it can only reign logical if as much is natural. Therefore it is critical to understand that it is us that exists in the midst of their environment, not the other way around. Humanity has simply become too accustomed to viewing itself as being supreme. Relevant to a food chain? Possibly. Relevant to the whole of nature? Hardly.

Your point? Perhaps some elaboration on this would help.

4). Let me leave you with what is one of the greatest, wisest, and assuredly most honest assessments of the real phenomenal situation ever conveyed.

OK

As penned and conveyed by Hynek himself on November 27, 1978 with respect to "high strangeness" : "The UFO phenomenon, as studied by my colleagues and myself, bespeaks the action of some form of intelligence... but whence this intelligence springs, whether it is truly extra-terrestrial, or bespeaks a higher reality not yet recognized by science, or even if it be in some way or another a strange psychic manifestation of our own intelligence, is much the question."

Again, Hynek also uses the work "craft" in his description of what he means by a highly strange event, and we also have the word "phenomena" mixed into the quote, which alludes to the content of some UFO report, and again I have no argument with the idea that the "phenomenon" described in some UFO reports is something other than UFOs.

This @ufology *is* the gridlocked nature of the most discerning of minds which discounts nothing, yet considers everything carefully. Study of the original point of perceptual displacement, and not historic contextually derived interpretations, may gateway an unfolding whose potential is yet to be imagined. Hynek was not satisfied with "aliens in craft". Why in the name of good science should we?

By all means, we should all be free to consider and explore all explanations for the phenomena that may bear fruit, and anyone who feels it's something other than a UFO should also explore it from the perspective of the particular field of study or interest that they think best suits their theory. Biblical scholars study it from a religious perspective, Jung looked at it from a collective consciousness perspective, mythology majors look at from that perspective, skeptics look at it their way, scientists look at it their way. The beauty of ufology for me is that it includes all of these other perspectives within various facets of the field as a whole, but all considered through an objective lens, and I highly encourage any constructive investigation into the mystery of the phenomenon, even if the phenomenon in some cases turns out to be something other than UFOs. We'd still be learning something.

The human condition's witness in process, to matters of UFO relevant phenomenal high strangeness, is IMO, key to a real first hand embryonic understanding of a far greater environmental expanse than we have ever been aware of in the history of human existence. This is very motivating to myself because within as much we may eventually achieve actuated potentials of an exploratory nature beyond any and all physicalism. A true paradigmatic shift, and not just another new iPhone.

It's great to be motivated by ideas of one form or another, and I hope your search is fruitful. Personally, I'm a physicalist ( not to be confused with being a materialist ). So I think that everything that exists, including the nature of consciousness and all the rest that goes along with it, has a physical component, be they waves or particles or fields or whatever the case may be.

I'm this way because it seems to hold the most promise for being true, and ultimately, it's the truth of things that I'm after. So all I need is sufficient reason to take on another perspective, and I'm gald to be shown the way if it will advance my search beyond where I am now. That just hasn't happened yet with respect to my present worldview, and it's not for lack of looking or fairly considering other people's views.

 

[technomage]

I think classifying UFO phenomena as alien craft makes a lot of sense to me because we can still take a large number of experiences and classify them under the concept of alien craft without having to have even a partial understanding of the phenomena. Just like seeing ghosts would be a classification of another type of phenomena we don't really understand, so is UFOlogy. I think Ruppelt's definition of unidentified flying objects pretty much implied alien craft (in his case probably ET craft) at least while they were still unidentified.

In the realm of science, we would take phenomena not well understood and do this classification to help identify similarities and differences from other phenomena. It doesn't mean we intend to jump to gun and come up with an actual theory or explanation.

 

[Randall]

I think classifying UFO phenomena as alien craft makes a lot of sense to me because we can still take a large number of experiences and classify them under the concept of alien craft without having to have even a partial understanding of the phenomena. Just like seeing ghosts would be a classification of another type of phenomena we don't really understand, so is UFOlogy. I think Ruppelt's definition of unidentified flying objects pretty much implied alien craft (in his case probably ET craft) at least while they were still unidentified.

In the realm of science, we would take phenomena not well understood and do this classification to help identify similarities and differences from other phenomena. It doesn't mean we intend to jump to gun and come up with an actual theory or explanation.

Exactly. Recognizing what we mean by the word UFO is entirely different than saying that the phenomena in every unexplained UFO report is a actually a UFO. That's why we also recognize NARCAP's term UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ) as valuable for investigations that don't focus specifically on UFOs. In ufology however, the core subject matter is UFOs, so naturally, UFOs are what the focus is on there, and that is more interesting and sensible to me than assuming that disks that are picked up on radar and outrun military interceptors could be some as of yet unknown species of bird or some undocumented delusion or other such nonsense.

All the talk above aside, the bottom line is that alien visitation is real, and it's not my job to prove it to every skeptic on the planet. That has become a huge waste of time. IMO we should stop pretending we don't know UFOs are real and stop trying to convince other people that they don't know what they saw, and get on with the task of figuring out where these craft come from, how they work, and why they're here. If along the way some reports turn out to be something other than UFOs, then fine, put them in the misidentification stack, or the hoax stack, or whatever else fits, and move along to the next case.

 

[Trajanus]

All the talk above aside, the bottom line is that alien visitation is real

Right.

IMO we should stop pretending we don't know UFOs are real and stop trying to convince other people that they don't know what they saw, and get on with the task of figuring out where these craft come from, how they work, and why they're here.

I don't know if that'll ever be achieved as long as there's official secrecy. The government may have the answers already, or at least far better means of ascertaining them.

 

[boomerang]

Ufology isn't science and it never will become a science unto itself. That is because the cultural facet is so large that it cannot be ignored, and within that facet alone are several sub-topics that are outside the scope of the scientific method. That isn't to say that science shouldn't be applied when and where possible, preferably at arms-length to the field.

That's a little hazy. Would you please "unpack" it for us ?

 

[William Strathmann]

Personally, I think even the word "craft" may assume more than can be justified, at least as this word derives from the idea of sea craft, aircraft and spacecraft, since each of these craft is generally assumed to transport occupants. IMHO ufo phenomena goes beyond the idea of any sort of alien Apollo program. Moreover, it is not advised to make more of radar contacts than that of the detection of either a reflective object (not necessarily metallic) or else some source of emf on the freqency of the radar. That said, I accept the accuracy of the reported Teheran UFO encounter with US-made F-4 Phantoms forty years ago. As an F-4 radar tech myself in the '70's, there is high certainty in my mind that the aircrew's radar lockon of an object that appeared on the scope as about the size of a 707 tanker actually was of some sort of discrete object. Intelligently operated? It certainly appears so. But saying it was a "craft" (with the assumption that occupants are on board), while possible, goes beyond what I think the existing evidence can justify.

If humans are skilled at tricksterish deception, then one should not rule out the possibility of similar behavior by WTs (Whatever...Terrestrials) who coquettishly let themselves be seen clearly, but who follow their performance with hasty retreat. Inflatable allied tank replicas fooled the Wehrmacht into thinking they were being attacked by real tanks. Surely these "balloons" were real objects, but without a close inspection there was no way to tell that it was not a real tank. So, from a distance, they were thought to be real tanks. WTs, who let themselves be sighted visually and on radar, obviously would not be using inflatable rubber . . .

So, IMHO, at the present state of affairs, "WT objects" works better "alien craft."

 

[Randall]

Personally, I think even the word "craft" may assume more than can be justified, at least as this word derives from the idea of sea craft, aircraft and spacecraft, since each of these craft is generally assumed to transport occupants. IMHO ufo phenomena goes beyond the idea of any sort of alien Apollo program. Moreover, it is not advised to make more of radar contacts than that of the detection of either a reflective object (not necessarily metallic) or else some source of emf on the freqency of the radar. That said, I accept the accuracy of the reported Teheran UFO encounter with US-made F-4 Phantoms forty years ago. As an F-4 radar tech myself in the '70's, there is high certainty in my mind that the aircrew's radar lockon of a object that appeared on the scope as about the size of a 707 tanker actually was of some sort of discrete object. Intelligently operated? It certainly appears so. But saying it was a "craft" (with the assumption that occupants are on board), while possible, goes beyond what I think the existing evidence can justify.

Your point is well taken that simply because an alien craft is spotted, it shouldn't be assumed that it carries occupants. Perhaps in some cases the craft themselves are intelligent enough to be considered life forms in and of themselves. But either way, the word "craft" is flexible enough to cover these possibilities.

If humans are skilled at tricksterish deception, then one should not rule out the possibility of similar behavior by WTs (Whatever...Terrestrials) who coquettishly let themselves be seen clearly, but who follow their performance with hasty retreat. Inflatable allied tank replicas fooled the Wehrmacht into thinking they were being attacked by real tanks. Surely these "balloons" were real objects, but without a close inspection there was no way to tell that it was not a real tank. So, from a distance, they were thought to be real tanks. WTs, who let themselves be sighted visually and on radar, obviously would not be using inflatable rubber . . . So, IMHO, at the present state of affairs, "WT objects" works better "alien craft."

Point also taken. But at the same time there are also real tanks, so if we go with the analogy, there are probably also real UFOs, and to differentiate between real UFOS and fake ones, it's not likely that a UFO that's picked up on radar and subsequently outruns an Air Force jet travelling at mach 1 is likely to be a balloon or prop. But I do fully endorse the idea that some UFOs do have some sort of active camouflage that can make them appear to be other types of objects, or even blend in with the environment.

The descriptor "WTOs" is creative and I like the spirit of it, but like other attempts to come up with a better name, it suffers from a lack of usage, and is also IMO too vague. The word UFO is ubiquitous and understood by virtually anyone with even the slightest exposure to the subject to imply some sort of alien craft, typically a flying saucer, which is exactly the core subject matter in ufology, the field of interest associated with UFOs. In my own hunt for an alternative to the word UFO, I eventually had to face this fact, and it has proven to be the best course of action for me so far. But if you don't mind, I might just steal your catch phrase to use in casual conversation !

 

[Randall]

That's a little hazy. Would you please "unpack" it for us ?

Sure. When I say that ufology isn't science and it never will become a science unto itself because the cultural facet is so large that it cannot be ignored, and within that facet alone are several sub-topics that are outside the scope of the scientific method, it's because that statement is true, and I'd be happy to unpack it, at least enough to clarify, but I don't want to give the whole book away just yet :

If we look at ufology the same way we do other subjects and then organize it in a similar fashion, what we find is that under the general heading of Ufology, there are two main categories. The first and largest is Ufology Studies, which includes a look at the various facets of ufology, primarily from a historical and cultural perspective. This includes most of the books you'll find on the subject, which are not scientific treatises and are mass marketed to the general public for those with an interest in the subject.

It also includes a look at the cultural aspects, which include UFO conferences, fairs, music, art, and sci-fi, including fictional books and films. These aspects are such a huge part of ufology that they simply cannot be ignored, and at the same time, these activities fall outside the prevue of the scientific method for study of the core phenomena because they involve a high degree of subjective and creative expression and are in numerous instances admittedly works of fiction or fantasy ( e.g. the film Close Encounters ).

The other category across from Ufology Studies is UFO Investigation, which is the collection of case reports, the on-scene investigation and/or analysis of such reports. This is much more hard-core and it is where it may be possible to apply the scientific method, but it is also not the largest facet of the field as a whole. It is very specialized, and hypothetically, when science can be applied to an investigation, it is a science such as astronomy ( was it Venus? ) or meteorology ( was it a lenticular cloud? ) or chemistry ( what is that metal anyway? ).

So there's no need for ufology itself to try to compete with established scientific disciplines. Rather, it makes more sense to take on a collaborative approach and make use of established credentialed scientists who can do an analysis of the evidence at arms-length from the field in order to help ensure a non-biased study. So while real science certainly can be applied to the field in certain situations, the field as a whole is simply too wide to apply the scientific method to every important aspect. Therefore ufology as a field does not meet the narrow criteria needed to be considered a science unto itself. But this is also not a bad thing.

Ufology still has the capacity to become an academic field of study. There are other academic fields of study that aren't scientific ( in the strictest sense ), including Literature, Fine Art, History, and others and given the facts regarding the subject matter and content of ufology, academic ( rather than scientific ) acceptance is where the focus should be. Ufology may be too wide a field for the scientific method to be applied to every facet, but it certainly all can be approached from a dispassionate objective perspective that includes scientific findings and study where and when it is possible and appropriate.

By embracing this approach we also have the added benefit of removing it completely from the claims of skeptics who try to label ufology a pseudoscience, because by definition, pseudoscience must present itself or claim itself to be science but fail to meet the standards of accepted scientific methods and practice. By not claiming to be a science, and going a step further by stating that ufology is not a science, ufology removes itself entirely from any valid skeptical claim that it is a pseudoscience. Then by seeking academic status through the application of academic standards ( as opposed to scientific standards ), it can still gain credibility and acceptance.

Further info can be found by clicking the links below in my signature line.

 

[Ron Away]

It's around 15 years ago that I saw a UFO.At that time my interest in this subject began and ended with watching Independence Day.I have no idea if this object came from another galaxy or another dimension.Wether it was manned or remotely controlled.I do believe if it came from earth then man's hidden technology is advanced beyond belief.Perhaps there is a breakaway society that is living in the North Pole or on the dark side of the moon,none of us know.What I do know is that what I saw was real,was solid,was flying and was definitely not a figment of my imagination or some kind of wish fulfilment.

 

[Randall]

It's around 15 years ago that I saw a UFO.At that time my interest in this subject began and ended with watching Independence Day.I have no idea if this object came from another galaxy or another dimension.Wether it was manned or remotely controlled.I do believe if it came from earth then man's hidden technology is advanced beyond belief.Perhaps there is a breakaway society that is living in the North Pole or on the dark side of the moon,none of us know.What I do know is that what I saw was real,was solid,was flying and was definitely not a figment of my imagination or some kind of wish fulfilment.

You're not alone. Of that I'm convinced. We may not be able to prove beyond any doubt that everyone else's experiences are true, but we're damned well pretty sure about our own, and the way I figure it, I can't be the only one out there who's telling the truth, so I need a good reason to dismiss the claims of others. That's also why I dedicate my involvement in the field to all the genuine witnesses who know from their own firsthand experiences that alien visitation is real. Some people know. It's just that simple, and all the skeptics and debunkers in the world aren't going to change that.

 

[Ron Away]

You're not alone. Of that I'm convinced. We may not be able to prove beyond any doubt that everyone else's experiences are true, but we're damned well pretty sure about our own, and the way I figure it, I can't be the only one out there who's telling the truth, so I need a good reason to dismiss the claims of others. That's also why I dedicate my involvement in the field to all the genuine witnesses who know from their own firsthand experiences that alien visitation is real. Some people know. It's just that simple, and all the skeptics and debunkers in the world aren't going to change that.

Exactly,I've never seen a ghost but I won't completely rule out the possibility because I've not seen one or denigrate others who have.

 

[Jeff Davis]

It's surprisingly easy to map out the possibilities in an orderly fashion by beginning with what one is searching for. Let's use some other examples to illustrate the point: Black Holes. They were theoretical, but because they were well defined and scientifically possible, when astronomers went looking for them they could eliminate a huge array of possibilities and narrow down their search to specific types of astronomical phenomena. The same approach is used in particle physics. Physicists hypothesize the existence of a particular well defined particle and then go looking for it amid all the other possibilities.

We use this approach in everyday life too. Most of us have gone shopping and when we do, we often have some idea what we're shopping for. Sometimes the store doesn't have what we want. Sometimes the product doesn't even exist. But by having a good idea about what it is we're trying to find, we can narrow our search to particular departments, then particular aisles, and finally particular sections in each aisle. A library is pretty much organized the same way, and so are most better non-fiction books, particularly those with an Index. The subject of ufology deserves no less better organization, so what better way to begin than by establishing exactly what we mean by the subject's core subject matter?



You bring up what Jacques Vallée called the most "treacherous" word in ufology with respect to UFOs, the word "unidentified". The fact is that the meaning of the word UFO is not the same as the literal interpretation of the words that make up the acronym. However it's fairly common for those unfamiliar with the subject matter to make incorrect statements based on that assumption. News people are particularly bad for doing so, but even those with an interest in the subject sometimes get hung-up on it.

So we're not, "applying an identity to that which has not been objectively identified". We're only giving the core subject matter a clear definition. That is why not all UFO reports turn out to be reports of UFOs, just like not all the people in missing people reports turn out to be actually missing. In both cases we have a good idea about what it is, within the context of each report, that we're looking for. We don't get an amber alert and go out looking for a missing child, but find a missing cat and then claim we've found the missing child, and then go on to debate that what we really meant by an amber alert, and that it could mean almost anything including missing cats.

But if we happen to find a missing cat or something else of interest, then great! Just like if when searching for an alien craft at the location of a UFO report, we find something else of interest instead. If we do, then we can say we didn't find a UFO, but we did find the remains of a re-entered satellite, or something else, in which case we could then say: "The object in the UFO report turned out to be the remains of a re-entered satellite." However it would not be accurate to say: "The UFO was the remains of a re-entered satellite." because the satellite was always a satellite. It was never a UFO.

Also, hardly a "tail chasing contest", and the observations in some UFO reports are anything but ambiguous. For example in Ruppelt's classic, The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects, he cites a radar/visual incident where a USAF pilot spots a UFO, gives chase, and opens fire on it. It happened during daylight, he was within about 1000 yards of the object, and the pilot's description is clearly that of some kind of disk shaped craft:

Ruppelt: "Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely round and flat -- saucer-shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole."
​

This was only one pilot's report among others that Ruppelt alludes to involving USAF pilots."

Ruppelt: "The colonel believed in UFO's because he had a lot of faith in his pilots -- and they had chased UFO's in their F-86's. He had seen UFO's on the scopes of his radar sets, and he knew radar."​

In addition to the above, the numerous other reports that exist which describe what seem to be craft, in some cases to the point of them being touched or boarded provides overwhelming objective evidence for what is meant by the word UFO. That is what we're discussing here. I'm not making any claim that there is scientifically valid material evidence sufficient enough to prove to every skeptic on the planet that UFOs are real.



There are plenty of valid reasons based on the content of many UFO experiences to consider the core phenomena of the subject matter to be alien craft, and by extension alien visitation. If the craft were not alien in nature, then logically we'd know more about them. We don't. Therefore until they are explained, the word "alien" fits the phenomena better than any other word I can think of. It's not simply an idea somebody dreamed up for a comic book. Plus on a cultural level, it's obvious that we've made huge progress in accepting the idea of alien visitation, and in the subject of ufology, the cultural facet is huge. So progress has been made in some ways and not in others.



I gave a couple of examples above that indicate that science and other forms of investigation actually do apply similar principles of critical thinking in their search for what they are trying to find. But apart from that, let's not get ufology confused with science. Ufology isn't science and it never will become a science unto itself. That is because the cultural facet is so large that it cannot be ignored, and within that facet alone are several sub-topics that are outside the scope of the scientific method. That isn't to say that science shouldn't be applied when and where possible, preferably at arms-length to the field. It should be.


The "fantastic" is a subjective term. Science should be objective. A couple of centuries ago if you claimed we'd illuminate our homes with light from something that doesn't burn or get hot, many people would think it fantastic. Now I use LED bulbs, and now I can touch my lamp without burning my hand. So in order for science to work, you need a clear understanding of what you're trying to achieve.


Good point. Any ideas?



Valid points. It is possible that one might "attribute the phenomenon's potential to one in which the experiential human agency involved bares some singular responsibility for the phenomenon." provided that we think of the "phenomenon" as the scope of subject matter within UFO reports. Then that could certainly be a possibility because the "phenomenon" described in some reports may not be UFOs. It could be something else.


The point above cannot be reasonably substantiated. Life on other worlds and interstellar travel are scientifically possible. The rest of your examples are based on pure myth and folklore.


Your point? Perhaps some elaboration on this would help.

OK


Again, Hynek also uses the work "craft" in his description of what he means by a highly strange event, and we also have the word "phenomena" mixed into the quote, which alludes to the content of some UFO report, and again I have no argument with the idea that the "phenomenon" described in some UFO reports is something other than UFOs.



By all means, we should all be free to consider and explore all explanations for the phenomena that may bear fruit, and anyone who feels it's something other than a UFO should also explore it from the perspective of the particular field of study or interest that they think best suits their theory. Biblical scholars study it from a religious perspective, Jung looked at it from a collective consciousness perspective, mythology majors look at from that perspective, skeptics look at it their way, scientists look at it their way. The beauty of ufology for me is that it includes all of these other perspectives within various facets of the field as a whole, but all considered through an objective lens, and I highly encourage any constructive investigation into the mystery of the phenomenon, even if the phenomenon in some cases turns out to be something other than UFOs. We'd still be learning something.



It's great to be motivated by ideas of one form or another, and I hope your search is fruitful. Personally, I'm a physicalist ( not to be confused with being a materialist ). So I think that everything that exists, including the nature of consciousness and all the rest that goes along with it, has a physical component, be they waves or particles or fields or whatever the case may be.

I'm this way because it seems to hold the most promise for being true, and ultimately, it's the truth of things that I'm after. So all I need is sufficient reason to take on another perspective, and I'm gald to be shown the way if it will advance my search beyond where I am now. That just hasn't happened yet with respect to my present worldview, and it's not for lack of looking or fairly considering other people's views.

@ufology,
My friend, it seems as though you've missed the point here completely. My point is that choosing to consider UFOs as being first and foremost "alien craft" relegates your investigation of the phenomenon to a system of belief rather than to one of real objective study. A system of belief that I am truly surprised that you would attempt to uphold by comparing your investigative methodologies with that of knowing ahead of time what you are shopping for at Walmart or wherever. Whenever dealing with an unknown, which unquestionably in fact we are, "likelihood and/or probability" is utterly a matter of context derived beliefs. A hunch if you will.

You can neither compare this to Black holes, or quantum mechanics. Why? Because they were not just beliefs and probabilities to merit further investigations, there were theoretic proofs as represented by reviewed equatable numbers prior to their discovery. That's why.

With respect to what is high strangeness, Hynek did not equate "high strangeness" with any specific form of craft encounter. Rather, high strangeness alludes to the nature of human experiential perceptions that are relative to the witness, not relative to alien craft. You're taking that way out of context in an attempt to foist "craft" to a greater elevation for purposes aligned with felt suspicions and not substantiated facts. This is what happens when you imagine that you know what you are looking for before you actually find it. That's precisely why Hynek was too good an investigator and scientist to refer to the UFO phenomenon as one being represented best by the ETH or EDH. The bottom line is that we know consciousness is real, and we absolutely and unequivocally know that it is integral to the witness's experiential perceptions of the UFO phenomenon and/or interactions with it. Consciousness is an objective and abundant capacity within this scenario for purposes of proposed UFO phenomenal studies. We do not have an alien craft of any type whatsoever, nor has anyone ever demonstrated one shred of real evidence in support of advanced sentient life, or even vegetable matter on other planets. Which aspect of the UFO phenomenon best insures objectivity, and which promotes a premise based completely on contextually derived ideals?

I have an honest question for you. What if the uniform ideal that hypothetically motivated a search for technological craft aided space/dimensional travel were found long into our futures to have retarded, if not utterly disavowed, an objective affirmation for what are the probabilities represented by the Drake equation by merit of sheer distraction alone? Directive is critical beyond all belief systems Ufology, literally. What is consciousness if not a carrier for all the signals that manifest themselves experientially as our everyday realities?

 

[Ravensfee]

Exactly,I've never seen a ghost but I won't completely rule out the possibility because I've not seen one or denigrate others who have

This is a good hook, if I may, to hang a few points in relation to previous points raised.

1) Ron, you're absolutely right that people shouldn't denigrate those who say they have seen, come into contact with UFOs. I believe that the majority of people who do so have had a real experience. It's why when we look at this subject, let's call it ufology though that term may not be useful, the reported experience, and the reporting experiencer, should be the starting point. As an aside I would add that suggesting that UFO experiences might have a social or psychological aspect should not be seen as denigrating the underlying veracity of the report.

2) If someone describes an experience in which they say they've seen a ghost or a UFO we can accept that. But surely it is a non sequitur to suggest, as seems to have been in this thread, that "I have seen a UFO therefore alien craft exist" or, to use your other example "I have seen a ghost therefore the soul of the dead live on". The terms "UFO" and "ghosts" bring with them cultural baggage. Those who want to delve deeper should be prepared to ditch this baggage. The experience is real, the explanation the experiencer may offer, or have forced upon them, might not be.

3) It's a cliché but I like it so I'll repeat it. If you see a strange light in the night sky, it's a UFO. If you see a strange light in an old house or a graveyard, it's a ghost. To someone who is trying to understand the root cause of these events, what sense do these categories make? What value do they add? I don't believe it's a useful approach to file "ghost" reports in a separate box and say "that's not ufology, ignore it" but to look at similar reported experiences in toto, regardless of the cultural assumptions we or the witnesses may imbue them with.

4) Lastly, I'm not trying to convince or convert I just wanted to get these points off my chest..... :- )

 

[technomage]

I don't think the point was "that alien craft exists", the point was that"I've seen something that looks like an alien craft", so this fits in with others who have seen something that appears to be alien craft and therefore, we can investigate these types of cases under this common umbrella of phenomena called Ufology, rather than just saying it's "paranormal" or "unexplained". It doesn't mean we know anything about the nature of the phenomena, only that certain attributes are similar and belong together conceptually.

It also doesn't mean that there can't be links to other types of phenomena, so if we see a strange black panther or Big foot coming out of what appears to be an "alien craft", we can say that this is both within the realm of UFOlogy and Cryptozoology.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I don't think the point was "that alien craft exists", the point was that"I've seen something that looks like an alien craft", so this fits in with others who have seen something that appears to be alien craft and therefore, we can investigate these types of cases under this common umbrella of phenomena called Ufology, rather than just saying it's "paranormal" or "unexplained". It doesn't mean we know anything about the nature of the phenomena, only that certain attributes are similar and belong together conceptually.

It also doesn't mean that there can't be links to other types of phenomena, so if we see a strange black panther or Big foot coming out of what appears to be an "alien craft", we can say that this is both within the realm of UFOlogy and Cryptozoology.

Why not simply refer to them both simultaneously as being representative of Fortean Paranormal Witness Phenomena? It's a given that each experience belongs to iconically classifiable subgroups, but perhaps the real differential is beyond (para) the esthetics and experience of normally (normal) perceived physicalism. Furthermore, perhaps both experiences are facilitated by, or hosted by, an identical human consciousness relevant capacity for which further studies are much needed to comprehensively understand both it, and the phenomena. None of this denies the reality of separate or differing external agencies. What it does do however, is to propose working with what we have, rather than working with what we don't have, in an effort to objectively study the various phenomena.

 

[Randall]

@ufology,
My friend, it seems as though you've missed the point here completely. My point is that choosing to consider UFOs as being first and foremost "alien craft" relegates your investigation of the phenomenon to a system of belief rather than to one of real objective study.

At this point we seem to be talking past one another. No matter what approach I take, I can't seem to get the idea across that defining UFOs as "alien craft" for the purpose of establishing what the word means is not the same as, "choosing to consider UFOs as being first and foremost alien craft", especially when trying to establish what the objects or phenomena in UFO reports are. My other points also seem to have slipped past without purchase. So I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with our discussion. I'll leave off on it by saying that if I understand you correctly, I agree that without sufficient reason, it's unwise to assume that the objects described in most UFO reports are UFOs ( alien craft ).

 

[technomage]

Why not simply refer to them both simultaneously as being representative of Fortean Paranormal Witness Phenomena? It's a given that each experience belongs to iconically classifiable subgroups, but perhaps the real differential is beyond (para) the esthetics and experience of normally (normal) perceived physicalism. Furthermore, perhaps both experiences are facilitated by, or hosted by, an identical human consciousness relevant capacity for which further studies are much needed to comprehensively understand both it, and the phenomena. None of this denies the reality of separate or differing external agencies. What it does do however, is to propose working with what we have, rather than working with what we don't have, in an effort to objectively study the various phenomena.

I don't see a problem with multiple types of non-mutually exclusive classifications. So a Bigfoot coming out of what looks like a craft would be an example of Fortean Paranormal Witness Phenomena, but I don't see a problem in saying it's an example of a UFO because it looks like an alien craft was involved. I think seeing something is enough to enable us to make some classification of it and if we think we're seeing some sort of alien craft, I can see the use in classifying similar sightings under the same umbrella term of "UFO sighting". The reason why I'm equating "alien craft" with "UFO sighting" is that is what people are claiming they're seeing when they see a UFO. They don't refer to a Bigfoot as a UFO or an entity as a UFO, but something flying around in the sky as a UFO.

Regarding the real nature of the phenomena, it could be anything including holographic projections, but the classification is not based on what these sightings really prove to be, only what they're reported to look like.

 

[Randall]

I don't see a problem with multiple types of non-mutually exclusive classifications. So a Bigfoot coming out of what looks like a craft would be an example of Fortean Paranormal Witness Phenomena, but I don't see a problem in saying it's an example of a UFO because it looks like an alien craft was involved. I think seeing something is enough to enable us to make some classification of it and if we think we're seeing some sort of alien craft, I can see the use in classifying similar sightings under the same umbrella term of "UFO sighting". The reason why I'm equating "alien craft" with "UFO sighting" is that is what people are claiming they're seeing when they see a UFO. They don't refer to a Bigfoot as a UFO or an entity as a UFO, but something flying around in the sky as a UFO.

Regarding the real nature of the phenomena, it could be anything including holographic projections, but the classification is not based on what these sightings really prove to be, only what they're reported to look like.

In reference to Jeff's question: "Why not simply refer to them both simultaneously as being representative of Fortean Paranormal Witness Phenomena?

Referring to UFOs as a paranormal phenomena is not accurate because by definition, the paranormal is "impossible to explain scientifically" ( Encarta ) whereas UFOs ( alien craft ) are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility. If the object documented in a UFO report did turn out to be some sort of paranormal phenomena, then it wouldn't be a UFO. It would be a psychic projection, or whatever else the case may be. It would be something other than an alien craft.

 

[technomage]

In reference to Jeff's question: "Why not simply refer to them both simultaneously as being representative of Fortean Paranormal Witness Phenomena?

Referring to UFOs as a paranormal phenomena is not accurate because by definition, the paranormal is "impossible to explain scientifically" ( Encarta ) whereas UFOs ( alien craft ) are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility. If the object documented in a UFO report did turn out to be some sort of paranormal phenomena, then it wouldn't be a UFO. It would be a psychic projection, or whatever else the case may be. It would be something other than an alien craft.

I think that's a pretty lousy definition of paranormal from Encarta, because impossible implies that the phenomena is outside the realm of science. I think this one is much better: "very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world".

Definition of PARANORMAL

 

[Randall]

I think that's a pretty lousy definition of paranormal from Encarta, because impossible implies that the phenomena is outside the realm of science. I think this one is much better: "very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world".

Definition of PARANORMAL

That definition amounts to pretty much the same thing. What scientists know about the nature of the world allows them to explain things in the world scientifically, and you'll notice that the same link for the full definition also says: "not scientifically explainable". But don't get me wrong. If I catch your drift, you are of the opinion that with more information about the nature of the world, then it might be the case that some paranormal phenomena could be explained scientifically. I'm not opposed to that type of thinking, but we also have to be careful not to take it too far. Some things are impossible to explain scientifically because they aren't logically coherent, e.g. ghosts as dead people in an afterlife.

We also have to recognize that existing definitions leave little wiggle room for personal interpretation. Most simply, if something can be explained by science, then it's not paranormal, just like if a UFO turns out to be non-alien, then it would no longer be a UFO. Some paranormal researchers don't like the idea that their subject matter is defined as being beyond the realm of scientific explanation, and they go a step further to claim that UFOs are part of the paranormal and that despite the definition, the paranormal is something science can grapple. Personally, I think they're only inviting accusations of pseudoscience and I would categorically deny that ufology is a "paranormal" field.

As mentioned before, there's nothing unscientific or logically incoherent about the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe or that technology could exist that could allow such life, or their technical creations to make the journey to our world. By definition, that puts ufology solidly outside the realm of the paranormal. On the other hand, concepts like life after death are fraught with logical inconsistency and there isn't any scientific reasoning that such a thing is even possible. In ufology the paranormal is a fringe topic that is related to UFOs by way of various stories that form conceptual links between the two.

For example during a séance a table is seen to levitate. The location is also known for past UFO sightings. UFOs seem to levitate by somehow defying gravity. It's now a fair question to ask: Could a UFO be responsible for levitating the table and not dead people? Logically as far out as the suggestion might be, it makes far more sense than assuming that dead people can levitate tables. So the two fields of interest do overlap to some extent, but when they do, ufology offers a scientifically possible explanation rather than invoking nonsensical ideas like life after death.