A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[Randall]

Ufology,
There is a very important, even critical, distinction to make here, and ultimately it *is*the indispensability point of the "high strangeness" consideration that the phenomenon waves in the face of all those that do not choose to dismiss it out of hand. When Hynek further clarified high strangeness" in the same book The UFO Experience, he defined it as being “a measure of the number of information bits the report contains, each of which is difficult to explain in common-sense terms.”

Sure, and that's exactly why I used Hynek's own example to make my point. How much sense something makes is objective while strangeness is subjective. As @Trajanus pointed out, the example Hynek used to illustrate high-strangeness isn't all that "strange" to us these days. That's because it's become an almost stereotypical portrayal of a well known type of experience. So really, strangeness is more a matter of "common-experience" than "common-sense". As I've said before, it's common knowledge that there could be intelligent life on other worlds and that there's nothing unscientific about the possibility of interstellar travel, and therefore alien visitation makes common sense, it's just not a very common experience.

Indeed one could paint the encounter event in your post as representing a few technically inexplicable bits at the time in some sense, even though Martin Cannon's The Controllers - A New Hypothesis of Alien Abductions documents possibly responsible technologies prior to this report's date of investigation. One thing is for certain, that's definitely not the case now as we have many technologies in play that can stop a vehicle remotely. What we simply cannot explain however is the consciousness field entrainment effect, or zone of influence as Jenny Randles called it, that specifically envelopes and engages the witness/es. I think the way Jenny explains it here makes a great deal more sense in terms of appealing to your sense of reason. The Oz Factor by Jenny Randles - Documents This is why I feel real consciousness research will open doors yet unimagined with respect to actual aspects of reality we simply know nothing of presently.

When our consciousness is faced with an unfamiliar experience it is natural for us to become somewhat confused, disoriented, or even held in awe. That's nothing new. Additionally there may be technology or abilities that the aliens possess that can have an effect on our perceptions. We have such technology ourselves. So there's no need to venture into the land of Oz ( though it is still worth mentioning as a facet of the experience so thanks for the link ).

You and I have always had some small, but real degree of difficulty nonetheless, in terms of what we believe are the origins of this phenomenon, however I do know that we respect one another as we both speculatively engage the same phenomenon. I do not consider you as being incorrect, because I know better than to consider myself as being any real type of correct. All I know is that by simple virtue of reported experience, not much in my mind aligns itself with respect to this phenomenon as being representative of superior visitors from outer space. At least not apart from what has either been intentionally, or unintentionally, culled from our memories and imaginations.

You make excellent points worthy of serious discussion that anyone interested in the subject should be aware of and take some time to reflect on, which is sort of what we do here when we're discussing them. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do think it's worthwhile to distill down what we have learned into the finest possible ideas, which is why I tend to take a closer look at what we really mean when we say certain things. Sometimes that results in differences of opinion, but differences are also what fuel further discussion, and in the end that has the potential to add something of value. At least that has always been my intent.

I think one thing that we both definitely agree on however, is that we are dealing with...no scratch that...we are considering, a phenomenon that makes the human condition ultimately aware that there is far more afoot within what we term reality, than just this sentient and self aware animal that is the human being engaged in another "what you see, is what you get" day in the life.

Well said. Those who have had a paranormal or UFO experience know that the spectrum of reality is wider than our mundane daily existence. I'm not saying that makes those in that position any "better" or more "special" than anyone else, but they do have an added layer of awareness in their worldview. I'm not sure how much practical value there is in that, but speaking for me personally, not knowing would be like never knowing what it's like to experience color perception. Maybe that's why the scene in They Live when Nada finally dawn the glasses was so powerful for me .

 

[Randall]

Like you, JD, I also think it is quite difficult to untangle the origin of the strange things that people are reporting. I hope I don't come across as "piling on" Ufology, because I'm not trying to do so, so please forgive me if it seems so. I've looked around your ufo website and I came across this "highly-strange" account about an MIB encounter, Here "Near Collision With an MIB Cadillac." As it is reported, I would accept it as a "real" experience of some sort. The driver who made the report says a 1959 Cadillac with three occupants crossed a highway where there was no road, at such a close distance that he had to brake to keep from colliding with the Caddy. I believe the report is from you Ufology. But it doesn't matter who had this experience. It is presented at your site as a well defined incident, with several highly "normal" aspects that appear in a "highly-strange" context. A 1959 Cadillac is normal. But coming out of a dense forest and making no tire marks on the shoulder, and then descending down the other side and disappearing, is HIGHLY unusual. The three occupants were reported as MIBs and were wearing sunglasses at night, again, mixing both normal and the highly unusual.

If this experience has any relation to UFOs, and presumably it does since it appears at your site, how can anyone ever be sure that the disc shaped craft that they view is not merely a different "expression" of the power that produced the 1959 Cadillac in this experience? So, again, IMHO this field is not susceptible to unequivocal statements about its source. At the present time, IMHO, ideas about the source must be teased out by inference.

There's no question in my mind that strange things do happen, because if nothing else, somewhat ironically, I've experienced my fair share. My point was to differentiate between the nature of a strange experience, and an experience that makes no common-sense. We tend to think of sensibility in terms of logic and reason. For example we can have an everyday experience that makes no common-sense, e.g. just look at the way some people drive ( LOL ). We don't find bad drivers "strange" because we experience drivers with no common sense on a daily basis. But we do consider things strange when they are out of the ordinary, unfamiliar, or rarely experienced. So I would say that Hynek's definition of strangeness would have been more accurate if it had used data points based on common-experience rather than common-sense.

 

[Trajanus]

All I know is that by simple virtue of reported experience, not much in my mind aligns itself with respect to this phenomenon as being representative of superior visitors from outer space. At least not apart from what has either been intentionally, or unintentionally, culled from our memories and imaginations.

I don't think there's any doubt the phenomenon itself wants to be perceived as visitors from outer space (usually--but not always--superior). Contactee stories of origination on Venus or stars in Orion etc may appear silly. But sightings usually involve apparent technological craft and humanoids--beings basically like us but different enough (physically and technically) to be alien.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I don't think there's any doubt the phenomenon itself wants to be perceived as visitors from outer space (usually--but not always--superior). Contactee stories of origination on Venus or stars in Orion etc may appear silly. But sightings usually involve apparent technological craft and humanoids--beings basically like us but different enough (physically and technically) to be alien.

Now IMO, motivation and mission wise, what your post here reflects between the lines per se, seems more likely because of the varying phenomenal interactive memes that observably pattern themselves throughout our recorded history. The phenomenon most likely represents a singular source of influential design, rather than a multitude of experiential nonsense wielding space tourists. I cannot, and will not, allow myself the luxury of speculatively determining this to be solely an external agent, and not some equally responsible inherent and undiscovered aspect of the human consciousness condition itself. There is MUCH that we simply do not even begin to understand about how our species evolves and interacts within it's environment. We may be the integral generational devices from which this informationally relevant holographic reality is derived. One that we secondarily take physical sentient form within. Consciousness ie "reality" itself may be the very medium through which the technology that ufos represent navigate and traverse. Whatever this phenomenal agent may be, it seems to be one that interfaces several aspects of our physical and causal nature that we do not know nor recognize beyond our own involuntary situation within as much. The fact is that we know nothing about this phenomenon apart from it's repetitive tendency to appeal to our localized experiential consciousness in an effort to introduce and establish a series of linear progressive imagery. Is such imagery a progressive evolutionary driver of some sort, or is it all after the fact and solely relative to forces that interact with our own culturally relevant memory based imaginings? I doubt the latter can or will take credit in whole due to many a reported conflict, but some of as much has assuredly been the case. Most of the imagery that the phenomenon represents finds an absolutely undeniable parallel to that which is commonly relegated to fantasy or human folkloric imaginings. Past, present, or possible portents of the future, whatever this quasi informationally phenomenal agency might actually be, it is clear that it is the repeatedly demonstrated intersection with what is consciousness that gives it a "real", albeit illusory, depth of meaning.

 

[Trajanus]

The phenomenon most likely represents a singular source of influential design, rather than a multitude of experiential nonsense wielding space tourists.

I suspect, appearances notwithstanding, ETs represent a monolithic system with a critical mission here, and are tightly controlled in pursuit of it.

Consciousness ie "reality" itself may be the very medium through which the technology that ufos represent navigate and traverse.

Strange--consciousness long predated the UFO phenomenon or its rather recent intensification. I just don't think this view is most parsimonious.

Most of the imagery that the phenomenon represents finds an absolutely undeniable parallel to that which is commonly relegated to fantasy or human folkloric imaginings.

Most? Some.

 

[boomerang]

I cannot, and will not, allow myself the luxury of speculatively determining this to be solely an external agent, and not some equally responsible inherent and undiscovered aspect of the human consciousness condition itself. There is MUCH that we simply do not even begin to understand about how our species evolves and interacts within it's environment. We may be the integral generational devices from which this informationally relevant holographic reality is derived.

This may be a key point in attempting to unravel the mystery. Is the UFO a kind of free, sentient agent operating separately and at will according to the same set of rules by which we model everyday reality ? Or must it in some sense incorporate human consciousness in order to manifest as physical ? Our individual or collective minds may play a necessary but consciously unwitting role. This is not necessarily as imaginal or "woo' as it sounds.

Thought is as real as matter, and matter is energy . Empty space is not empty. How thought dances with the stuff from which it seemingly emerges is utterly up for grabs. Alignment of everyday perceptual "sense" with the science of modern physics has long since broken down and been reluctantly discarded.

We could imagine the UFO encounter as the occasional but statistically inevitable result of a kind of 'perfect storm" of interaction of thought and matter- akin to normal seas spontaneously coalescing to form the horrifying but temporary rogue waves that swallow large ships and then disperse. Just one more wacky and non-testable hypothesis. But at the very least, we inhabit a universe in which, as some physicists have quipped: "Anything that is not expressly prohibited from happening does happen."

 

[Standanista]

It's interesting that CCTV footage seems to through up a lot more evidence for ghosts or apparitions than it does for UFOs.

 

[Jeff Davis]

1) I suspect, appearances notwithstanding, ETs represent a monolithic system with a critical mission here, and are tightly controlled in pursuit of it.



2) Strange--consciousness long predated the UFO phenomenon or its rather recent intensification. I just don't think this view is most parsimonious.




3) Most? Some.

1) What are you stating here? Do you mean that you suspect the there are many different ET races carrying out some singular tightly controlled agenda?

2) The UFO phenomenon has been around since the beginning of recorded time. Naturally it was not referred to as "The UFO phenomenon" 300 years ago, or 3000 years ago, but it's recorded as being just as prevalent then as it is now in terms of visual sightings. We have religions and mythologies worldwide that are inspired and fueled by it. There is nothing new with respect to the UFO phenomenon apart from the language we use to describe it.

3) In what would carry over nicely from point #2 without so much as missing a beat so to speak, is that the imagery and methodology of what is a series of historically recorded parallel Fortean/Human interactions is abundant. Abductions/Hybrid Breeding/objects in the sky in which people go for rides/chosen people's encounters with mysterious beings who impart esoteric knowledge/etc.

 

[Trajanus]

footage seems to through up

Throw up.

 

[Trajanus]

1) What are you stating here? Do you mean that you suspect the there are many different ET races carrying out some singular tightly controlled agenda?

Even if the apparent diversity is real, with regard to appearance and supposed agenda, none have e.g. established an embassy here.

The UFO phenomenon has been around since the beginning of recorded time. Naturally it was not referred to as "The UFO phenomenon" 300 years ago, or 3000 years ago, but it's recorded as being just as prevalent then as it is now in terms of visual sightings. We have religions and mythologies worldwide that are inspired and fueled by it. There is nothing new with respect to the UFO phenomenon apart from the language we use to describe it.

It's hard to be sure if certain ancient reports represent a genuine phenomenon or imagination. As one author noted some people, like von Daniken, don't credit the arabs or others with any imagination. Everything, e.g. a flying carpet, is interpreted as a UFO. Until fairly recently, there was no scientific investigation.
We're all aware of some pre-'40s reports but I'm definitely under the impression the phenomenon intensified after WWII.

 

[Jeff Davis]

This may be a key point in attempting to unravel the mystery. Is the UFO a kind of free, sentient agent operating separately and at will according to the same set of rules by which we model everyday reality ? 1) Or must it in some sense incorporate human consciousness in order to manifest as physical ? Our individual or collective minds may play a necessary but consciously unwitting role. This is not necessarily as imaginal or "woo' as it sounds.

Thought is as real as matter, and matter is energy . Empty space is not empty. How thought dances with the stuff from which it seemingly emerges is utterly up for grabs. Alignment of everyday perceptual "sense" with the science of modern physics has long since broken down and been reluctantly discarded.

2) We could imagine the UFO encounter as the occasional but statistically inevitable result of a kind of 'perfect storm" of interaction of thought and matter- akin to normal seas spontaneously coalescing to form the horrifying but temporary rogue waves that swallow large ships and then disperse. Just one more wacky and non-testable hypothesis. But at the very least, we inhabit a universe in which, as some physicists have quipped: "Anything that is not expressly prohibited from happening does happen."

1) And herein lies what is one of the greatest of all considerations for what is reality. What are we ourselves if not the makings of a reality within a former reality considering yet another reality that is coming into being? When speculatively considering consciousness as playing the roll of such a cyclic architect, we find it doing so adhering to the precise same wheel of life road map that is central to the rise and fall of all life within nature. If we ourselves are that which first births meaning and depth into our individual experiential realities, how much more meaning and depth might the feedback from of our collective un/consciousness be with respect to those that may have found greater facility within as much? (and perhaps, technology that utilize the same)Perhaps there are no transitionally occupiable dimensions, only transitional realities. It is obvious that the physical body is real, but what of the other two? Out-of-Body Experiences, Hypnosis and Subtle Bodies

2) IMO, there is no question that there is a lucid psi consciousness aspect to what is the UFO experience. This inherent quality is gaining very real traction as it should because of it's predominance within the nature of the phenomenon.
Parasociology

February 7, 2016 — Eric Ouelett | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[Randall]

This may be a key point in attempting to unravel the mystery. Is the UFO a kind of free, sentient agent operating separately and at will according to the same set of rules by which we model everyday reality ? Or must it in some sense incorporate human consciousness in order to manifest as physical ? Our individual or collective minds may play a necessary but consciously unwitting role. This is not necessarily as imaginal or "woo' as it sounds.

Thought is as real as matter, and matter is energy . Empty space is not empty. How thought dances with the stuff from which it seemingly emerges is utterly up for grabs. Alignment of everyday perceptual "sense" with the science of modern physics has long since broken down and been reluctantly discarded.

We could imagine the UFO encounter as the occasional but statistically inevitable result of a kind of 'perfect storm" of interaction of thought and matter- akin to normal seas spontaneously coalescing to form the horrifying but temporary rogue waves that swallow large ships and then disperse. Just one more wacky and non-testable hypothesis. But at the very least, we inhabit a universe in which, as some physicists have quipped: "Anything that is not expressly prohibited from happening does happen."

There's an interesting conversation going on here between you and @Jeff Davis, but I also think it's important to differentiate between UFOs and unrelated exotic theories as to what might be mistaken for UFOs. In other words the core subject matter in ufology is UFOs ( alien craft ). Once we start bringing in the idea that the UFO experience is some sort of PSI event linked to alternate realities, we've actually gone completely off the radar where UFOs are concerned, and are talking parapsychology/metaphysics, which in ufology is a subset of related subject matter.

To put this in greater perspective, we could just as easily be talking about some rare natural atmospheric phenomenon that causes clouds to form nearly perfect illuminated disks that seem to move against the wind. That is not a "UFO experience". It's a meteorological experience that has been mistaken for a UFO experience just like a number of other things can be mistaken for a UFO experience, and therefore it's not what a UFO encounter is. So yes we can imagine that some PSI/Alternate Reality ( PSI/AR ) experience can be mistaken as a UFO experience, and a UFO experience could even hypothetically involve facets of PSI/AR, but we have to be careful not to assume that the a UFO = PSI/AR.

To take this a step further. If we're going to evoke PSI/AR as an explanation, we can imagine that pretty much everything is some sort of PSI/AR manifestation. That on it's own is a very interesting idea to ponder, and I've spent a fair bit of time reflecting on it while enjoying the videos and comments posted by other members who are also fascinated by the idea. Without going into a huge amount of detail, it seems safe to say that we as individuals exist and therefore we are real regardless of whether or not our native universe is a subset of other universes, simulated or otherwise, and a PSI experience is only possible if the experiencer has a functioning brain.

 

[Ravensfee]

There's an interesting conversation going on here between you and @Jeff Davis, but I also think it's important to differentiate between UFOs and unrelated exotic theories as to what might be mistaken for UFOs. In other words the core subject matter in ufology is UFOs ( alien craft ). Once we start bringing in the idea that the UFO experience is some sort of PSI event linked to alternate realities, we've actually gone completely off the radar where UFOs are concerned, and are talking parapsychology/metaphysics, which in ufology is a subset of related subject matter.

But perhaps the answer to this phenomenon, or at least one of them, *is* completely off the radar.

There are no alien craft. Or, I should rather say, there is zero evidence why that explanation should be given primacy to those attempting to understand what lies behind the experiences and witness testimony that embodies this subject.

 

[Trajanus]

There are no alien craft. Or, I should rather say, there is zero evidence why that explanation should be given primacy to those attempting to understand what lies behind the experiences and witness testimony that embodies this subject.

In fact there's plenty of such evidence. Besides witness testimony concerning wreckage and bodies at Roswell, there are a number of cases involving landing traces. These indicate an advanced technology, and beings, that do not originate on Earth.

 

[Ravensfee]

In fact there's plenty of such evidence. Besides witness testimony concerning wreckage and bodies at Roswell, there are a number of cases involving landing traces. These indicate an advanced technology, and beings, that do not originate on Earth.

These only "indicate an advanced technology" because that's how people have chosen to interpret them. There's nothing inherently advanced or alien about scorch marks or indentations in the ground.

 

[Jeff Davis]

There's an interesting conversation going on here between you and @Jeff Davis, but I also think it's important to differentiate between UFOs and unrelated exotic theories as to what might be mistaken for UFOs. In other words the core subject matter in ufology is UFOs ( alien craft ). Once we start bringing in the idea that the UFO experience is some sort of PSI event linked to alternate realities, we've actually gone completely off the radar where UFOs are concerned, and are talking parapsychology/metaphysics, which in ufology is a subset of related subject matter.

To put this in greater perspective, we could just as easily be talking about some rare natural atmospheric phenomenon that causes clouds to form nearly perfect illuminated disks that seem to move against the wind. That is not a "UFO experience". It's a meteorological experience that has been mistaken for a UFO experience just like a number of other things can be mistaken for a UFO experience, and therefore it's not what a UFO encounter is. So yes we can imagine that some PSI/Alternate Reality ( PSI/AR ) experience can be mistaken as a UFO experience, and a UFO experience could even hypothetically involve facets of PSI/AR, but we have to be careful not to assume that the a UFO = PSI/AR.

To take this a step further. If we're going to evoke PSI/AR as an explanation, we can imagine that pretty much everything is some sort of PSI/AR manifestation. That on it's own is a very interesting idea to ponder, and I've spent a fair bit of time reflecting on it while enjoying the videos and comments posted by other members who are also fascinated by the idea. Without going into a huge amount of detail, it seems safe to say that we as individuals exist and therefore we are real regardless of whether or not our native universe is a subset of other universes, simulated or otherwise, and a PSI experience is only possible if the experiencer has a functioning brain.

I am not sure that I understand the investigatory constructive approach that your thoughts here seem to represent. Your post here is based solely in interpretation based dogma. Apart from independent motivation, how is faith going to help us in this matter? IMO, there is no place for a religious stance in what is the speculative unraveling of any phenomenon, let alone one this complex. How is such a belief system validated? UFOs have never been proved to equate to "alien craft" of any particular type. No one knows for certain that they are space craft, this is for certain. We honestly don't even know if what we are witness to is technology. What you are doing is forwarding the notion that the UFO phenomenon is comprised of a rigid definition, when the fact is that it has never been rigidly defined whatsoever. This is neither logical nor is it a legitimate scientific stance on the matter. We are dealing with an unknown. There can be no hierarchy of hypothesis for that which we are no closer to understanding today than we were 75 years ago.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of those that interact in some way with this phenomenon do in fact describe what is an altered sense of reality. How do we discount that while simultaneously attempting to accredit an honest investigative process? Certainly not by blaming it on the weather.

No one is offering up psi or alternate realities as an "explains all" definition as to what this phenomenon is, or what it represents as a whole. Rather the exploration of as much in terms of human facility may in fact offer up an investigative directive. One that may in fact lead to pathways yielding definite results with respect to the ONLY aspect of this phenomenon that we do in fact have control over. Ourselves. UFOs have made it known via a majority of experiential witness testimony, this being thoroughly apart from the possibility of superimposed interpretive specifics, that consciousness does in fact play an integral role in the UFO phenomenon experience. We are the core of that which makes the matter experiential. IMO, this much is critical in terms of the most constructive investigative pursuit possible. In truth, it would seem undeniably evident.

BTW, all evidence points to the physical organism of that which is the brain as being experientially integral to the existence of cognitive human life. Of this there is no question.

 

[Randall]

I am not sure that I understand the investigatory constructive approach that your thoughts here seem to represent. Your post here is based solely in interpretation based dogma. Apart from independent motivation, how is faith going to help us in this matter? IMO, there is no place for a religious stance in what is the speculative unraveling of any phenomenon, let alone one this complex. How is such a belief system validated? UFOs have never been proved to equate to "alien craft" of any particular type. No one knows for certain that they are space craft, this is for certain. We honestly don't even know if what we are witness to is technology. What you are doing is forwarding the notion that the UFO phenomenon is comprised of a rigid definition, when the fact is that it has never been rigidly defined whatsoever. This is neither logical nor is it a legitimate scientific stance on the matter. We are dealing with an unknown. There can be no hierarchy of hypothesis for that which we are no closer to understanding today than we were 75 years ago.

The first thing to clear up is that defining UFOs as "alien craft" is not the same as saying the objects in UFO reports are alien craft. It is well known that the objects in most UFO reports turn out to be something else, and even the ones that appear to be alien craft might actually be something else altogether. But that's also beside the point of this issue. The point is that defining UFOs as alien craft gives us a starting point that acts as a solid foundation from which we can map out that and other possibilities.

By using this approach, rather than dealing with no clear idea of what we're talking about amid the shifting currents of individual opinion, the map of possibilities begins to take shape in an orderly fashion that is consistent among researchers, which is very useful when numerous people are all trying to collaborate on a common problem. But why choose "alien craft" as a starting point? In the case of UFOs, it makes the most sense to use alien craft as the starting point because it is a logical distillation of common historical interpretation and several official definitions by the USAF.

This is all well documented along with references in the link in my signature line. So this definition is based on a very objective look at the history of the subject and what other people have thought about the terms. Therefore it's not simply based on my personal subjective wishful thinking. Some key points are that:

1. The word "alien" doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial. So although "ET" is a fair assumption, because the word alien is more flexible, it's a better choice.
2. When someone brings up the subject of UFOs, people naturally associate it with the idea of some sort of alien craft.
3. We can safely assume that the original USAF Estimate of The Situation from Project Sign did conclude that Flying Saucers were probably extraterrestrial.
4. Hynek ( The USAF scientific consultant to project Blue Book ) alludes to "high strangeness" examples of UFO experiences as encounters with craft.
5. The official USAF definitions exclude all known natural and manmade objects and phenomena which leaves only something alien.
6. The overwhelming majority of search engine references to UFO are suggestive of alien craft.
7. Flying saucers were popularly believed to be visitors from other worlds, and the word UFO is virtually synonymous with Flying Saucers.
8. Numerous sighting reports describe objects that appear to be some kind of alien craft.
9. Most dictionaries include some version of an alien craft or flying saucer in their interpretation ( not to be confused with the literal meaning of the words that form the acronym UFO )

So for the sake of discussion, the reality based on an objective historical look, is that the word UFO means the same as "alien craft", and therefore it only makes sense within the context of ufology to simply accept that fact. After that, if some UFO report should turn out to be something else, then it can get filed under cryptozoology, parapsychology, meteorology, astronomy, or whatever other subset in ufology studies that it happens to fit best into.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of those that interact in some way with this phenomenon do in fact describe what is an altered sense of reality. How do we discount that while simultaneously attempting to accredit an honest investigative process? Certainly not by blaming it on the weather.

No one is offering up psi or alternate realities as an "explains all" definition as to what this phenomenon is, or what it represents as a whole. Rather the exploration of as much in terms of human facility may in fact offer up an investigative directive. One that may in fact lead to pathways yielding definite results with respect to the ONLY aspect of this phenomenon that we do in fact have control over. Ourselves. UFOs have made it known via a majority of experiential witness testimony, this being thoroughly apart from the possibility of superimposed interpretive specifics, that consciousness does in fact play an integral role in the UFO phenomenon experience. We are the core of that which makes the matter experiential. IMO, this much is critical in terms of the most constructive investigative pursuit possible. In truth, it would seem undeniably evident.

BTW, all evidence points to the physical organism of that which is the brain as being experientially integral to the existence of cognitive human life. Of this there is no question.

Great points. Let's see if we can both make them work positively for us this time .

 

[Trajanus]

These only "indicate an advanced technology" because that's how people have chosen to interpret them. There's nothing inherently advanced or alien about scorch marks or indentations in the ground.

But the indentations and burns are associated with sightings of unusual craft and beings at the site, as at Socorro, and the indentations formed a regular patter, indicative of something artificial and technological. In addition, some metal was found.

 

[Randall]

But perhaps the answer to this phenomenon, or at least one of them, *is* completely off the radar.

As unlikely as that seems, it is possible no theory has been put forward that matches the true nature of some sightings, but what is the point of making that statement? Is it simply rhetorical or do you have something in mind?

There are no alien craft. Or, I should rather say, there is zero evidence why that explanation should be given primacy to those attempting to understand what lies behind the experiences and witness testimony that embodies this subject.

Your comment above is much more complex that it appears on the surface, so let's start with the phrase "this subject". If by that, you mean that the subject is ufology, then the core subject matter is UFOs. If it's something else, then you'll have to clarify what you mean. If you do mean ufology, then we need a clear definition for that term to use as a starting point. I explain why defining UFOs as "alien craft" is accurate and logical in my post to Jeff ( above ) and in the link in my signature line below.

The second issue is that of "primacy", where you suggest that there is "zero evidence" as to why "that explanation" should be granted any primacy. In this case it seems you're suggesting that alien craft should not be considered a likely explanation for objects in some UFO reports. If I've interpreted that correctly then that implies that any other explanation should be considered equally valid, and if that's the case I would ask you what logic you base that assessment on? Given that a witness reports what looks like some sort of craft, I don't imagine that you would consider a flock of flying cats with superpowers as likely as some sort of craft.

The last issue is that of "zero evidence". It's usually wise not to make absolutist statements unless you can back them up with some sort of airtight case. In the context of ufology, the experiences of witnesses is evidence and there is plenty of that, the content of which most definitely indicates that some sort of alien craft was perceived, and human perception is fairly well understood by science. More specifically, the stimulus response is a well known and accepted scientific fact, which basically states that normal perception requires a stimulus and therefore when we perceive something as a stimulus, it is because that stimulus exists as something objective and separate from ourselves.

Our perceptive capabilities and interpretive faculties can be fooled and errors can be made, but generally speaking, a normally functioning human being is by leaps and bounds far more reliable and intelligent than any machine on the planet. We're capable of a wide array of sensory detection and analysis unrivaled by any other species or device. It works so well that it has facilitated our survival and evolution for millions of years leading us into the position of the dominant species on the Earth. Therefore claiming that human experience counts as "zero evidence" is unsubstantiated. Virtually everything we know is based on our experience, either directly or indirectly by learning it from others.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The first thing to clear up is that defining UFOs as "alien craft" is not the same as saying the objects in UFO reports are alien craft. It is well known that the objects in most UFO reports turn out to be something else, and even the ones that appear to be alien craft might actually be something else altogether. But that's also beside the point of this issue. 1) The point is that defining UFOs as alien craft gives us a starting point that acts as a solid foundation from which we can map out the other possibilities.

2) By using this approach, rather than dealing with no clear idea of what we're talking about amid the shifting currents of individual opinion, the map of possibilities begins to take shape in an orderly fashion that is consistent among researchers, which is very useful when numerous people are all trying to collaborate on a common problem. But why choose "alien craft" as a starting point? In the case of UFOs, it makes the most sense to use alien craft as the starting point because it is a logical distillation of common historical interpretation and several official definitions by the USAF.

This is all well documented along with references in the link in my signature line. So this definition is based on a very objective look at the history of the subject and what other people have thought about the terms. Therefore it's not simply based on my personal subjective wishful thinking. Some key points are that:

1. 3) The word "alien" doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial. So although "ET" is a fair assumption, because the word alien is more flexible, it's a better choice.
2. When someone brings up the subject of UFOs, people naturally associate it with the idea of some sort of alien craft.
3. We can safely assume that the original USAF Estimate of The Situation from Project Sign did conclude that Flying Saucers were probably extraterrestrial.
4. 4) Hynek ( The USAF scientific consultant to project Blue Book ) alludes to "high strangeness" examples of UFO experiences as encounters with craft.
5. The official USAF definitions exclude all known natural and manmade objects and phenomena which leaves only something alien.
6. The overwhelming majority of search engine references to UFO are suggestive of alien craft.
7. Flying saucers were popularly believed to be visitors from other worlds, and the word UFO is virtually synonymous with Flying Saucers.
8. Numerous sighting reports describe objects that appear to be some kind of alien craft.
9. Most dictionaries include some version of an alien craft or flying saucer in their interpretation ( not to be confused with the literal meaning of the words that form the acronym UFO )

So for the sake of discussion, the reality based on an objective historical look, is that the word UFO means the same as "alien craft", and therefore it only makes sense within the context of ufology to simply accept that fact. After that, if some UFO report should turn out to be something else, then it can get filed under cryptozoology, parapsychology, meteorology, astronomy, or whatever other subset in ufology studies that it happens to fit best into.

Great points. Let's see if we can both make them work positively for us this time .

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

2) Again, IMO this is streamlining a possible falsehood for the sake of appearances. Certainly this is not how science works. In order for science to work you have to have some form of an objectively determined parallel apart from the fantastic. 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? 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.

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

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.

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."

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?

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.