Is it possible to have Jacques Vallee back on the Paracast?

[Constance]

Actually, I have often suggested that the UFO narrative itself may be a significant distraction, a tricksterish charade of sorts being put on for our own benefit to distract us from discovering other architectures of reality. In the past I've described our UFO hunt, replete with everyone kept busy arguing amongst themselves, as, "Dancing on the stage of god." We may be pursuing a red herring that we are now participants in its making, co-creationists of an enormous mythos for the sake of keeping us confused.

I've heard you say as much in the past here. Who are your top three candidates for Who or What would put this lengthy show on for us? Oh, and what do you suspect are their motivations for this extravagant effort?

In this way I see some interesting connections to the iconic phrase, "We are someone else's property." But I only think about humanity as a damned species on Tuesdays,l I have gone through
all the early material back when I first got online and we have probably argued before together in other recycled web eras about these points, an endless reincarnation of pro and con crop circle proponents.

I doubt we've interacted before. This is only the fourth internet forum I've participated in. The first one was a small, out-of-the-way, and now largely defunct forum that Chris O'Brien also posted in. The second and third were the Crop Circle Connector Forum [now defunct] and the Ocean Explorer (Baltic Anomaly) forum on facebook. Unless you've posted in one of those we haven't exchanged commentary before this forum.

How do you see the paranormal as a misleading scenario?

It's the inverse of your reaction to the ETH. You see no reason to consider the ETH as an explanation for ufos, and I see no reason to consider 'the paranormal' {whatever 'it' is?} as an explanation for them.

ps, neither do I see any reason to think that our species is 'someone else's property'.

 

[Burnt State]

I've heard you say as much in the past here. Who are your top three candidates for Who or What would put this lengthy show on for us? Oh, and what do you suspect are their motivations for this extravagant effort?

I have absolutely none. In fact I'm more disturbed by the notion that it's all a ruse. On the show we've heard talk about planetary consciousness, and while I feel that's a really big stretch to consider that Gaia is up to some motivational programming of her own, I think Mac Tonnies' though experiment re: the Cryptoterrestrials, is more likely than the plant community trying to redirect our human endeavors. The crypto theory is lacking in the fossil record and evidence of mass scale industry, but then unfathomable sentient, intelligent life could be going on elsewhere nearby in a solar sense, so there are other possibilities. But I've yet to hear one that has a lot of plausibility attached. The ETH appears to make no sense based on the history of sightings that must number in the tens of thousands by now if not potentially much greater than that. A closed system answer appears to be more likely, especially in how over eras of sightings what we expect to see is in fact what we see. It certainly indicates that there is a puppeteer elsewhere pulling our strings.

I doubt we've interacted before. This is only the fourth internet forum I've participated in. The first one was a small, out-of-the-way, and now largely defunct forum that Chris O'Brien also posted in. The second and third were the Crop Circle Connector Forum [now defunct] and the Ocean Explorer (Baltic Anomaly) forum on facebook. Unless you've posted in one of those we haven't exchanged commentary before this forum.

I was thinking less literally and more cyclically, as it seems this particular discussion is two sides of a paranormally minted coin.

It's the inverse of your reaction to the ETH. You see no reason to consider the ETH as an explanation for ufos, and I see no reason to consider 'the paranormal' {whatever 'it' is?} as an explanation for them.

ps, neither do I see any reason to think that our species is 'someone else's property'.

And I guess that's another coin to be flipped (eth vs. idh) though I'm not out to completely discount anything. As stated earlier, this is protoscience at best, so I choose not to discount anything outright. I just have incredible doubts about the ETH as the answer.

I also favour the notion of humanity's self determination. And in truth, the UFO phenomenon has been mostly indifferent to what humans get up to. No thing or force is interfering with us, yet how can you not get the feeling that we are under constant observation by something completely beyond our own capacities? Consequently this raises more suspicions in my mind and makes me have some sympathies for what Charles Fort must have been dwelling on.

 

[mike_thoth]

Unlike other scientific investigations Ufology has many strikes against it. There is the social stigma that comes with a degree of dismissiveness making it very hard to mainstream outside of the cultural 'kooky' belief system that has been assigned to it. But it also is not something directly impacting us in any significant way. Unlike ideas about climate, pollution, viruses, energy etc. which prompt science to get in gear in a more rigorous and defined manner, the UFO has been mostly about a sociological impact on our civilization. That has been further reduced to entertainment and speculation. Is there even a need for science to get on board given those conditions?

I'd agree with your sentiment in your post above, science has backed away because of stigma, UFO idiots, UFO believers etc... When I say science needs to get involved I'm more inclined to want the scientific infrastructure & facilities to be involved. I just heard the last Paracast show, about half of it. I agree with Chris O'Briens opinion that hard data is needed & not just databases or anecdotes. I think the 200,000 cases mentioned have been screened but to what extent I don't know, but some data I feel can be extracted despite the chaos in the noise. I think both fronts are valid & he is right, once they get good data that can be assessed & repeated funding will come, I wish I were in a position to help. But when the data is in I just feel given the size of the science establishment it is possible to get some answers.

What's embarrassing is that for 60 years the UFO field has learned next to nothing about the phenomena. Imagine if there was 'disclosure' lol. Not only could we not believe what we have been told we can't even turn to the scientific community to confirm the disclosure based on data. How could we ever know the truth? The media would then turn to the 'experts' who would tell us nothing either. Imagine the embarrassment globally, when scientists reveal work had been done underground because of ridicule?

The disclosure crew are lazy, Ufology is an establishment, without the tools of science the Sophist ideology will prevail, hence this Roswell Slides F&£)!?;ing farce, done to make cash not history.

Rant over.

 

[mike_thoth]

The recent movie Interstellar was an interesting idea (bringing up here just for the fun of the idea) SPOLIER ALERT IF NOT SEEN PLEASE IGNORE POST.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea of higher dimensions & how it interacts with our view of the universe is an interesting illustration of the concept. When I was younger I read Hawkins A Brief History of Time & his other work regarding black holes etc (second book laymen style also). From then I wondered about the structure of our universe & after reading Michio Kaku's book Parallell Worlds (I think this was the book) wondered about how a 5th dimensional being would see our perceived world. In other words, aliens may live on other planets but what about other higher dimensions? They may be so 'alien' we may not know how to even perceive them.

So when I hear experts saying that these humanoids are landing, picking flowers, rocks, animals I must scratch my head & say, are we really humanising potential aliens by suggesting they are on field trips? Surveys? How many do these Idiot aliens need for goodness sake!

I have a feeling these are simply displays for our benefit, but I don't base that on data, I wish I could. If I come into cash over the next couple of years or after (doubt it as going through divorce) then I will contribute the Chris O'Briens project.

 

[Burnt State]

The recent movie Interstellar was an interesting idea (bringing up here just for the fun of the idea) SPOLIER ALERT IF NOT SEEN PLEASE IGNORE POST.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea of higher dimensions & how it interacts with our view of the universe is an interesting illustration of the concept. When I was younger I read Hawkins A Brief History of Time & his other work regarding black holes etc (second book laymen style also). From then I wondered about the structure of our universe & after reading Michio Kaku's book Parallell Worlds (I think this was the book) wondered about how a 5th dimensional being would see our perceived world. In other words, aliens may live on other planets but what about other higher dimensions? They may be so 'alien' we may not know how to even perceive them.

So when I hear experts saying that these humanoids are landing, picking flowers, rocks, animals I must scratch my head & say, are we really humanising potential aliens by suggesting they are on field trips? Surveys? How many do these Idiot aliens need for goodness sake!

I have a feeling these are simply displays for our benefit, but I don't base that on data, I wish I could. If I come into cash over the next couple of years or after (doubt it as going through divorce) then I will contribute the Chris O'Briens project.

I enjoyed Interstellar on some levels as well - especially its post-apocalyptic agrarian planetary culture where science and NASA agave retreated underground in order to fulfill activities that are ultimately for the benefit of humanity. The other part I enjoyed was the dimensional time loop in the narrative where we are the ghost that haunts ourselves. In this way paranormal experiences are just moments of time travel. But of more interest to me was its examination of the impact of space travel on our current paradigms of family and social dynamics. If we are to get anywhere as a society, the movie suggests, we need to evolve our notions of human relationships and further develop the frontiers of human leadership. Could there be a real Invisible College at work In our current society - highly unlikely. As you say, we still don't even know how to mine the data.

I wasn't there for the first half of the show but as far as hard data analysis I have a few points:

• We should not ignore past data, just find better filters to screen out only the best cases to work with and then apply analysis that can tell us something interesting as patterns start to emerge - it would be a shame to discount it all as merely anecdotal, or as Clark says, "alive only in the minds and memory of the witness." If we stop there then what was the point of all that great data collection? Certainy we can write software now thai can provide "big data" insights unthought of previously.
• There's no guarantee that a fixed hard data monitoring system will reveal anything at all. What happens when the cameras flip on and the UFO's decide not to come out and play? Hessdalen did establish the hard data monitoring station, captured some incredible, jaw dropping images, but very little by way of explanation, and then the object frequency diminished. Much like Chris said on the show - "you start talking about the phenomenon and then it does a 180." There are some real limitations here to this vs. Trumball's mobile UFO tracker - but again, you need a team $$$ employed that can go anywhere whenever you need them $$$.
• In the above UFOCAT article, the same author identifies the protocols for such hard data monitoring in some of his other publications - it's pretty involved. Chris is going to need more than just data capture ability if it's going to come to any fruition. The details required, as you say, using the fullness of the institutional capacities of science, requires a lot more than just 6 cameras set up. It requires a massive team, lots of processing equipment and even then you are still hoping that the UAP's will be there when you need them. If after the first six months nothing shows up then it's a hard piece to financially justify.

Of course, if there was such a monitoring station, and it did manage to capture something amazing, then you've got some real potential as the UFO rarely leaves a trail that you can do much with. Why have not all the crumbs yielded anything for anyone yet? Maybe that's a question for good data mining to answer first, to see what there is to see, as not all of it is solely anecdotal.

To be honest, what I'm more perplexed by is how many have found alien belief despite the limitations of the data. One wonders how much we have scripted the ETH narrative of soilsamovars etc. on our own; because, that's what we expect vs. screen images being thrown around for our benefit. Either way, the mystery stays deep and buried.

 

[Constance]

I have absolutely none. In fact I'm more disturbed by the notion that it's all a ruse. On the show we've heard talk about planetary consciousness, and while I feel that's a really big stretch to consider that Gaia is up to some motivational programming of her own, I think Mac Tonnies' though experiment re: the Cryptoterrestrials, is more likely than the plant community trying to redirect our human endeavors. The crypto theory is lacking in the fossil record and evidence of mass scale industry, but then unfathomable sentient, intelligent life could be going on elsewhere nearby in a solar sense, so there are other possibilities. But I've yet to hear one that has a lot of plausibility attached. The ETH appears to make no sense based on the history of sightings that must number in the tens of thousands by now if not potentially much greater than that. A closed system answer appears to be more likely, especially in how over eras of sightings what we expect to see is in fact what we see. It certainly indicates that there is a puppeteer elsewhere pulling our strings.

To be unambiguously clear, I do not hold a brief for the ETH as a hypothesis to account for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon over the last 65 years but rather as a hypothesis that does 'make sense' of a considerable portion of the witness sightings and hard data thus far gathered. That's a portion consisting of about 5 percent of recorded sightings judging from statements by many researchers including the COMETA researchers in France. By comparison, if one is being challenged to dismiss the ETH hypothesis regarding a portion of the information so far gathered in favor of an interdimensional control system per Valle, I would say that the ETH rests on considerably more tangible data than the speculation by Vallee that a 'control system' is behind the modern ufo phenomena. He does not appear to be referring to a human PTB/MIC control system [which I take it is the 'ruse' you (would) find most distasteful], but rather to an 'interdimensional control system' about which we have no concrete data whatever. There is no reason why Vallee's speculation cannot be considered alongside the ETH and other hypotheses [esp the UAP hypothesis] as possible potential explanations of parts of 'the ufo phenomenon'. I don't think we have to choose among these hypotheses at present, nor do I think there is a basis on which to make such a choice at present.

And I guess that's another coin to be flipped (eth vs. idh) though I'm not out to completely discount anything. As stated earlier, this is protoscience at best, so I choose not to discount anything outright. I just have incredible doubts about the ETH as the answer.

I'd say that you "have credible doubts about the ETH as the answer" (most people who adequately research the ufo subject do). What might be 'incredible' are the speculations you and others express about the intentions of an interdimensional control system that, if it exists, 'considers us its property'. Again, what is the evidence supporting that hypothesis?

I also favour the notion of humanity's self determination. And in truth, the UFO phenomenon has been mostly indifferent to what humans get up to. No thing or force is interfering with us, yet how can you not get the feeling that we are under constant observation by something completely beyond our own capacities? Consequently this raises more suspicions in my mind and makes me have some sympathies for what Charles Fort must have been dwelling on.

It does appear that since WWII we have been under constant or frequent "observation by something completely beyond our own capacities." That indeed seems to clearly be the case in the persistent appearances of ufos over nuclear fuel production facilities, atomic and nuclear bomb test sites, intercontinental missile bases, and Air Force weapons dumps, beginning at the plutonium production facility at Hanford, WA in the summer of 1945 and continuing in every decade since then, in the US and Russia. But this persistent phenomenon does not call up Fortean explanations to account for it since the meaning and the message of these sightings and intrusions is clear and rational: a warning not to use these weapons.


Also Burnt, re Levengood's research, here are two papers I ask you to read before passing along further misrepresentations of the man and his work on crop circles:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_2_levengood.pdf

COMMENTS ON ?THE H-GLAZE EXPLAINED by W.C. Levengood and John Burke

 

[Burnt State]

Here's Massimo's considerations for a hard data monitoring system:
Abstract
He was involved with the monitoring of Hessdalen as one of the few other university bodies that sent people to investigate the phenomenon. He's produced the only body of analysis on Hessdalen that's available in English. Unfortunately his reports and analytic pieces are no where near as exciting as the movie, The Portal, about Hessdalen. Therein lies the reality of investigating high strange phenomena. The original story is vey exciting, while the research is entirely mundane, and often finds mundanity as a source to what was originally very extraordinary.

Those articles from Levengood just bring back bad memories for me about debating crop circle science in the 90's online - all the same data, rarely replicated and no real growth out of this science. Why has no one else built off hese findings if they are legitimately new science? The other sad avenue of research into the fantastical, like trying to prove an extra-normal source behind crop circles, is its ability to sink deep into analysis that is often mundane to begin with. Roger Leir's analysis of supposed implants all yield incredibly amazing properties of rare metals and minerals present in his samples. Though, when you compare the ratios of these elements and then compare them to the composition of a human body we suddenly discover amazing parallels, in fact they are often identical.

Crop circle science would have us believe that we are finding rare materials in the soil, reactive to magnets, the plants themselves genetically altered, their seed propagation shifted dramatically and contrary evidentiary findings inside and outside these anomalous circles. Yet the story stops there. No further believers are willing to carry this evidence any further. Was there anything there at all to begin with or were scientists simply guided by their desire to construct an explanation out of the bits of evidence found and that could accommodate a unique narrative. Certainly Nancy Talbott aimed to carry the evidence forward by looking at crystalline structures in the soil.

 

[Burnt State]

re: Vallée and the ETH etc.

This is also old ground now for us always returning to the question of what evidence there is for the IDH. The literature is rather complete on this point and most contemporary writers and theorists I would think are looking in other directions. Please keep in mind, the man who wrote the single most comprehensive argument in favour of the ETH then turned around, after his own detailed scientific investigation, working with all those luminaries and organizations that are repeatedly celebrated in this discussion and them proposed the IDH. He felt the science just did not add up to an extra-terrestrial hypothesis. Vallée's thinking in fact has gone through many evolutions unlike most studying the phenomena who get locked into one mode of thinking and do not allow for the rest of the evidence in all its wild and weird glory to speak freely. His ideas of a social thermostat echo your notions of the frequency of craft seeming to respond socially to global events. Still, they do not interfere, just appear, and then dissolve.

He does not proclaim the Fortean piece nor do I feel that the PTB are in any way responsible for the core phenomenon, and that's why I feel it is more than a little discomforting to consider that we may not belong to ourselves and that this seemingly ongoing surveillance does hint at someone else's biology project. But as I said, that's the last option I would select, though our species' ongoing negotiations of fate, free will and chance, as it appears in unending fashion in all our stories, literature and religions do seem to echo something of this bio project. Whose hands are the hands of god anyway?

Why we've been led to believe in the ETH to me is a much more substantial and interesting question than trying to prove the ETH or relying on it as an obvious response to those 5% of cases. Though I still haven't heard any strong reasoning as to just what exactly it is that leads investigators to believe that there's aliens in those craft from another world. Anyways, here we go one more time in case the case against it was missed or you did not read any Vallée, either his pro or con ETH, but this says it best:

 

[mike_thoth]

To be unambiguously clear, I do not hold a brief for the ETH as a hypothesis to account for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon over the last 65 years but rather as a hypothesis that does 'make sense' of a considerable portion of the witness sightings and hard data thus far gathered. That's a portion consisting of about 5 percent of recorded sightings judging from statements by many researchers including the COMETA researchers in France. By comparison, if one is being challenged to dismiss the ETH hypothesis regarding a portion of the information so far gathered in favor of an interdimensional control system per Valle, I would say that the ETH rests on considerably more tangible data than the speculation by Vallee that a 'control system' is behind the modern ufo phenomena. He does not appear to be referring to a human PTB/MIC control system [which I take it is the 'ruse' you (would) find most distasteful], but rather to an 'interdimensional control system' about which we have no concrete data whatever. There is no reason why Vallee's speculation cannot be considered alongside the ETH and other hypotheses [esp the UAV hypothesis] as possible potential explanations of parts of 'the ufo phenomenon'. I don't think we have to choose among these hypotheses at present, nor do I think there is a basis on which to make such a choice at present.



I'd say that you "have credible doubts about the ETH as the answer" (most people who adequately research the ufo subject do). What might be 'incredible' are the speculations you and others express about the intentions of an interdimensional control system that, if it exists, 'considers us its property'. Again, what is the evidence supporting that hypothesis?



It does appear that since WWII we have been under constant or frequent "observation by something completely beyond our own capacities." That indeed seems to clearly be the case in the persistent appearances of ufos over nuclear fuel production facilities, atomic and nuclear bomb test sites, intercontinental missile bases, and Air Force weapons dumps, beginning at the plutonium production facility at Hanford, WA in the summer of 1945 and continuing in every decade since then, in the US and Russia). But this persistent phenomenon does not call up Fortean explanations to account for it since the meaning and the message of these sightings and intrusions is clear and rational: a warning not to use these weapons.


Also Burnt, re Levengood's research, here are two papers I ask you to read before passing along further misrepresentations of the man and his work on crop circles:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_2_levengood.pdf

COMMENTS ON ?THE H-GLAZE EXPLAINED by W.C. Levengood and John Burke

I'd agree with Burt States reply here. I think many of us don't accept the ETH as a complete explanation for the phenomena but it is still a valid hypothesis to be tested.

The control system Vallee speculates over is again a testable hypothesis but it is very tough to test. He would need to create some sort of information discontinuity that gets sent back to the system itself, which in turn could prompt the phenomena to respond allowing us to witness the ultimate source generating the phenomena.

The control system need not be negative for the human race, it could be a teaching system that drives our advancement in a direction required through absurdity & games. We need not be property as Fort hypothesised.

However it may be negative if it exists, controlling development to stunt or stop progression.

Who knows?

 

[Burnt State]

I'd agree with Burt States reply here. I think many of us don't accept the ETH as a complete explanation for the phenomena but it is still a valid hypothesis to be tested.

The control system Vallee speculates over is again a testable hypothesis but it is very tough to test. He would need to create some sort of information discontinuity that gets sent back to the system itself, which in turn could prompt the phenomena to respond allowing us to witness the ultimate source generating the phenomena.

The control system need not be negative for the human race, it could be a teaching system that drives our advancement in a direction required through absurdity & games. We need not be property as Fort hypothesised.

However it may be negative if it exists, controlling development to stunt or stop progression.

Who knows?

Ok first of all, I'm going to change my name to Burt and will call the other half of my brain, Ernie, and then maybe people will think I'm making more sense under such a dualist moniker.

Vallée cites numerous classic moments in history of the great unknown behind the UFO making contact and even directing traffic on earth, steering us towards certain religious belief systems, possibly having a very specific hand in guiding different parts of human spiritual experience. Not too sure if that worked out too well as they should have made a bigger point about turning the religious reigns over to women, or at least putting in a little extra effort to create stronger matriarchal spaces as all this patriarchal terrorist extremist crap is really getting me down. Failed experiment if you ask me.

He also suggests, as you say, that we need to experiment ourselves with the control system and see if we can alter it to get some feedback. I understand that he did work on a few rituals to attempt such things on a ranch in America - not Skinwalker, but his own. I think you might need to read one of his published personal journals to get any info along those lines. No one ever asks him about that or why he found Satanism to be hip for a while back in the day. People just fear the occult and ritual I suppose.

But when you look at his last TED talk in Geneva on discontinuous reality and impossible futures, where right in the middle of the thing, without blinking an eye, he makes reference to the fact that very soon in the near future the crowd will be able to figure out what the whole UFO thing is all about. That really sounded like he was signaling there - but to whom? To the control system - is he threatening, just to see what will happen? That was a very straynge comment and very out of place, almost an example of discontinuous reality in a speech about impossibile futures and discontinuity. Interesting....

 

[Constance]

I'd agree with Burt States reply here. I think many of us don't accept the ETH as a complete explanation for the phenomena but it is still a valid hypothesis to be tested.

Yes, that's clear from Vallee's intention, stated in his paper at the recent conference in France, to incorporate the existing databases developed by ufo researchers to date.

The control system Vallee speculates over is again a testable hypothesis but it is very tough to test. He would need to create some sort of information discontinuity that gets sent back to the system itself, which in turn could prompt the phenomena to respond allowing us to witness the ultimate source generating the phenomena.

That has been my impression of what he hopes to do -- in effect to outsmart the intentional agents in control of the theorized 'control system' to reveal their existence and perhaps even their purposes and goals. If there actually is a control system directed toward humans from another 'dimension' of reality or even from within the physical dimension within which we seem to exist, Vallee's plan might discover it. I doubt that anyone is attempting to prevent him from carrying out his investigation through a more integrated and global database yet to be developed.

The control system need not be negative for the human race, it could be a teaching system that drives our advancement in a direction required through absurdity & games.

I wonder why absurdity and games would necessarily be the devices employed by an intelligence assumed to be enormously knowledgeable as well as powerful in creating false phenomena. Unless the universe or multiverse is itelf 'absurd'. If on the other hand advancement of our understanding of the nature of reality is undertaken for some purpose that is constructive for and beneficial to us, why not an approach less confusing, sometimes frightening, and thus psychologically upsetting? Or do advanced intelligences evolved in the universe/multiverse reach a kind of 'Mad Hatter' condition? Does the world beyond our local reality approximate the Wonderland that Alice discovers on the other side of the looking glass, and if so do we really want to go there? I suppose if we can't avoid ultimately going there it's probably a good idea to get an idea beforehand of what to expect.

We need not be property as Fort hypothesised.

Whoever/whatever runs the control system might have no conception of 'property' or of the general understanding our species has reached [but imperfectly applied] of the intrinsic natural rights and boundaries of individual conscious persons. So 'they' might treat and mistreat us as 'property' without having the slightest idea of what that means to us.

However it may be negative if it exists, controlling development to stunt or stop progression.

Who knows?

 

[Burnt State]

Absurdist things the aliens have taught us so far include a series of various investigatory procedures so when we go off world we'll know exactly how to behave:

 

[Burnt State]

Things we can teach our children in order to disrupt the control system as soon as we catch one of those pesky critters:

And for the over five set the more advanced version. It's not cannibalism per se:

 

[Burnt State]

Some of the reasons for the disjunction between us and the alien ways of doing things may include intrinsic human features not shared by aliens:

As Red Pill Junkie said recently over at Misterioso, perhaps the aliens are trying to teach us something about ourselves through the absurdist abduction experience, "The discussion about the thin veneer of normalcy in our society made me think of how perhaps the abduction experience is a shock-therapy attempt to ‘free’ the experiencer by way of removing the false sense of safety we’ve come to believe, and show the abductee that even without this belief, survival is possible. The person goes who the worst fear imaginable (being abducted in his/her own bedroom, what is universally considered to be the ultimate sanctuary in our lives) only to find out he/she survived the ordeal." I thought this was an interesting consideration given so much of what aliens do just make no sense whatsoever, so there could be an element of teaching or instruction that they are engaging in. This could also be a two way interaction as we teach them through our responses.

Of course if they're expecting us to play tag with them up in the atmosphere this also is not working out so well, unless our increased abilities to fly further afield is what's really on their instructional agenda. But one thing's for certain, it sees that they may be like us in more ways than just being able to breathe and ambulate in our atmosphere. They also adhere to some basic principles:

 

[Constance]

Here's Massimo's considerations for a hard data monitoring system:
Abstract . . . Unfortunately his reports and analytic pieces are no where near as exciting as the movie, The Portal, about Hessdalen. Therein lies the reality of investigating high strange phenomena. The original story is vey exciting, while the research is entirely mundane, and often finds mundanity as a source to what was originally very extraordinary.

Why are you disappointed by 'mundane' explanations found for UAP? If the scientific problem is to discover and distinguish explicable natural processes on and around earth and in the atmosphere from similar-appearing phenomena that demonstrate intentionality, nothing could be more useful than the mundane science Massimo participates in.

Those articles from Levengood just bring back bad memories for me about debating crop circle science in the 90's online - all the same data, rarely replicated and no real growth out of this science. Why has no one else built off hese findings if they are legitimately new science? The other sad avenue of research into the fantastical, like trying to prove an extra-normal source behind crop circles, is its ability to sink deep into analysis that is often mundane to begin with.

Biophysics is a relatively new scientific discipline and involves interdisciplinary research that goes beyond what current physics alone and traditional biology alone can account for separately, but it still involves the search for what you call 'mundane' data. Levengood discovered anomalies in cc plant tissues, seeds, and plant growth through the use of scanning microscopes, for which anomalies he postulated biophysical causes in forces and fields in earth's atmosphere carrying meteoritic material [iron spherules and on occasion melted iron glazes] to earth from the atmosphere in what he called ion plasma showers. The puzzle was why these spherules and glazes showed up in significant proportions in some crop circles and at the sites of ufo landings and cattle mutilations. See Robert Perkins's article on these coincidences on Chris O'Brien's Our Strange Planet website:

High Heat | Our Strange Planet | Our Strange Planet

Your first objection above to my defense of Levengood's contributions concerning these anomalies is simply not valid. Analyses and findings concerning the micro-material anomalies were indeed replicated, within and across three different kinds of sites of visible macroanomalies. Your second objection -- "no real growth out of this science. Why has no one else built off these findings if they are legitimately new science?" We, at least I, do not know whether biophysicists continue to explore these micro-material anomalies and their association with macroanomalies appearing in our environment. Not all research appears in journals, especially not research concerning macroanomalies such as ufos, cattle mutes, and crop circles.

The other sad avenue of research into the fantastical, like trying to prove an extra-normal source behind crop circles, is its ability to sink deep into analysis that is often mundane to begin with. Roger Leir's analysis of supposed implants all yield incredibly amazing properties of rare metals and minerals present in his samples. Though, when you compare the ratios of these elements and then compare them to the composition of a human body we suddenly discover amazing parallels, in fact they are often identical.

And sometimes they are not identical. Ambiguity is a bitch, isn't it? Again, we have to begin with the 'mundane', that which we do (think we) understand of the world we live in from current 'knowledge' in physics, chemistry, and biology, and then we have to increase our knowledge of the nature of the physical world by exploring anomalies that show up on earth and in the atmosphere, as NARCAP does. It's another question to seek a satisfactory account of how and why such anomalies sometimes appear to demonstrate intentionality.

Crop circle science would have us believe that we are finding rare materials in the soil, reactive to magnets, the plants themselves genetically altered, their seed propagation shifted dramatically and contrary evidentiary findings inside and outside these anomalous circles. Yet the story stops there. No further believers are willing to carry this evidence any further. Was there anything there at all to begin with or were scientists simply guided by their desire to construct an explanation out of the bits of evidence found and that could accommodate a unique narrative.

The two underscored questions are two different questions and do not combine to produce an either/or situation. There evidently was something there to begin with, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize why research concerning it was discouraged. Again, that's not to say that some biophysicists and others do not use that research in continuing explorations of anomalous micro-material phenomenon and explorations of physical processes not yet understood. Did the scientists and technicians that studied crop circles for a number of years in England act out of a "desire to construct" a "unique narrative"? I doubt it; publishing 'unique narratives' is not what biophysical scientists and EM technicians usually do. I think these specialists acted out of a desire to competently measure, understand, and if possible account for physical anomalies that they found to be intriguing as anomalies.

Certainly Nancy Talbott aimed to carry the evidence forward by looking at crystalline structures in the soil.

That was evidence of another type of physical anomaly -- the presence of highly compacted and mineralized soils beneath several crop circles, in North America as I recall. What was interesting about those soil findings was that such compaction and mineralization had previously been found only in certain types of geological settings where immense and weighty stone or rock formations had compressed the underlying soil for great lengths of time. The crop circles involved in those soil studies were not located over such structures; thus the mineralization of the soil beneath the surface was apparently anomalous.

I think we've gone about as far as either of us can go or wants to go in this discussion. Let's agree to disagree on the significance of Levengood's research, ok?

 

[Burnt State]

Agreed. No harm no foul I hope. Peace.