Does the Phenomenon deserve study

[TClaeys]

People of all walks of life study the most obscure seemingly trivial stuff, .... so I guess why not UFO's? However even the notion of studying this brings about numerous major problems. If I gave you a million dollars to study UFO's where would you start?? Would you use the scientific method when this phenomenon doesn't even seem to fit in that box of repeatability and physical evidence (that doesn't get conveniently lost or mysteriously confiscated)?? Would you start with old classic cases again?? New ones?? Atmospheric and seismic data?? Astronomy or astrology?? Witnesses?? Monitoring?? What would you begin with and why??

One of the major obstacles to coming to any kind of reasonable consensus on this topic is the lack of information sharing. What would be needed to crack into this is a lot of objective data that can be freely shared and cross examined by everyone. When Ray Stanford has all this undeniable incredible data and he doesn't share any of it, well then it's relative worth is "zero". Let Jaime (sp?) Muassan put out his UFO videos to the entire group to be reviewed and we'll see that it amounts to nothing but balloons and burning oil rigs. But we don't do that because IMO the current study of UFO's is basically perpetuating myth. I'm not saying there is nothing to study because there might be, but until the masses of "researchers" start distinguishing truth from fantasy (or opinion from fact) we won't get anywhere. I don't mean to blanket everyone as some are really trying to get to the truth, ... yet they are stopped by fakers, liars, sketchy data, and the ephemeral nature of any compelling event.

The bulk of UFO's amounts to hoaxes, misidentification, secret projects, astronomical and atmospheric quirks, overactive imaginations, and so forth. If there really is something other than those (which is still a big question for me) then it could be vetted out a lot better with improved collboration and excessive cross examinations. It is much needed if anything is to be truthfully learned. Some kind of "panel" should have stern skeptics, scientists, psychologists, photo experts, etc.

I certainly think something could be learned but it would take a huge effort putting aside these adamant subjective feelings and attitudes. But this will never happen as a majority of people are happy and content thinking they know what the UFO phnomenon is all about.

 

[PararealitySaint]

I think that this point hits it squarely on the head. Because of the fact that you have so many agendas in the pot, "Skepticism" is the only friend of true Paranormal Investigation.

One of the reasons why I always liked Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson of Ghost Hunters was because they were always in it to "be proven" there was a such thing as spiritual hauntings. They never had preconceived notions and this made their endeavors famous.

It's been pointed out here before, that when personal agendas get in the way of true scientific investigatory work, one finds himself wading through all the "supposed" allusive proof and evidence kept from the light of day. It's so very easy to talk about how you are in communications with the Zeta's, but quite another thing to have them speak to the public on a loudspeaker.

Therefore, what this field needs is a band of individuals hell bent on a completely neutral foundation. A group who has no private agendas and isn't so quick as to accept everything they see either. It might not be a "Scientific" test group we are after, but there is something to be said for a solidly organized body of skeptics who determine report level responses from direct information and closely scrutinized witnessed input.

What a breath of fresh air it would be to have something like that!

 

[mike]

On the issue of nuts and bolts ET vs ED i would use this example, and while i appreciate its a Sci Fi reference i think its valid.

Anyone watching Dr Who's TARDIS materialise could draw a conclusion its an ED craft, and they would be correct in a sense, it utilises the dimension above/below/outside linear time to travel
"landing" at the co-ordinates of time and relative dimensions in space (that should perhaps be relative locations in space, but i digress)
None the less the craft despite its method of locomotion is a nuts and bolts craft, the builders flesh and blood ET's.

It would be like watching passengers disembark from a jet liner and concluding they "came from the sky" instead of another land mass.

While there might well be an interdimensional aspect to the enigma , that in of itself doesnt preclude or overwrite an ET/nuts and bolts basis to the picture

 

[Hotkafka]

Oh that's been done for some time. To my knowledge, the bulk of witnesses are highly credible. They've long been known to include professors, pilots, astronomers, businessmen, even astronauts. IMO that says much about the phenomenon despite attempts by others to muck it up. And of course the phenomenon is worth studying--if ANYTHING is. It doesn't even necessarily matter if it's ET, ED or whatever; it's obviously something extremely advanced and capable, and could have an enormous impact on our future. Despite all the difficulties, we had BETTER study it.

Has it? Knowing the occupation and reputation of a said Experiencer really isn't quite on par with the depth of study I am inferring here.

 

[PararealitySaint]

On the issue of nuts and bolts ET vs ED i would use this example, and while i appreciate its a Sci Fi reference i think its valid.

Anyone watching Dr Who's TARDIS materialise could draw a conclusion its an ED craft, and they would be correct in a sense, it utilises the dimension above/below/outside linear time to travel
"landing" at the co-ordinates of time and relative dimensions in space (that should perhaps be relative locations in space, but i digress)
None the less the craft despite its method of locomotion is a nuts and bolts craft, the builders flesh and blood ET's.

It would be like watching passengers disembark from a jet liner and concluding they "came from the sky" instead of another land mass.

While there might well be an interdimensional aspect to the enigma , that in of itself doesnt preclude or overwrite an ET/nuts and bolts basis to the picture

This is not necessarily correct and one cannot conclude that he or she knows how inter-dimensional (ED) versus extraterrestrial (ET) "Alien" craft work, as no one has one in their back yard to show, nor has one ever been presented to us for further review. To say that there is some "science" behind how they are driven or used is ridiculous and reeks of the very same preclusion that most of us here have spoken about.....simple "Wannabe" knowledge that has no place in true dissection of this phenomenon or factual evidence generating.

 

[mike]

This is not necessarily correct and one cannot conclude that he or she knows how inter-dimensional (ED) versus extraterrestrial (ET) "Alien" craft work, as no one has one in their back yard to show, nor has one ever been presented to us for further review. To say that there is some "science" behind how they are driven or used is ridiculous and reeks of the very same preclusion that most of us here have spoken about.....simple "Wannabe" knowledge that has no place in true dissection of this phenomenon or factual evidence generating.

There are no conclusions in this debate, only speculation, as such mine is as valid as any other.
I insist that there "must" be a science behind how they operate, because if they operate at all, then there must be some mechanism responsible, unless you are suggesting a supernatural mechanism, that they get here by "magic".

You actually make that point in using the word "craft" in both examples, ie ET craft versus ED craft.
Unless you are suggesting the "craft" moves via a supernatural or magical means, then i assert it is a mechanism that must have a scientific principle (perhaps one uncataloged as yet in our knowledge base) behind its locomotion.
Whatever means the craft uses, must logically be able to be described and quantified, otherwise how could "they" use them ?
If its not "magic" behind the means of locomotion, then it must be "science".

What is ridiculous, is your suggestion skeptics are neutral, that they have no agenda, many do ,one such example is the skeptics who are religious, rejecting the evidence of UFO's because it conflicts with their religious view of the universe and how its ordered, ie God, then man then all the other critters, the reality of a species/s more technically advanced and perhaps older than ours, blows that model sky high. I have encountered many "skeptics" who reject the possibility of UFO's being real on that very basis. the term skeptic does not automatically imply neutral and no agenda, in many cases the exact opposite

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

There are two possibilitys in the ET debate, one is that the earth, teeming with life in every ecological niche it can gain a foothold in ,is unique and the sole planet in the entire universe with life , including sentient space faring life like us. Or that life exists elsewhere, including sentient space faring life (albiet with more sophisticated technology if they are coming here)
For me the latter is far more likely a scenario.
Now the ED debate, what is the evidence for ED being the answer ?.
We have evidence life exists here in myriad form and function, we have evidence there are suns like ours with planets like ours orbiting them, we have evidence there are galaxys like ours......
What exactly is the data/evidence that the phenomena is ED in nature ?
If the answer is they suddenly appear as if from nowhere, i maintain that can be explained by nuts and bolts mechanisms such as deliberate cloaking/decloaking or the use of technology that steps out of linear time.
If the answer is they "appear" to be ED then thats one i contend is not necessarily a good conclusion, and does not in of itself preclude a nuts and boths ET basis.
To the cargo culters US airplanes "appeared" to be chariots of the gods..... we know better.
I put it to you the case for ED is based purely on "appearance"
The logic for an ET scenario is much more compelling imo
Though as ive said before most people think in terms of our own biological reality when using the term ET, i personally think it has twists yet to be understood, that its not so much ET, but ET plus.......

 

[Keiko]

Too pessimistic IMO. (Yes, I think this subject deserves study. But I agree with Lance here that the nature of the phenomena renders it unstudiable (is that even a word according to current scientific principles and rationalities. Basically our brains aren't hardwired to be able to make sense of the data as we are perceiving it, whatever it is.)

No, KDR is convinced that was just a whitewash. (I think it would be great if some government/scientific bodies seriously studied it. I guess some already have in a way (Bluebook,)

Considerable evidence argues it is and even that which suggests otherwise could still stem from nuts and bolts e.g. holographic projections. (Even if that happens, the 'woo-woo' stuff will still be observed and studied by others because while I admire a nuts-and-bolts attitude to studying this thing...it's definately not a nut-and-bolts phenomena.)

How can that be if we aren't hardwired to make sense of it?(I think what Mike said is really pertinent. Despite the apparent chaos of the field, we will eventually create the language needed to start asking the right questions.)

Hi Trajanus, I'm not being pessimistic about it (I hope!) but I am just trying to acknowledge the serious challenges involved here. The UFOs show up randomly, unpredictably, without warning. Sometimes they leave physical traces, sometimes not, sometimes they show up on radar, sometimes not etc. Some witnesses see the object and have no effects from it (except shock/confusion) but others have missing time, high strangeness, telepathic contact or as in the Cash Landrum case, serious physical harm. It's such a multi-faceted phenomenon that it's hard to come to any definite conclusions or consensus, other than that it exists.

I personally think bluebook was a whitewash. But I have to acknowledge that there have been official studies carried out already (even if they were problematic).
The COMETA report was quasi-official IMO. It carried the weight of a formal government study but had that useful 'deniability' factor so no-one in the French government could be held accountable. Who is KDR?

I believe there is some kind of cover-up going on at least to the level John Alexander will advocate ie a cover-up with a small 'c' meaning that people (pilots, military etc) who witness a UFO will be told to keep quiet but which doesn't mean there is a larger Cover-up with a big 'C' such as an official organisations like the NSA dedicated to it or an MJ12 type group. But it really could go alot deeper, I just have to sit on the fence about that until I am convinced for myself. Jumping down that particular rabbit hole is not something to be taken lightly! If an account like Ingo Swann's in 'Penetration' is true (and I find myself believing the guy) then we are living in a world that bears little resemblace to what it seems. Personally my brain isn't hardwired to take it in

(Lance if you are reading this, before I go any further I want to warn you that I am about to engage in Saucer Jesus talk my friend, you may want to go and make a cup of tea instead, OK ) I think that your comment that the high strangeness may have a nuts-and-bolts source is a really good one. That may be the case. May even be the most likely case. I think our brains/minds can evolve as we engage with this subject more and more and the interaction with it will alter us. That could happen in many ways like a spontaneous shift (something that seemed to happen to our ancestors about 50000 years ago when humans we began to paint caves etc). Or it could be a genetic interference by some of these races/species/beings that will alter us without our consent. This may happen whether we choose to study it or not.

 

[Trajanus]

Has it? Knowing the occupation and reputation of a said Experiencer really isn't quite on par with the depth of study I am inferring here.

Surely it says something that many experiencers were skeptics or indifferent before their experience.

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

What is ridiculous, is your suggestion skeptics are neutral, that they have no agenda, many do ,one such example is the skeptics who are religious, rejecting the evidence of UFO's because it conflicts with their religious view of the universe and how its ordered, ie God, then man then all the other critters, the reality of a species/s more technically advanced and perhaps older than ours, blows that model sky high. I have encountered many "skeptics" who reject the possibility of UFO's being real on that very basis....

Right and IMO religion is far from the only aspect of the status quo potentially at risk. Friedman noted the possible threat to the nation state. All kinds of people with a vested interest in the status qu, instinctively fear advanced ETs and are loathe to accept the idea.

There are two possibilitys in the ET debate, one is that the earth, teeming with life in every ecological niche it can gain a foothold in ,is unique and the sole planet in the entire universe with life , including sentient space faring life like us. Or that life exists elsewhere, including sentient space faring life (albiet with more sophisticated technology if they are coming here)
For me the latter is far more likely a scenario.

Bingo.

Now the ED debate, what is the evidence for ED being the answer ?.
We have evidence life exists here in myriad form and function, we have evidence there are suns like ours with planets like ours orbiting them, we have evidence there are galaxys like ours......
What exactly is the data/evidence that the phenomena is ED in nature ?

Sure, the ETH is by far the most parsimonious view.

If the answer is they suddenly appear as if from nowhere, i maintain that can be explained by nuts and bolts mechanisms such as deliberate cloaking/decloaking or the use of technology that steps out of linear time.

And it doesn't even have to be as exotic as that. Even we can project holographic images.

I put it to you the case for ED is based purely on "appearance"
The logic for an ET scenario is much more compelling imo

Right.

Though as ive said before most people think in terms of our own biological reality when using the term ET, i personally think it has twists yet to be understood, that its not so much ET, but ET plus.......

Genetically engineered beings, cyborgs etc.

Who is KDR?

Kevin Randle.

 

[PararealitySaint]

No one stated that to be a "skeptic" one was ideal, but within the relevance of the word, surely the difference to a "believer" is more than obvious. To work from the basis of skepticism is to allow for a predilection unlike that which would be found as bias in the preconceived notion of agenda seeking.

Although someone who is a skeptic can in and of him or herself have an agenda, normally the very reason for their skepticism is maintained because of either an honest or honorable sense of position. A true skeptic is not as quick to deny and will not be as quick to accept as someone blatantly grounded in interpretation for the data or evidence recovered.

As for the "craft" explained away utilizing "scientific" agency, E.D.’s or E.T.’s germane to the mode of operation in a mechanical or “human” understood estimation, would only be restricted to the foresight our terrestrial understanding of this limited basis may warrant. Why bound this understanding and not allow a more cosmic reflection based on what we humans take advantage of when stereotyping something we do not understand as “magic?” In and of itself as an answer, the possibilities are as endless as the mired mountains of unexplained data clearly demonstrate. A phenomena is normally entitled thus due to the fact that scientifically gathered resolution to the question, whether based on hypothesis or conceived by a laymen, are 9/10ths of the time lacking in a mode of logic. This leaves a wide space for illogic until advancement in our understandings find their way to the surface.

No, I stand by my initial consideration as to the backing of skepticism and the serious need we have to weed out the “wannabes” who only force our endeavors back into myth instead of forward into new levels of understanding.

 

[pupil88]

I think that people investigating the claims is indeed happening. The problem lies in the fact that so many people can't agree and actively dislike the ideas that other have.
A good example is that of the rendlesham forest case. People have made good arguments that it could be the lighthouse - valid ones, but not 100% conclusive. However, those that are CERTAIN it was an alien object get extremely angry at the mention of a lighthouse.

The problem comes with the polarization in the subject. It's very political, as many topics are.

Look at someone like Ray Stanford. Apparently he has conclusive proof but he refuses to share it. Nothing can move forward like that.

You are clueless regarding the RFI-Rendlesham Forest Incidence. I’ve been on that board with sceptics and debunkers and I’d doubt that 5% felt that the lighthouse was significant.
Below is a statement from Col. Halt.

"I and my men did witness multiple UFOs. The objects that
we saw were not the beacon light projected from the
Orfordness lighthouse. That could never be the explanation
as at one point I could clearly see a UFO close to the
ground to the left of the farm house whilst at the same
time witnessing the beacon from the lighthouse on the
horizon to the right of the farmhouse.
Earlier my men and I had examined indentations on the
ground that were in a perfect triangular pattern. We also
found evidence in the form of broken branches and abrasions
on nearby trees that indicated that something heavy had
landed in the forest near to the base. We detected
background radiation that was significantly higher than
normal in the area where the indentations were found. We
also found traces of a latent heat source on some of the
trees near to the landing area.
I personally saw a single UFO silently divide into five
separate objects. A short time later an object approached
our position at high speed where it projected a beam of
light down at our feet for several seconds. A short time
later I saw a UFO shining a beam down into the Weapons
Storage Area on the RAF BENTWATERS base. This was confirmed
when I overheard on my personal radio the Tower Operator
say that the beams were being directed INTO the Weapons
Storage Area itself.
I wish to make this absolutely clear, I saw objects that
were real. These objects were structured aerial craft that
were clearly operating under intelligent control.
As for the whole event itself I believe there were only two
nights of genuine UFO activity near to the base and what
became known as the third night was nothing more than a
piece of fabrication, a disinformation exercise implemented
by the Security Services who 'implanted the idea of the
third night' scenario i.e. Capel Green, into the heads of a
number of my men using extreme methods of mind control. I
believe that this was done purposely to tarnish the
significance of those first two nights.
Finally, I believe that what occurred over those two nights
at Rendlesham Forest was of profound defence significance
to the people of Britain and the rest of the world.
COLONEL CHARLES HALT - 2009

I personally believe that what happened on Capel Green was the most significant of the three incidents. Unfortunately, Larry Warren, the main witness was indeed, seriously messed with and it had nothing to do to obscure the two other events. He is the only one who has a heavy file at NSA of all the witnesses and this fact was discovered by Col. Halt.

 

[Trajanus]

There is a rampant idea amongst believers that all skeptics have a dark agenda to hide the truth of paranormal claims at all costs. For instance, some particularly dense believers here suggested that I get paid (by the big money skeptical cabal ?) to be here on these forums.

Come on, how could anybody believe you are that important.

One of the most prominent skeptics, Joe Nickell, recently outlined his methods and rationale and I would challenge anyone to listen to Joe's approach and then claim that all skeptics aren't interested in the evidence but only in debunking.

Of course they all aren't; As you know, KDR himself is an occasional skeptic. On the other hand, Friedman encountered those who in effect said "don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up."

 

[PararealitySaint]

Come on, how could anybody believe you are that important.

You might only be joking here, but what Lancemoody says is 110% correct. Nearly Everyone in this forum is so quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream forth the E.T. obviousness of each and every situation, yet when a skeptic uses logic to show it could just as easily be a terrestrial mirage, or something non E.T., "ohhhhhhh then their deranged or just don't understand, or are far off of what the truth really is."

I think people like Lance and some others here are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dank and wannabe infested swamp known as the "E.T. is the only answer" cabal.

 

[RJHark00]

There can be no denying that the whatever the phenomenon is, it manifests itself in imagery and behaviors that are at the core primal and archetypal. Even if there are ET's involved in any of this, our way of processing these experiences is clearly filtered by our own expectations of what ET should be.

 

[mike]

You might only be joking here, but what Lancemoody says is 110% correct. Nearly Everyone in this forum is so quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream forth the E.T. obviousness of each and every situation, yet when a skeptic uses logic to show it could just as easily be a terrestrial mirage, or something non E.T., "ohhhhhhh then their deranged or just don't understand, or are far off of what the truth really is."

I think people like Lance and some others here are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dank and wannabe infested swamp known as the "E.T. is the only answer" cabal.

Selective quoting young fella me lad, there are no answers, many ppl favour ET as a reasonable conclusion, anyone who says they have the answers is suspect.
Which brings me to my next point skeptics are a valuable part of this field when applied on a case by case basis, hoaxing is rampant we all know that, its when skepticism is applied generically to the entire genre and not individual cases that its value is lost

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You might only be joking here, but what Lancemoody says is 110% correct. Nearly Everyone in this forum is so quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream forth the E.T. obviousness of each and every situation, yet when a skeptic uses logic to show it could just as easily be a terrestrial mirage, or something non E.T., "ohhhhhhh then their deranged or just don't understand, or are far off of what the truth really is."

This statement is as disingenuous as it is inaccurate. Please give us examples of where this is true.

 

[PararealitySaint]

This statement is as disingenuous as it is inaccurate. Please give us examples of where this is true.

I tell you what....Instead of giving you direct examples, why not thumb past almost every one of the subjects in this genre and read the defensive postures nearly every posting ascribes to. There are those that favor ridiculous individuals like Dr. Jacobs who hypnotizes people from thousands of miles away....Subscribers who defend The Dr. Boylans and Nolans of the world who see ancient aliens at every door. Posters who are quick to react defensively for disclosure because they just know E.T. is behind every U.F.O. out there....

And on and on.

It becomes so that when someone like Lancemoody, or myself, or anyone who has the balls to sometimes differ with the flux of bandwagon-ing which goes on here on a daily basis, actually responds with a change of opinion to Mork, that I'm happy to see and will normally thank. Skeptics are necessary ALL the time and in EVERY circle, because without them, the James Jones's of the world normally win out in the end.

 

[mike]

I note you have canonized yourself by including the word Saint in your handle, which prompts me to ask do you believe in Saints . Thats saints are "real" are holy, and that they reside in heaven ?

 

[PararealitySaint]

I note you have canonized yourself by including the word Saint in your handle, which prompts me to ask do you believe in Saints . Thats saints are "real" are holy, and that they reside in heaven ?

Actually, in the belief system I practice, everyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ is considered a "saint" by his rule....There is no classification as to any superiority for better or for worse.

"Heaven" as far as I believe is untouchable as of yet. When I leave this earth my spirit will return to the Lord, my body will return to the earth, and I will remain in slumber until the day of Judgment. Some believe that this is instantaneous and that the Lord knows no "human" time.....I don't know and really don't care either way.

 

[mike]

I thought as much thanks
Are you entirely sure then that your skeptacism as far as UFO's and their occupants does not stem from this belief structure.
I wouldnt be the first time ive seen religious zealotry, disguised as honest skepticism in this genre.
Its ironic i guess because i dont believe god is real, that jesus was a real person or that heaven exists as depicted in the bible.
I personally think there is far more evidence that UFO's and ET's are real than there is evidence any of mans "gods" are real

 

[RJHark00]

You don't have to be religious or anti-religious to believe or disbelieve any of this stuff necessarily, and the anti-religious reflex can kick back just as strong as Bible-beating.

Its ironic i guess because i dont believe god is real, that jesus was a real person or that heaven exists as depicted in the bible.

One guy once wrote a book about how "Jesus" was actually a hallucinogenic mushroom. Far-fetched, most likely inaccurate, methodologically unsound, but it got people talking. The point that I try to make when I discuss this stuff with friends is that ufology and organized religion have a lot more in common with one another than either would like to admit. That's not to knock either; I'm agnostic in both.

I think it's great to get people talking and questioning things like this. Everyone is going to have a different standard of what they find convincing as "evidence," but we can't stop asking questions that challenge our own assumptions.