• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Donderi on UFOs

Free episodes:

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Don Crosbie Donderi, PhD, a scientist who studies human vision and memory, looks at the UFO evidence and concludes that
  • Some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles
  • Some ET vehicles have ET crews
  • Some ET crews “catch and release” humans: they study us.
dcd_crop.jpg


Don Donderi is a management consultant and former academic who began his career with IBM where he helped to develop a navigation system for the B‑52 bomber. He then joined the Faculty of Science of McGill University, where he taught undergraduate psychology, trained PhD students and served as Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research.



He has written over one hundred research papers and technical reports dealing with the science of human visual perception and memory. He co-authored one textbook and edited another. He co-founded a management consulting company and has carried out research and development projects for private and government clients on topics including flight instrumentation, flight simulation, marine navigation in ocean and arctic environments, nuclear power plant safety and chemical process engineering.
His undergraduate education was at the University of Chicago (B.A. and B.Sc. in biological psychology) and he holds a PhD in experimental psychology from Cornell University. He is married, has two grown children, and lives in Montreal.

More here: UFOs, ETs and Alien Abductions | A scientist looks at the evidence
 
Don Crosbie Donderi, PhD, a scientist who studies human vision and memory, looks at the UFO evidence and concludes that
  • Some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles
  • Some ET vehicles have ET crews
  • Some ET crews “catch and release” humans: they study us.
dcd_crop.jpg



Don Donderi is a management consultant and former academic who began his career with IBM where he helped to develop a navigation system for the B‑52 bomber. He then joined the Faculty of Science of McGill University, where he taught undergraduate psychology, trained PhD students and served as Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research.

He has written over one hundred research papers and technical reports dealing with the science of human visual perception and memory. He co-authored one textbook and edited another. He co-founded a management consulting company and has carried out research and development projects for private and government clients on topics including flight instrumentation, flight simulation, marine navigation in ocean and arctic environments, nuclear power plant safety and chemical process engineering.
His undergraduate education was at the University of Chicago (B.A. and B.Sc. in biological psychology) and he holds a PhD in experimental psychology from Cornell University. He is married, has two grown children, and lives in Montreal.

More here: UFOs, ETs and Alien Abductions | A scientist looks at the evidence
Have you read it already?
 
Don Crosbie Donderi, PhD, a scientist who studies human vision and memory, looks at the UFO evidence and concludes that
  • Some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles
  • Some ET vehicles have ET crews
  • Some ET crews “catch and release” humans: they study us.


  • Doesn't seem stunningly original, although his expertise in the field of human vision may be useful in combatting skeptics who say a witness just saw an airplane, or chopper with crew (like at Socorro).




 
Doesn't seem stunningly original, although his expertise in the field of human vision may be useful in combatting skeptics who say a witness just saw an airplane, or chopper with crew (like at Socorro).

True. His interviews so far have been very "Ufology 101". But that being said, at least he seems to have that part right, which is more than I can say for some. The other thing is that unless Lance finds Donderi is also faking it, he seems to have some genuine credentials, and it's not too often that someone with scientific credentials is so forthright about the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ). But then again, he also claims to have seen one for himself, which based on my experience, tends to be very effective at removing doubt.
 
Well, Donderi has been on the Jacobs-Hopkins side for awhile, at least it seems so. He was one of the contributing authors to Ufos and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge, a book edited by Jacobs. So I at least believe that he's not the Imbrogno type, guess no ammo for Lance there :) .

I'd love to see him as a guest, Gene should definately do some booking. I'd like to hear his take on the recent Hopkins-Jacobs mishaps too and the phenomenon in general...
 
Be interesting to find out if he always suspected UFOs were real or only at the conclusion of his research did he think that. The fact he is qualified in psychology as this I imagine would factor into whether he thought it was a mental aberration as opposed to a physical reality.

Definitely a worthy guest, I second Chris' motion for Gene to roll the ball...
 
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object, not (alien craft). The assumption that UFOs = Space faring Alien Craft is no different than stating that UFOs = Future Human originated Time Machines. None whatsoever. Speculation is speculation whether it's of a more so common consensus or not. UFOs remain definitively an unknown although IMO there seems little room to doubt that they are at least partly of a technological orientation or make up.

The notion that UFOs are space ships whose occupants are comprised of a myriad of ET races, at this point in time, is utter science fiction. Although it is fully possible, the notion remains just one of MANY different possibilities that will all constitute science fiction until UFOs are proved definitively to no longer be comprised of the "Unidentified".
 
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object, not (alien craft). The assumption that UFOs = Space faring Alien Craft is no different than stating that UFOs = Future Human originated Time Machines. None whatsoever. Speculation is speculation whether it's of a more so common consensus or not. UFOs remain definitively an unknown although IMO there seems little room to doubt that they are at least partly of a technological orientation or make up.

The notion that UFOs are space ships whose occupants are comprised of a myriad of ET races, at this point in time, is utter science fiction. Although it is fully possible, the notion remains just one of MANY different possibilities that will all constitute science fiction until UFOs are proved definitively to no longer be comprised of the "Unidentified".

Saying that "UFO = Unidentified Flying Object" ( not alien craft ), is one of the most common misunderstandings about what the word UFO means. UFOs are not and never have been simply "unidentified flying objects". There is plenty of independent historical and contemporary evidence in support of this, and when one takes the time to study that evidence ( as I have ), it becomes very clear that the word UFO has been synonymous with "alien craft" from the onset and remains that way today. If you are interested in the factual history behind the word, I suggest you read the article on the USI website here. If after that, you can make a reasonable case as to why the acronym should be taken literally, I'm willing to listen.
 
Ufology,
As much as I RESPECT you and your many years of support concerning ongoing UFO research and considerations, you know that I simply cannot give you a pass on this one. Sorry. The term UFO is NOT a word, but is rather a non specific or "undefined" noun. UFO is a term however that is most accurately an acronym that is formed exclusively from the first initial of three distinct separate words: Unidentified Flying Object. Anything else is merely a contrivance of meanings for the sake of supporting a specific hypothesis.
 
Using UFO or UAP is too wide. Maybe FDBU ?

Flight Demonstration and behavior Beyond our current Understanding of the physical world. Kind of eliminates cloud formations, planets...

Friedman likes flying saucers... But then you've got cigar shapes and triangles and... Etc.

FDBU's would better encapsulate the study of potential ET visitations... If it's not us then it's someone else ;) in other words it can't be us because we don't have the physics to explain how a craft can behave in certain ways.
 
Ufology,
As much as I RESPECT you and your many years of support concerning ongoing UFO research and considerations, you know that I simply cannot give you a pass on this one. Sorry. The term UFO is NOT a word, but is rather a non specific or "undefined" noun. UFO is a term however that is most accurately an acronym that is formed exclusively from the first initial of three distinct separate words: Unidentified Flying Object. Anything else is merely a contrivance of meanings for the sake of supporting a specific hypothesis.
I appreciate the respect, and I'd like to retain it. So I'm happy to work this through with you based on the evidence and the reasoning. Let's start with your claim that the term UFO is not a word, but rather and a noun and an acronym. When we look into this we find the following:
  • Nouns are words: noun [nown] (plural nouns) noun naming word: a word or group of words used as the name of a class of people, places, or things, or of a particular person, place, or thing. ( Encarta ).
  • Acronyms are words: ac·ro·nym [ákr?nim] (plural ac·ro·nyms) noun word formed from initials: a word formed from the initials or other parts of several words. ( Encarta )
Therefore "UFO" is a word and can quite correctly be called a word, or a noun, or an acronym. Additionally, the interpretations of acronyms are not dependent upon the mere literal definition of their constituent parts. For example the acronym ELINT stands for Electronic Intelligence, but the definition for ELINT has nothing to do with the intelligence of electronics. Similarly the acronym RADAR stands for radio detection and ranging, but it has nothing to do with detecting radios. In a proper definition the constituent parts of an acronym are part of the word origin, not the interpretation, and you'll find that better quality dictionaries organize their definitions in this manner. For example, consider this definition for UFO from Oxford:
UFO
noun (plural UFOs)
  • a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.
Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object.
The Oxford dictionary is but one of many official and non-official definitions and sources used to support the definition of UFO as used in the context of ufology. These are objective independent sources and therefore have nothing to do with being a "contrivance for the sake of supporting a specific hypothesis". Rather the word UFO ( alien craft ) is a well supported definition for the purpose of establishing a solid foundation from which to proceed. Furthermore, the word alien does not necessitate ET. Neither does it make any assumptions regarding the nature of objects in UFO reports. Many of the objects in UFO reports turn out to be something other than UFOs. So again, there is no "contrivance" going on. The "contrivance" argument is a common ( and incorrect ) assumption based on a lack of experience with proper context and usage.

In Donderi's case, he says, "Some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles", and this is perfectly acceptable. Some alien craft may be ET. Others may not. In my view we still don't know enough to be certain about where they all originate. However we do know enough to make a reasonably sound extrapolation based on accumulated observations and other evidence. When we do this, we invariably find that the ETH remains the top contender.
 
Ok, enough of the semantic debates that litter the forums and denies the original promise of new low hanging fruit that's been offered. Donderi is not offering anything new except to say that UFO's are about to go mainstream as a serious discussion instead of the usual curtain of laughter. He states his conclusions are based on the preponderance of evidence and the probability of what this evidence points towards. Not too exciting there.

Video interview: Don Crosbie Donderi and UFOs | Global News Video
 
Ok, enough of the semantic debates that litter the forums and denies the original promise of new low hanging fruit that's been offered.
Fine with me. It gets a bit tiresome having to explain it over and over anyway. But Jeff still has the right to respond if he wants, and I won't deny him that opportunity.
Donderi is not offering anything new except to say that UFO's are about to go mainstream as a serious discussion instead of the usual curtain of laughter. He states his conclusions are based on the preponderance of evidence and the probability of what this evidence points towards. Not too exciting there. Video interview: Don Crosbie Donderi and UFOs | Global News Video
Admittedly, the interviews I've seen are very introductory. But that's to be expected in a standard newscast. He'd have an opportunity to elaborate more on a show like the Paracast. You may not find that any more "exciting" either, but personally, because he's got credentials and studies human vision and memory as it relates to evidence, I'd find that interesting. The skeptics constantly dismiss such evidence citing that it doesn't qualify as valid. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about that.
 
I appreciate the respect, and I'd like to retain it. So I'm happy to work this through with you based on the evidence and the reasoning. Let's start with your claim that the term UFO is not a word, but rather and a noun and an acronym. When we look into this we find the following:
  • Nouns are words: noun [nown] (plural nouns) noun naming word: a word or group of words used as the name of a class of people, places, or things, or of a particular person, place, or thing. ( Encarta ).
  • Acronyms are words: ac·ro·nym [ákr?nim] (plural ac·ro·nyms) noun word formed from initials: a word formed from the initials or other parts of several words. ( Encarta )
Therefore "UFO" is a word and can quite correctly be called a word, or a noun, or an acronym. Additionally, the interpretations of acronyms are not dependent upon the mere literal definition of their constituent parts. For example the acronym ELINT stands for Electronic Intelligence, but the definition for ELINT has nothing to do with the intelligence of electronics. Similarly the acronym RADAR stands for radio detection and ranging, but it has nothing to do with detecting radios. In a proper definition the constituent parts of an acronym are part of the word origin, not the interpretation, and you'll find that better quality dictionaries organize their definitions in this manner. For example, consider this definition for UFO from Oxford:

The Oxford dictionary is but one of many official and non-official definitions and sources used to support the definition of UFO as used in the context of ufology. These are objective independent sources and therefore have nothing to do with being a "contrivance for the sake of supporting a specific hypothesis". Rather the word UFO ( alien craft ) is a well supported definition for the purpose of establishing a solid foundation from which to proceed. Furthermore, the word alien does not necessitate ET. Neither does it make any assumptions regarding the nature of objects in UFO reports. Many of the objects in UFO reports turn out to be something other than UFOs. So again, there is no "contrivance" going on. The "contrivance" argument is a common ( and incorrect ) assumption based on a lack of experience with proper context and usage.

In Donderi's case, he says, "Some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles", and this is perfectly acceptable. Some alien craft may be ET. Others may not. In my view we still don't know enough to be certain about where they all originate. However we do know enough to make a reasonably sound extrapolation based on accumulated observations and other evidence. When we do this, we invariably find that the ETH remains the top contender.

You are right, I was wrong. The term UFO in and of itself should and can be considered a legitimate word. Even though what UFO really indicates is a specific group of words that form an acronym representing a single type of noun that is perceived to be flying yet remains definitively of unknown identity and origin. IE. technological/organic/ethereal/etc. As I said, you are right, UFO is a word. When I refer to UFOs I am most of the time referring to what I guess to be some form of quasi technology in which a form of sole or multiple organic human controlled or navigated intelligence that we are currently familiar with, is NOT responsible. That, or what I honestly think is the case at very least 50% of the time, advanced, privately funded, or ultra black, human technology consisting of and being directly representative of, forms of working technology that mainstream science has zero working property familiarity with and therefore naturally denies.

All of what I just expanded on does in no way indicate that ANY UFOs are of ET origin. Some may be most certainly, but that much is a hypothesis at best. Simply a guess based on manifest projections of nothing more than sheer likelihood or probability. It's the same precise reasoning that well meaning human beings have used in times past in reference to reports of fairies, gods, demons, chariots, etc. These are temporally relevant contextual projections based on progressive time line modeled likelihood. Nothing more.

Please consider the following:

Why is the bulk of the Universe x% Space (tiny), and X% Dark matter (humongous) ? The later, much like UFOs speculatively controlled by a non human form of volition, we have never achieved a real and working familiar definitive understanding of or with? The point being, how do we know that this vast medium of substance is not navigable? We simply don't.

The term alien is a funny term. It's bandied about with routine and reckless derision in today's society. The very term "alien" smacks of some from a illegitimacy or "club outsider". I for one think "alternate" a far more reasonable and appropriate term. Especially with respect for non human intelligence as a volition or element of control.

Why is it so hard to accept that what we presently perceive as "Space, the final frontier" is merely (hypothetically of course!) representative of a tiny portion of a much larger multisentient species hosting environmental whole? Scientifically speaking we already know this to be the case apart from the "multisentient species" aspect , we just don't possess a working understanding of as much. But we do clearly understand how this very real unseen part effects and interacts with the native environment that we do readily understand and possess a working knowledge of.

If we used a fantastic (as in not definitively real/that which is merely possible, exactly like the ET hypothesis) and ultimately fictional analogical scenario to illustrate a hypothetical parallel, I would ask you to consider the vastness of our ocean's lifeforms.

If in 10,000 years from now, a select dolphin species achieves a truly remarkable level of intelligence wherein it builds technology that gives it free roaming navigable control over it's oceanic environment, are we now classifiable as aliens? Or are we merely a completely unique species occupying an alternate potion of a larger containing environment that the dolphin species shares? One in which we exercise an alternate sentient awareness and subsequent control? At this point the dolphins believe and accept readily that they possess a comprehensive knowledge of their environment, yet they are troubled deeply. (no pun intended)

Once in a while some wacko, and occasionally even a highly trained qualified observer, reports that they have witnessed strange unidentified objects in the outer most reaches of their environment that seemingly defy all the lawful scientific boundaries they have come to accept. What the heck is this!? It must be advanced aliens from a different ocean eh?
 
Back
Top