• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Grand Unified Theory of the Paranormal


Michael Allen

Administrator
Staff member
#1
Some people (mistakenly) think that all paranormal phenomena must be placed under a singled unified explanation (strawman alert!). Ok, perhaps most would think it absurd to try to lump all sightings and experiences under a single rubric.

What do you think about the massive numbers of sightings that indicates "nuts and bolts" and ETH?
Does the psycho-social hypothesis cover all cases?
Why does Stanton Friedman constantly say "some [underline 12000 times] unidentified flying objects [read: experience] are probably extra-terrestrial space craft..." etc

What if we are trying to over-simplify the entire field by endless debates over mutually exclusive (i.e. doctrinal) hypotheses? (ok...loaded question)

Is there a unified explanation?
 
#2
As I pointed out in The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis: Fact and Fallacy, the sentiment that we often hear - that various kinds of sightings and paranormal phenomena are likely to be related, is an example of a logical fallacy known as the conjunction fallacy. Applied here the conjunction fallacy simply states that the more things you try to explain with a single postulate, the less likely that explanation is to be true.

With regard to the paranormal (or even the anomalous) we’re in a similar position right now as we were in a few hundred years ago with regard to phenomena like meteors and ball lightning and supernovae. I’m sure that back then there were many misled people who lumped them all into a single basket, because they all fell under the category of “strange things that happen in the sky.” Perhaps some people considered them all to be “anomalous exhalations of the heavens” or some such, implying that they were all related to divine activity.

I think that people get mixed up about the conjunction fallacy because we see an opposite dynamic with physics: the more fundamental physical phenomena that we can explain with a theory like general relativity or quantum field theory, the higher we esteem those theories, and ultimately physicists hope to find a grand unified theory to explain all of the fundamental physical interactions under one theoretical umbrella.

But that’s a completely different scenario. We have every reason to think that the fundamental physical laws are all related to each other because we observe that they all share common features (like conformity to the conservation laws) and sometimes even very similar mathematical expressions (the equation for charge interactions is identical in form to the equation for gravitational interactions in the weak field limit, for example). And our leading cosmological model describes the universe as beginning with a singularity, so the physical laws all originate from one “thing.”

None of these factors apply to complex macroscopic phenomena. A flash of lighting looks different than a supernova because they’re very different things. A ufo looks different than a ghost because they’re also very different things (and ghosts may not be a “thing” at all, but perhaps some kind of neurological phenomenon). Radar-visual and trace evidence places the ufo in a very physical and unique category – which is why I think it’s a mistake to call them “paranormal” at all. We often hear skeptics bemoan the absence of “physical/empirical evidence” for ufos, but that’s exactly what radar evidence is – physical/empirical evidence. That’s why I think that the proper word for these objects is “anomalous” rather than “paranormal.”

In fact it appears to be more likely that a variety of unrelated phenomena are currently classified under the “ufo” category because it’s such a broad and subjective term to begin with. In time we should expect the “ufo” category to diverge into several distinct categories as we learn to discern anomalous physical devices of unearthly origin, from rare and weird atmospheric effects and other even more exotic phenomena.
 

Michael Allen

Administrator
Staff member
#3
But that’s a completely different scenario. We have every reason to think that the fundamental physical laws are all related to each other because we observe that they all share common features (like conformity to the conservation laws) and sometimes even very similar mathematical expressions (the equation for charge interactions is identical in form to the equation for gravitational interactions in the weak field limit, for example). And our leading cosmological model describes the universe as beginning with a singularity, so the physical laws all originate from one “thing.”
But what precisely is this "one thing" ?

:)


Edit: By the way...well said. This is basically a better verbalized form of the argument I bring forth regarding the pluralistic origins of the realm of temporarily unreal human experiences.
 
Last edited:
#4
But what precisely is this "one thing" ?

:)
Very funny: the first person who can describe it with mathematical precision will not simply win a Nobel Prize, but will supersede Einstein as the greatest mind in scientific history. And probably throw open the doors to superluminal spaceflight and new mechanisms to harness huge magnitudes of energy.

It is a lot of fun to think about though. Some new kind of quantum particle within which all of the forces in nature, space and time, and all of the matter and energy in this evidently infinite universe, are all somehow merged together in a way that we haven’t even imagined yet.

It makes you wonder how much else awaits discovery beyond the reach of our imaginations.
 

Trajanus

Paranormal Adept
#6
What do you think about the massive numbers of sightings that indicates "nuts and bolts" and ETH?
They are strong evidence that other races like our own, have ventured into space, and are arriving here.

Does the psycho-social hypothesis cover all cases?
Not a chance, given radar sightings, landing traces etc.


Why does Stanton Friedman constantly say "some [underline 12000 times] unidentified flying objects [read: experience] are probably extra-terrestrial space craft..." etc
That's the most parsimonious view by far. There have been many reports of flying craft and humanoid beings associated with them.
 

Michael Allen

Administrator
Staff member
#7
Very funny: the first person who can describe it with mathematical precision will not simply win a Nobel Prize, but will supersede Einstein as the greatest mind in scientific history. And probably throw open the doors to superluminal spaceflight and new mechanisms to harness huge magnitudes of energy.

It is a lot of fun to think about though. Some new kind of quantum particle within which all of the forces in nature, space and time, and all of the matter and energy in this evidently infinite universe, are all somehow merged together in a way that we haven’t even imagined yet.

It makes you wonder how much else awaits discovery beyond the reach of our imaginations.

Describing being with mathematical precision requires a pre-existing framework that meets the conditions of logic regarding concrete particulars. Realizing this, we end up with a framework that assumes what it is already trying to prove--applying the predicate calculus to named entities, with function and relation attributes, etc. In order to apply mathematics and logic we must already have assumed a basis of that for which we know not what (Locke, definition of "substance.")

It is a very interesting question. "Being" in this framework is--as someone already indicated (Greg Bishop?)--a series of answers to a bunch of yes/no questions that have already assumed some kind of unspeakable fundamental "background."
 

Michael Allen

Administrator
Staff member
#8
I take this opportunity to add some quotes from one of my favorite books--Hermeticism as a philosophy asserts the existence of one thing that makes up the entire universe and being. Working toward a complete theory of human phenomena requires a great deal of digging around ...sometimes we find gems in the very memes that accumulated over the last 3-4 millennia.

https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Hermetic-Tradition-Glenn-Alexander/dp/0801474507

"I consider this work not only a continuation of the tradition of scholarship I have sketched out above but also as a contribution to an ongoing project in the history of ideas pioneered by such writes as Voeglin, Frances Yates, Antoine Faivre, Richard Popkin, Alan Debus, Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, Paul Oskar Kristeller, D.P. Walker, Stephen McKnight, and Alison Coudert. These scholars argue that Hermeticism has influenced such mainstream rationalist thinkers as Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Newton and has played a hitherto unappreciated role in the formation of the central idea and ambitions of modern philosophy and science, particularly the modern project of the progressive scientific investigation and technological mastery of nature"

"It is surely one of the great ironies of history that the Hermetic ideal of man as magus, achieving total knowledge and wielding Godlike powers to bring the world to perfection, was the prototype of the modern scientist" [Glenn overstates this a bit--but think about the differences in human technological achievement from 1900 to 2000.]


"Such a reading, I am convinced, places Hegel's philosopy squarely in the tradition of classical metaphysics. In this view, I am in accord witht the broadly 'ontotheological' interpretation of Hegel offered by Martin Heidegger, who coined the term, ... 'ontotheology' refers to the equation of Being, God, and logos. Hegel's account of the Absolute [here's where I get to my point] is structurally identical to Aristotle's account of Being as Substance (ousia): it is the most real, indepedent, and self-sufficient thing that is. "

And as we all should know...a complete mathematical description the totality of all reality requires dependencies that exist outside that framework (think of Godel's Theorem).

But I digress...(sorry Gene).
 
Last edited:
#9
I take this opportunity to add some quotes from one of my favorite books--Hermeticism as a philosophy asserts the existence of one thing that makes up the entire universe and being. Working toward a complete theory of human phenomena requires a great deal of digging around ...sometimes we find gems in the very memes that accumulated over the last 3-4 millennia.

https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Hermetic-Tradition-Glenn-Alexander/dp/0801474507

"I consider this work not only a continuation of the tradition of scholarship I have sketched out above but also as a contribution to an ongoing project in the history of ideas pioneered by such writes as Voeglin, Frances Yates, Antoine Faivre, Richard Popkin, Alan Debus, Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, Paul Oskar Kristeller, D.P. Walker, Stephen McKnight, and Alison Coudert. These scholars argue that Hermeticism has influenced such mainstream rationalist thinkers as Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Newton and has played a hitherto unappreciated role in the formation of the central idea and ambitions of modern philosophy and science, particularly the modern project of the progressive scientific investigation and technological mastery of nature"

"It is surely one of the great ironies of history that the Hermetic ideal of man as magus, achieving total knowledge and wielding Godlike powers to bring the world to perfection, was the prototype of the modern scientist" [Glenn overstates this a bit--but think about the differences in human technological achievement from 1900 to 2000.]

"Such a reading, I am convinced, places Hegel's philosopy squarely in the tradition of classical metaphysics. In this view, I am in accord witht the broadly 'ontotheological' interpretation of Hegel offered by Martin Heidegger, who coined the term, ... 'ontotheology' refers to the equation of Being, God, and logos. Hegel's account of the Absolute [here's where I get to my point] is structurally identical to Aristotle's account of Being as Substance (ousia): it is the most real, indepedent, and self-sufficient thing that is. "

And as we all should know...a complete mathematical description the totality of all reality requires dependencies that exist outside that framework (think of Godel's Theorem).
Actually I don't understand why anyone would be surprised that today's physics is the actualization of yesterday's metaphysics - that's always how these things go. Understanding begins with a question, and our first faltering attempts at understanding tend to fall into the realm of superstition, and ultimately we resolve the causal dynamics behind the question (which generally dispels any air of mystery or divine agency). In this light, metaphysics is simply the leading edge of physics.

I'm not entirely thrilled with the language of philosophy though; terms like "Being" have an oddly poetic and ill-defined scope that my inner physicist finds a bit revolting. The contribution of philosophy to the logical foundation of mathematics is an undeniable asset to science, but the higher-level systems of philosophy all-too-often seem to obscure the truth rather than to clarify it, so I prefer to keep scientific discussions in the realm of science, and let the philosophers go about their business of publishing books and talking circles around the important questions.

That's why I don't see Godel's incompleteness theorems as any kind of impasse to formulating a workable description of the original cosmic singularity - it doesn't matter to me if the equation we're looking for can't prove itself on its own basis, as long as it works. The mathematical purists out there probably bristle at such a statement. But I think that it's foolish to mistake our mathematics for the truth itself - mathematics is just a tool. People who mistake it for "the absolute language of Creation itself" are assigning a sort of theological significance to it that it doesn't merit, imo. Mathematics is simply a language, and holding it up as an arbiter of absolute truth seems as unjustified to me as the claims that the Bible is "the word of God." Both language and mathematics are just human-generated tools with a certain utility in their applicable areas of inquiry, nothing more.
 

Michael Allen

Administrator
Staff member
#11
That's why I don't see Godel's incompleteness theorems as any kind of impasse to formulating a workable description of the original cosmic singularity - it doesn't matter to me if the equation we're looking for can't prove itself on its own basis, as long as it works. The mathematical purists out there probably bristle at such a statement. But I think that it's foolish to mistake our mathematics for the truth itself - mathematics is just a tool. People who mistake it for "the absolute language of Creation itself" are assigning a sort of theological significance to it that it doesn't merit, imo. Mathematics is simply a language, and holding it up as an arbiter of absolute truth seems as unjustified to me as the claims that the Bible is "the word of God." Both language and mathematics are just human-generated tools with a certain utility in their applicable areas of inquiry, nothing more.
Last one first. Any workable complete description of reality may not include the full picture. "As long as it works" only works for so many levels deep--unless of course you want "turtles all the way down."

I agree that mathematics is not the arbiter of absolute truth--however, our ability to gain a better picture of absolute truth requires the consistency of our own logic. A "mathematical" representation is just that...but our ability to comprehend reality through that representation may grow indefinitely; but that growth may require an infinite amount of time to accomplish.
 
#13
Last one first. Any workable complete description of reality may not include the full picture. "As long as it works" only works for so many levels deep--unless of course you want "turtles all the way down."

I agree that mathematics is not the arbiter of absolute truth--however, our ability to gain a better picture of absolute truth requires the consistency of our own logic. A "mathematical" representation is just that...but our ability to comprehend reality through that representation may grow indefinitely; but that growth may require an infinite amount of time to accomplish.
It's quite possible that physical understanding of our universe will be a perpetual process of refinement, and I'm rather fond of that idea because it would be disappointing to future generations if we answered all of the big questions and left them with mere fine tuning of an existing wholly inclusionary model of reality.

At this point I'd be thrilled with an order-of-magnitude mathematical description of the relationship between spacetime and energy during the pre-inflationary universe. I think we'll arrive at such a model fairly soon, perhaps within a century or two. The conceptual revolution that such a discovery would entail is very exciting to contemplate: imagine what will be possible once we learn how to expand and collapse volumes of spacetime. Warp field propulsion, wormholes, probably time travel...and possibilities still far beyond our comprehension. That's all coming, if our civilization doesn't implode before we get there.

Or it might not, depending entirely on the validity of the logic we've developed to date. Nicht wahr?
The history of scientific progress teaches us that major upheavals in the foundation of our understanding accompany every substantial step forward - we resolve the mysteries that stymie previous generations by learning how to ask the question in radically new ways. To me that's the exhilarating aspect of science. But for many others, seeing the edifice of logic that supports the contemporary view getting swept away like yesterday's garbage, is a jarring and hateful prospect - and that commonplace type of mind is a constant impediment toward new understanding.

So yes, we should expect (and embrace) the inevitable discovery that our current models are incomplete and insufficient. Thankfully, there will always be brilliant people like Frank Wilzcek and Steven Weinberg and Einstein to usher in those revolutions of the mind, and explain them to the rest of us so we can all peer deeper into the logos of this marvelous cosmos.
 

Trajanus

Paranormal Adept
#14
It's quite possible that physical understanding of our universe will be a perpetual process of refinement, and I'm rather fond of that idea because it would be disappointing to future generations if we answered all of the big questions and left them with mere fine tuning of an existing wholly inclusionary model of reality.
These questions are bound to be answered sooner or later; our generation (or the next) might as well be the one to do it. And even if all the basic questions are answered, there's a big Universe out there to explore and maybe others too. :)

At this point I'd be thrilled with an order-of-magnitude mathematical description of the relationship between spacetime and energy during the pre-inflationary universe.
Pre-inflationary spacetime?
 
#15
These questions are bound to be answered sooner or later; our generation (or the next) might as well be the one to do it. And even if all the basic questions are answered, there's a big Universe out there to explore and maybe others too.
It's possible that the laws of physics consist of an infinite Taylor series of fundamental forces - the four strongest ones that we're familiar with, plus an infinite number of subtler additional forces (the dark matter effect and the dark energy effect could be examples of such subtler physical forces). That's just speculation at this point, but it hasn't been ruled out and it's one manner by which we might find fundamental physics to be an endless quest of deepening understanding.

Another point worth noting is that the universe does appear to be infinite (see the results of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey). So the observable universe does in fact appear to be a minuscule volume embedded within an infinite expanse – in that sense, there may an infinite number of spherical observable universes (which co-exist as a single infinite and contiguous universal object) composed of very similar matter-energy densities and which abide by the same laws of physics that we observe.

But I remain highly skeptical of notions about totally independent universes from ours – I just don’t see any empirical evidence for this and I find the theoretical motivations behind such notions to be deeply unconvincing. Even Everett’s “many-worlds interpretation” is actually just one single universe existing as a superposition of states, so it’s not really a multiverse idea). One infinite universe should keep us busy for an infinite span of time though ;

Pre-inflationary spacetime?
The universe had a non-zero volume before the inflationary era, and it’s very important for us to understand the physics of that object, which rapidly expanded into the vast low-density universe that we observe today. Because within that object lies the key to understanding the mechanism that generates spacetime as we know it – and once we can understand how spacetime is expanded, then we’ll probably know how to accomplish that technologically, and perhaps even reverse the process at a small scale. And that’s vital because once we understand that, we can build warp drive spacecraft and wormholes and all kinds of other exotic spacetime topologies (like Dr. Who’s Tardis which is larger inside than outside) – that’s really the key to the kinds of exotic technological capabilities that would resemble magic by today’s standard.
 

TDSR

Paranormal Novice
#16
The universe had a non-zero volume before the inflationary era, and it’s very important for us to understand the physics of that object, which rapidly expanded into the vast low-density universe that we observe today. Because within that object lies the key to understanding the mechanism that generates spacetime as we know it – and once we can understand how spacetime is expanded, then we’ll probably know how to accomplish that technologically, and perhaps even reverse the process at a small scale. And that’s vital because once we understand that, we can build warp drive spacecraft and wormholes and all kinds of other exotic spacetime topologies (like Dr. Who’s Tardis which is larger inside than outside) – that’s really the key to the kinds of exotic technological capabilities that would resemble magic by today’s standard.[/QUOTE]

That "reverse at a small-scale" is called reproduction, in fact, the "mechanism" is consciousness, because of this we are larger on the inside than whats on the outside, spontaneous creativity is the proof. I perceive the universe to be quite boring compared to say a pen and paper. Magick takes a thing which is not and makes it so, that thing is you...

The particle you are discussing is a fragment (actually a black hole) which resides in our physical mind, when matter reproduces another fragment or black hole is spontaneously created, similar to "spooky action at a distance" within the body. OUR particle has the ability to attract and hold matter only to ultimately consume its energy (the body). The particle then collapses. The question of "what happens next" has caused every war in history!

Hope this confused everyone..that would be fun.

TDSR...is YOU.
 

Wormwood

Paranormal Novice
#17
I'm not a big ETH guy in general, but I don't know how it can be ruled out. But, neither do I believe that radar hits or even physical craft prove ETH at all. These craft simply often disappear, turn into tiny balls of light and disappear (or fly off like at Rendelshem). In studying the work of Dr John Mack (the Harvard Psychiatrist who worked with hundreds of experiencers and abductees), he states that many abduction cases go like this. A craft hovers outside the bedroom, then people are transported through the wall OR, they are transported through the wall or window to the ship while their physical body remains in the bed. What do we make out of all of this? Who knows really. But none of this means these are definitely beings from outer space. Whats the biggest thing we know about UFOs and these "aliens." They are tricksters on a level that we cannot comprehend. They frequently do absurd and trickster like things. People see lights in the sky while driving South, suddenly they, and a car full of other people are now driving North and missing 3 hours of time. They constantly manipulate electronic devices. These beings sometimes dissappear or turn into a ball of light. So is it an Alien or is it a ball of light? Like Grant Cameron says, "does a ball of light have coffee, toast, and bacon on the planet alderon each morning before visiting Earth?" The late 1890s had the bizzare airship sightings. This is well documented in several Newspapers (ill provide a link below to a great video on the story. These airships flew around, would land, state they were from ridiculous sounding lands which did not exist, and make absurd requests to those they encountered. Where these airships from a different planet? Or were they the same conscious beings which are manipulating and playing with us now? If they are appearing to us to be aliens from outer space, given what we know about their abilities and their behavior, trickster like nature, and ability to shapeshift and seemingly do whatever they want, what reason do we have to believe their appearance? It seems more likely that the masses are being tricked by them. Thats what they do. That seems to be ALL they do. Their favorite hobby seems to be manipulating electronic devices. They can manipulate radar all the want to. Its part of the show theyve developed for us.

Also, I do not think that all these paranormal events are the same. But we cannot ignore the striking similarities these phenomena share between each other and the possibilities. UFOs included. The spiritual like effects on experiencers can be quite profound. People, after these experiences, experience extraordinary (often) paranormal events such as poltergiests etc. Ive heard some state that it is a logical fallacy to try and include all of these things into one category. Again, Im not arguing that these phenomena are all the same. But, I feel the logical fallacy lies in attempting to apply our material world logic to a phenomena that seems extraordinarily illogical and beyond our means of understanding and seems to be in the business of fooling us. I think that in itself is a logical fallacy.

Why are the flying around the neighbours house with all their lights on? Are they interested in his new statue in the backyard? No. Its a show folks. This is all a show they are putting on. And theyve given us no reason to accept it and believe it at face value. There are a lot of credible cases (like the Iran air force case) where these craft simply seem to morph into a different type of ship. Do you think it couldnt morph into a flying house if it wanted to? Of course it could. When its morphing, which shape is its "true" form? The one you happen to be seeing at the moment? Don't believe them. Thats my take anyway. Of course, I freely admit that I could be wrong.

 
Last edited:
#18
I'm not a big ETH guy in general, but I don't know how it can be ruled out.
The main problem that I have with this perspective is the absence of a plausible alternative explanation. Every non-ETH explanation depends on facts not in evidence, like alternate realities or supernatural entities or some kind of magic – those are all serious problems for an alternative hypothesis.

But, neither do I believe that radar hits or even physical craft prove ETH at all.
Of course radar hits indicate a physical craft, especially with radar-visual cases where a sighting of a solid object is confirmed by the radar evidence. Radar is physical evidence, just as particle collider traces are physical evidence.

These craft simply often disappear, turn into tiny balls of light and disappear (or fly off like at Rendelshem).
Most sightings involve either a solid craft, or simply a source of illumination seen at some distance (which is probably a solid glowing object, because light doesn’t just radiate from nothing), moving across the sky.

More exotic behavior has been reported, like transformations from a luminous object into a solid object, and seeming disappearances, but that’s not an indication of anything supernatural, imo, but rather very advanced technological capabilities. For example, a sufficiently hot object (or one simply surrounded by a glowing plasma) would appear to be a radiant volume of light. Even more exotic behavior could be very highly advanced technology. For example, technologically generated spacetime distortion could make an object appear to change in size, and accelerate too quickly for the human eye to see, like a bullet. Also, the latest advancements in materials science are opening up exotic new physical properties by engineering the quantum wavefunction of matter. As Isaac Asimov said, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” But it’s not magic – it’s applied physics. And if various civilizations are entering our airspace from time to time, we know that their technology is substantially beyond our own, because we ourselves can’t yet traverse the stars. Capabilities like cloaking of various kinds, and false images aka camouflage, would be likely applications for an advanced technology operating covertly in our airspace.

In studying the work of Dr John Mack (the Harvard Psychiatrist who worked with hundreds of experiencers and abductees), he states that many abduction cases go like this. A craft hovers outside the bedroom, then people are transported through the wall OR, they are transported through the wall or window to the ship while their physical body remains in the bed. What do we make out of all of this?
We have plenty of reports of out-of-body experiences; perhaps some advanced civilizations can artificially induce such an experience, and convey a person’s consciousness or etheric body or whatever to their ship for study and/or experimentation.

Who knows really. But none of this means these are definitely beings from outer space.
It’s not definite, but it is by far more likely than any other explanation I’ve encountered. So I think it’s a fine working hypothesis.

Whats the biggest thing we know about UFOs and these "aliens." They are tricksters on a level that we cannot comprehend. They frequently do absurd and trickster like things.
I prefer to think of this kind of behavior as PsyOps. Whatever intelligence is behind these devices and encounters, they’re clearly operating in a covert manner. Many of our own intelligence agencies engage in this kind of behavior all the time: deception, misdirection, false flags, etc. It shouldn’t surprise us to find that even more technologically advanced civilizations would engage in similar kinds of operations.

People see lights in the sky while driving South, suddenly they, and a car full of other people are now driving North and missing 3 hours of time. They constantly manipulate electronic devices.
Both of these can be explained as superior technological capabilities. We stun deer at night with floodlights, for example. Apparently similar things can be done to disrupt human cognition and memory formation, with a sufficiently advanced technology.

The late 1890s had the bizzare airship sightings. This is well documented in several Newspapers (ill provide a link below to a great video on the story. These airships flew around, would land, state they were from ridiculous sounding lands which did not exist, and make absurd requests to those they encountered. Where these airships from a different planet? Or were they the same conscious beings which are manipulating and playing with us now?
The airship wave is interesting. It may be totally unrelated. The airship concept was born in 1874, and the first patent issued in 1895, so I think it’s possible that a covert US military program could’ve built airships by 1896-1897.

The problem that I have with the theory that both are examples of the same phenomenon, where we’re being shown aerial devices just ahead of our own level of technology, is this: the airships appeared four years before the first known historical flight of an airship, and seven years before the first flight at Kittyhawk. The ufo phenomenon started at least seventy years ago, and we still don’t have a viable design plan for building such a thing, and it may be hundreds of years before we can replicate the maneuvers that are widely reported and confirmed by radar. So that puts them in two different classes, imo.

The spiritual like effects on experiencers can be quite profound. People, after these experiences, experience extraordinary (often) paranormal events such as poltergiests etc.
Any dramatic and/or unexpected event can have a profound spiritual impact. People who have near-death experiences, for example, also report dramatic changes in perception and perspective and even personality.

Ive heard some state that it is a logical fallacy to try and include all of these things into one category. Again, Im not arguing that these phenomena are all the same. But, I feel the logical fallacy lies in attempting to apply our material world logic to a phenomena that seems extraordinarily illogical and beyond our means of understanding and seems to be in the business of fooling us. I think that in itself is a logical fallacy.
So what’s the alternative – to abandon logic altogether? That’s what you seem to be suggesting.

Everything is logical. There’s logic behind PsyOps, for example. The path forward isn’t to abandon logic, but rather to acquire a deeper understanding of the phenomenon until the underlying logic is revealed and understood.

And to do that, we need to design and build custom observational devices and systems to get more and better data from such events as they occur. We’ve failed to do that. That’s why I think we’ve made no significant progress in understanding this phenomenon. Eyewitness accounts and the occasional radar data, just isn’t sufficient – we need to tackle this mystery with the same rigor and advanced engineering that we apply to every other area of inquiry from astronomy to particle physics. I’m confident that once we do that, we’ll make substantial strides forward, and ultimately understand exactly what’s going on in our skies. Because anything observable with the human eye and radar systems is physical in nature, and proper investigative scientific methodology can quantify and qualify anything of a physical nature, even if it represents a technology far beyond our own.
 
Last edited:

Constance

Paranormal Adept
#19
I saw the following web page linked in another forum and post it here because it's relevant to this discussion. It's not very informative, but it suggests that the same questions being asked here have already been pursued on the 'inside' of government intelligence efforts to understand the 'ufo' phenomena and the paranormal experiences associated with many 'ufo' encounters. We aren't going to figure this all out, but it's interesting that others, including individuals connected to TTSA, have information they could share concerning the paranormal components of ufo experience. Fwiw:

https://sofrep.com/102958/former-he...group-releases-list-of-traits-unique-to-ufos/
 

Top