• 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!

Reframing the Debate: A Path Forward or Backward?

Free episodes:

So now we're also helpless and confused in the face of it all.
Pretty much seems that way.
Why give over all power to an unproven entity?
Proof is a relative term. Assuming the entities you're speaking of are those associated with the sightings of alien craft, proof sufficient for many of us has already been obtained, so we don't need it.
Why not start with us first as we are the ones seeing things?
That's exactly what I was getting at. If we're the subject of their study, then we should be able to extrapolate something about their intentions by studying the witnesses.
Wouldn't that be the first step as opposed to just taking things as they are and identifying us as utterly submissive to our all powerful alien overlords?
I wouldn't say that the aliens are all powerful. They do make an effort to evade military pursuit and capture. They're technologically superior at building transport craft. Beyond that we can't be entirely certain whether or not they're really that much more advanced than we are. We have mind control technology and the ability to create all sorts of illusions. Maybe they've just got a few more tricks up their sleeves.
 
Not deleting this - I think it's hilarious. Great job taking advantage of the bug to make it fun!

Thanks for the laugh this morning.

Sent from my Zune.
I almost changed your avatar to this:

diy-low-cost-cosplay-costume-anucha-saengchart-12__880.jpg
 
Pretty much seems that way.

Proof is a relative term. Assuming the entities you're speaking of are those associated with the sightings of alien craft, proof sufficient for many of us has already been obtained, so we don't need it.

That's exactly what I was getting at. If we're the subject of their study, then we should be able to extrapolate something about their intentions by studying the witnesses.

I wouldn't say that the aliens are all powerful. They do make an effort to evade military pursuit and capture. They're technologically superior at building transport craft. Beyond that we can't be entirely certain whether or not they're really that much more advanced than we are. We have mind control technology and the ability to create all sorts of illusions. Maybe they've just got a few more tricks up their sleeves.
why on earth or off earth do you believe that they have mind control technology? what informs this - the telepathic thoughts, their shape shifting capacities, their ridiculously theatrical and incredible light shows? are you saying that none of that could possibly come from us?
 
Pretty much seems that way.

Proof is a relative term. Assuming the entities you're speaking of are those associated with the sightings of alien craft, proof sufficient for many of us has already been obtained, so we don't need it.

That's exactly what I was getting at. If we're the subject of their study, then we should be able to extrapolate something about their intentions by studying the witnesses.

I wouldn't say that the aliens are all powerful. They do make an effort to evade military pursuit and capture. They're technologically superior at building transport craft. Beyond that we can't be entirely certain whether or not they're really that much more advanced than we are. We have mind control technology and the ability to create all sorts of illusions. Maybe they've just got a few more tricks up their sleeves.
All I know is that what I saw that night seemed as afraid of me as I was of him.

He was in charge, sure. But I felt like the hulk next to this thing. I could have snapped him literally like a twig - and might have out of sheer terror - if I wasn’t somehow reigned in.

Imagine us going into Ug the Neanderthal’s cave in the wee hours of the morning. These things were stronger, faster, more resilient, and pretty much as smart as we are.

I’d be pretty nervous about waking Ug up in the middle of the night without some kind of tranquilizer gun or something.
 
why on earth or off earth do you believe that they have mind control technology? what informs this - the telepathic thoughts, their shape shifting capacities, their ridiculously theatrical and incredible light shows? are you saying that none of that could possibly come from us?
Why can’t it be both?

I’m thinking some kind of sympathetic technology or mechanism. Maybe it’s even part of their biology.
 
Pretty much seems that way.

surrender is not an option. ask more questions, ask different questions, when confused and don't assume too much; because, when you assume you make an..ahem...
Proof is a relative term. Assuming the entities you're speaking of are those associated with the sightings of alien craft, proof sufficient for many of us has already been obtained, so we don't need it.
that would be an assumption. and i suppose we all have different requirements when it comes to proof. i've been talking about entities seen up close. i don't know if that's who is also up in the skies. it would appear that way up close. and it also looks ridiculous.

502d06af9d74beb3fc4869e996588964.jpg
BobTaylor_UFO_tech_03.jpg

Every time i think about this case or Cisco Grove i catch myself laughing. Is the "Alien Incompetence Theory" of Rutkowski actually true? What made any intelligent species think they could get a hold of anything with their sea mines, yet try and drag Robert Taylor they did. It was the first ever UFO investigation by Police in Europe, if i remember correctly, perhaps just in Scotland. His pants had actual tears along either side - there was some kind of physical interaction that he had while he looked at a ship shimmering in the distance - not completely there. He saw strange things; he passed out, he appeared drugged and saw a ship that looked like this:

1979-ufo-bobtaylor.jpg

"I just came around this corner and was amazed to see this vehicle sitting there. I was just rooted to the sport. It was like a huge spinning top, 20ft or so wide and the same in height with a huge flange right around about it. There was a rod sticking out of this flange with what I took to be blades on top, and portholes behind those blades going right around the dome."

Ok, so if that's not B-grade sci fi then i don't know what is. I think i'm even more enamoured, though with UFO's seen up close with propellers on them. Like of course, one needs propellers in space. These details are co-created at best.


That's exactly what I was getting at. If we're the subject of their study, then we should be able to extrapolate something about their intentions by studying the witnesses.

yeah ok, but the witnesses are telling us that there is a hybrid takeover of planet earth going on and the hubrids are living among us right now this very minute. i could be a hubrid disinformation agent. before we submit to being part of an alien study, by apparently a heck of a lot of aliens in all their different ships and configurations, maybe we start first with what humans think is going on by looking a lot more closely at the witness as a whole and not just using what they report to concoct purpose and agency for something we're not really sure of what it is beyond that it comes in many shapes and sizes, and sometimes just wants us to save the world, live in peace and light vs. those that would torture us medically, taking off arms and putting them on again, raping us etc

(sounds rather archetypically good and evil doesn't it - almost familiar, this whole story about us getting visited from gods from above who have special messages for us about how to live or what's good for us?)
Alien_timeline.jpg


I wouldn't say that the aliens are all powerful. They do make an effort to evade military pursuit and capture. They're technologically superior at building transport craft. Beyond that we can't be entirely certain whether or not they're really that much more advanced than we are. We have mind control technology and the ability to create all sorts of illusions. Maybe they've just got a few more tricks up their sleeves.

perhaps they are nothing more than magicians? but the fact is that agency is being given to something that we are also surrendering our entire consciousness and perceptual capacity to and leaving behind the one who told the tale. the tale is familiar, historical, folklorish, religious and threatens to write a whole new narrative about how we are subjects to the gods. and then here we go again giving the gods these incredible powers over us and we should just sit back and write stories about where they come from, how they got here, what they really can do to us and our whole role suddenly becomes scribe to the alien narrative. sure yes, set up our tools to measure them, and learn something of what they are, but that this hasn't really happened to date in any real serious way in any country in the world, despite millions upon millions of visitations. people are seeing three per day in our own country. that no government actively monitors or defends against this witness story should tell us something about how they appear to be more than slightly removed from our reality. i don't like the idea of giving over our own agency to this phenomenon in the way the ETH provides. so maybe it is a philosophical difference regarding interpretation, but i would still rather want to learn more about seeing before i start using the sighting of a light in the sky, yes with radar, to be the starting point or rationale for writing a whole history for them.

humans first, i guess, would be a good way to defining one of the underpinnings of the Co-creation Hypothesis along with Zeteticism. and that puts the idea of aliens or knowing much about them way down at the other end of the line in order of thinking about the phenomenon. we have always been the source of fantastic stories that are linked together to create belief systems of various strengths. the ufo also presents that option and how we respond to it is perhaps very rooted in the nature, beliefs and philosophies of the person who is responding


images.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've been meaning to ask what 'HS' stands for?

Usual Suspect is right--high strangeness. :)

I see no reason to conclude that they have only a single purpose in coming here

In previous posts I implied that confusing us is most certainly not their main purpose in coming here but just a tactic to help them achieve it with minimal interference. As I wrote before, the purpose of HS (weird appearances or behavior unlike spacefarers) is to keep us endlessly confused and guessing about what the phenomenon represents. As long as people can't agree on what is is, we're hardly in a position to take action, so ET can continue with what he's doing unhindered.

But the significance of one persistent behavior is unambiguous: their spotlight on and interference with intercontinental missiles and other nuclear weaponry here, in Canada, in Russia, and other countries.

Agreed, and the US too of course.
 
Is the "Alien Incompetence Theory" of Rutkowski actually true? What made any intelligent species think they could get a hold of anything with their sea mines, yet try and drag Robert Taylor they did.


Again, the goal may not have ben to capture but simply to harrass or cause injury to, perhaps as a warning to governments that they can be dangerous.

I think i'm even more enamoured, though with UFO's seen up close with propellers on them. Like of course, one needs propellers in space.

And we can be sure they weren't craft sent down from a mother ship?
[FONT=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/FONT]
that no government actively monitors or defends against this witness story should tell us something about how they appear to be more than slightly removed from our reality.


There have been many reports of interceptor chases or clashes involving militaries and aliens.
Btw it's fallacious to imply that certain types of humanoids have only been seen at certain times. The Kelly KY "goblins" for example, reappeared c 1977.
 
uh...wouldn't that be another example of co-creation at work?
Which is why I don’t think the ETH and what you’re talking about is incompatible.

I worry we have a false equivalency bias in operation here. Or at least a false dilemma.

In short, I don’t know why we’re arguing about it.
 
Last edited:
We’ve been hearing a lot of talking points from the Reframing the Debate folks in recent months, and this week’s Paracast was no exception.

Susan Demeter-St-Clair is an engaging and charismatic speaker, but in my estimation her logic kept going off the rails when she presented many of the arguments against the ETH that we’ve heard so much about lately. I also found this interview to be oddly frustrating: she’s seen three different and very evidently physical craft, and yet she’s changed her mind and now she seriously questions if they were actually physical craft. But her reasons for doing so make no sense to me.

Here are the key objections to the ETH offered by the advocates of "reframing the debate," and why I think that each one is illogical and/or mistaken:

- The ETH hasn’t solved the ufo enigma in 70 years, so it’s a fruitless direction for progress. Therefore what we need are new ideas.

The first statement is a fundamental error in logic, because a correct hypothesis doesn’t prove itself. What we need is good data, not new ideas (new ideas are always fun to talk about, but ideas don’t answer questions, data answers questions). Progress in understanding any observed phenomenon requires focused scientific efforts such as designing and deploying technical apparatus, collecting data, analyzing the data, and publishing peer-reviewed academic papers about the findings. None of that has been done on the ufo subject, at least not in the public sector. That’s why we haven’t made any progress in understanding the phenomenon. To make real progress we’d need a wide range of technological resources, both dedicated and passive. We’d need things like; quick-response high-speed jets armed with gun cameras and other scientific equipment to gather data from anomalous targets, a professional team of trained scientists to analyze the data collected, a network of cinetheodolites at ufo hotspots and nuclear facilities to film and track anomalous phenomena, and ideally a national passive radar system to track and profile anomalous intrusions of our airspace – which would also be the ideal starting point for the deployment of other observational technology, such as Chris O’Brien’s portable sensor arrays, to event areas. In practice, our military already has all of these kinds of resources so the smartest route would entail enlisting their cooperation for mounting an earnest scientific investigation, but I don’t see that happening without a congressional order.

- Ufos are observed near the Earth but not in space, so they must be local rather than interstellar in origin.

Astronomers have very limited capability with detecting relatively small objects in space, and the public has no access to the AN/FPS-133 Air Force Space Surveillance System’s raw radar data that tracked objects in the near-Earth vicinity for over 50 years. Fairly large meteors arrive without warning all the time - we don’t know about them until they burn up dramatically in the atmosphere. And those move at relatively slow velocities. Fast and rapidly accelerating objects roughly the size of a school bus would be virtually impossible to detect without access to military radar hardware and/or a large network of sensitive dedicated telescopes to observe the celestial sphere, neither of which are available to us.

- There’s no proof of life outside of the solar system.

We don’t have the capability to detect life on exosolar planets, so the absence of such evidence is totally meaningless. However, the data that we can collect right now has proven that roughly 22% of all the stars in the universe are orbited by an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone, and the building blocks of life such as amino acids and other organic molecules permeate space. So we have every reason to expect life to be common throughout the universe. Similarly, SETI’s failure to detect radio signals from other worlds is not at all surprising: if there were an identical SETI program on a planet around the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri, it wouldn’t be sensitive enough to detect any Earth-based radio communications because our transmission signals are too weak. It could pick up some of our high-powered radar transmissions, but even those are too weak to detect at distances much beyond that, and they contain no information. Also, our “radio broadcast era” is already fading away as more efficient targeted satellite relay systems and cable lines now dominate our communications, so if other civilizations have a similarly brief single century of widespread radio transmissions, the odds of a nearby planet going through the same radio era while we happen to be looking for it, is essentially nil.

- If a civilization hundreds or thousands of years more advanced than we are were to visit us, then we wouldn’t even be able to recognize their devices as interstellar craft because they’d be so confounding to us.

This is a bizarre objection – our ability to perceive does not depend on our ability to understand. People accurately described ball lighting, a phenomenon beyond our understanding until very recently, quite accurately. And the indigenous people of the Americas observed Western sailing ships arriving from Europe, and those ships were hundreds if not thousands of years ahead of their technology, yet they reported what they observed accurately. Similarly, if a technological device arrives from another star, we may not understand how it works, but we’d be perfectly capable of describing its appearance and its behavior – even if both of those were highly exotic. Which appears to be exactly what’s happened for at least several decades – people describing strange devices that maneuver with capabilities far beyond our own.

- People reported seeing chariots of the gods and fairies and dragons hundreds of years ago, so we should take that literally, and conclude that the same phenomena that we’re witnessing today has simply changed appearance to suit our expectations.

This is a hollow argument – we didn’t even have the notion of a “flying machine” until roughly a hundred years ago, so nobody would’ve had the language to describe such a thing in the sky. They would’ve had to use terms like “a chariot of the gods” or “an angel glowing in the sky” or “a fiery dragon” to describe something like a ufo. So to impose –our current conception- of those notions, on what they meant when they said “dragon” or “angel” or “chariot”…and conclude that that’s what they were seeing, is a wild and bizarre leap to make. But to take the next step and conclude that, therefore, the same phenomenon that appeared as a winged dragon 500 years ago, appears to us now as a shiny metallic disc or a black triangle with bright lights on each corner, is nuts. There isn’t any indication from psychological or anthropological studies that the human mind is so weak and malleable that a primitive witness would actually observe a mythical creature when confronted with advanced technology. Their terminology is limited to the words that they have in their vocabulary – an ancient Mayan isn’t going have the words to report “I saw a reflective metallic disc-like flying apparatus of possibly extraterrestrial origin that levitated and then accelerated to a velocity of Mach 5 at roughly 100 g’s” – he’s probably going to say something like “My brother – I have seen a vision of Quetzalcoatl this day: we must burn our crops before he punishes us for planting early this growing season.”

- Flaps seem to correspond to sociopolitical upheavals and general societal anxiety, such as the fall of the Berlin wall and McCarthyism.

When has there ever been a quiet time in world history for us to compare this with? Never. The world is always in flux, so this view appears to be nothing more than confirmation bias at work.

- People are changed by their sighting experience, so we should study the witness instead of what has been witnessed.

Of course people are changed by a sighting – any experience that dramatically challenges one’s worldview will have that effect. If our ancient Mayan had seen a nuclear submarine rise to the ocean surface, we wouldn’t learn much about the submarine by studying his/her transformation from a farmer into an artist.

- In abduction reports, the medical procedures seem primitive – they should be able to get what they need non-invasively.

It’s difficult to imagine a time when biopsy procedures will be obsolete – if you want to study what’s going on inside the body, taking a sample is far more informative than an MRI. And a DNA sample like those that we get with a cheek swab, only reveals the DNA blueprint of the organism, not its current biological condition.

- Aliens appear in rooms and walk through walls, which is paranormal/ghost-like behavior.

Almost all of the volume within a solid object is space, so there are probably technological methods for passing material objects through a wall or window; we just haven’t figured out how to do it yet. One could reasonably argue that the ETH predicts that if an alien civilization visits the Earth, then they’d probably have other technological capabilities beyond our own in addition to rapid interstellar spaceflight capability.

- Sightings could involve dream logic and symbology that we’re missing by focusing on the idea of a physical spaceship.

That’s fine, somebody should do a study about that and let us know if they find anything interesting. But personally, I think this is like a blind man looking in a dark room for a black cat which is not there, because these things don’t appear to us as dreamy visions – they appear to us as solid technological craft.

- The idea that ufos are solid craft of some kind is just an untested hypotheses that can’t be verified without examining one in a laboratory setting, and that approach is inherently ill-suited for this investigation anyway because science is rational and the ufo phenomenon is irrational.

Okay first off, we have radar returns and landing impressions: that’s not an untested hypothesis, that’s physical evidence which directly supports the “physical craft” interpretation. They also emit light, and we know from the conservation of energy that light is energy and so it has to be emitted from something physical, like a craft. Also, it’s silly to say that we can’t verify a hypothesis without examining a phenomenon in the lab; we do it all the time. We’ve explained lots of phenomena without isolating them in the lab; the Sun, supernovas, black holes, comets, quasars, the aurora borealis – the list goes on and on. What’s required is precision technical data using scientific instruments to record and measure a phenomenon so that data can then be analyzed, and ultimately yield a physical phenomenological explanation. And finally, no observed phenomenon in the universe is intrinsically irrational, so this suggestion that the scientific method itself is inadequate for understanding ufos is rather alarming. Opponents of the ETH are seriously suggesting that we abandon science and the Age of Reason, in favor of returning to folklore and mythology studies for the answers. That’s kind of terrifying – I don’t want to go back to Dark Ages methodology.

Look – I’m totally open to discussing alternative explanations, but I demand that any proposed explanation holds up to reason. An explanation has to make sense. If it doesn’t, then it’s not a valid explanation, imo. And so far the only hypothesis that’s A.) intelligible and B.) conforms to the vast and growing body of scientific knowledge, is the ETH. All of the other explanations I’ve heard so far simply invoke paranormal/psychic phenomena – but we don’t have explanations for those yet either, so trying to explain one mystery by invoking another mystery does not strike me as a step in the right direction.

I get the feeling that these people who are into mysticism want to feel special - that they have special knowledge that others do not have. Trying to find a root cause would only serve to undermine their way of thinking. Let them think whatever they want, but suggesting that the "frame" not include the ET hypothesis is going way too far.
 
...Well, viscerally I agree that the most likely answer is the ETH... however... You’ll note that in this account there are exactly zero spacecraft of any kind involved. It took place in a major Canadian city, in the basement of my parent’s house. There were no sighting reports, and nobody else in the house noticed anything at all. I think the cat was all spooked out, but that’s it. I would agree very much that if it happened, then something physical happened because my mind interacted with it. I think therefore I am and all that. However, I have no idea what the hell it was or what it wanted. There was no communication. I got nothing from this experience except bad sleep habits. I didn’t develop any ‘new age’ kind of mentality, or any other transformational kind of experience. It happened, and that’s all. It may have been projected into my mind from afar. It could have been a demon. It could have been the trickster. I believe the simplest answer is the ETH based on what makes logical sense to me, but that’s the end of it...
Here is an interesting Dream Creatures 101 article from Brent Swancer. I'm not suggesting that your experience was a dream experience, but dreams can and do have morphing creatures and interesting details such as physical abuse w/ evidence left behind i.e., scratches, torn bed clothing, witnesses to impossible manipulation of victims, etc. There is so much we don't know about human dream states. My experience of being followed around my neighborhood by non-human entities did not appear, at all, to be a dream. It seemed as real as any other experience I've ever had, but what was it???

"Throughout history people have been haunted by such nocturnal, dream invading specters. Is this all the result of tricks of the human brain during sleep or could there be something more to some of these accounts? If so, what is going on here? If there are indeed at least some cases that go beyond the sleep paralysis explanation, then why could these entities be and what do they want? Whatever the answers may be, this is a universal phenomenon that has gone on since time unremembered, virtually unchanged across cultures and geographic boundaries, and only reasserts that there is much about sleep and dreams that we have yet to fully understand."​
 
Let them think whatever they want, but suggesting that the "frame" not include the ET hypothesis is going way too far.
The first essay in Reframing is about how some believers of the ETH have constructed a religious cult. The second essay after that is from someone who is certain they have been an abductee. And all the essays that follow, including the anti-materialists, all take time to qualify their position by beginning, "and not to dismiss the ETH as a viable option but..." Some writers have been decades in the field. All are interested in new angles of investigation in order to find new ways of contemplating: the evidence, disclosure, ET folklore, the phenomenon's effect on our culture, how the UFO can be used for personal transformation and how seeing works and the role of consciousness and memory in the witness experience. Many promote the idea of paying more attention to the witness.

No one thinks the ETH is an impossibility. Most are just bored with it because it hasn't yielded much and, because they are lateral and imaginative thinkers, they are looking at new approaches. Very few would specifically identify themselves as promoters of the Co-creation hypothesis but I can't see many who would disagree with it based on their writing, convos and podcast appearances.
 
... perhaps they are nothing more than magicians? but the fact is that agency is being given to something that we are also surrendering our entire consciousness and perceptual capacity to and leaving behind the one who told the tale. the tale is familiar, historical, folklorish, religious and threatens to write a whole new narrative about how we are subjects to the gods. and then here we go again giving the gods these incredible powers over us and we should just sit back and write stories about where they come from, how they got here, what they really can do to us and our whole role suddenly becomes scribe to the alien narrative. ...
In a way you're doing exactly what I am suggesting by looking at the witnesses and identifying the resulting behavior. So if a behavioral study is part of the alien agenda, then logically this resulting data set we have is about the same as the one the aliens have. Looking at that set I tend to think that it's more than a collection of misperceptions and human fabrications with an element of truth thrown in here and there. If even a subset of the encounter cases are being accurately relayed, then I think it's also reasonable to suggest that the aliens are using deliberate deception in order to study our reactions, not only on an individual level, but on a cultural one over time.

Furthermore this could easily extend into the paranormal realm. First they were our Gods and we were their cargo cult. But it doesn't have to stop there. Imagine if some John Alexander Psy Ops types were to make some primitive tribe a target of their supernatural deceptions? Imagine the stuff we could make them think. Hell, we've done it to ourselves. So which makes more sense when some table inexplicably levitates in the middle of the room accompanied by some strange sounds? Is it dead grandma or something with antigravity and cloaking technology? Maybe all this is a test to see which ones of us aren't fooled by theatrics. Are we going to hang onto our cargo cult mentality or ask Oz to reveal himself?
 
Last edited:
Are we going to hang onto our cargo cult mentality or ask Oz to reveal himself?
Well if we continue to see ourselves as passive test subjects then a cult is what we are in fact working on. I think there is also a danger in keeping the object of mystery held so firmly and assuredly at an interstellar distance.

Gods don't reveal themselves and we don't appear smart enough to understand how to begin to look behind the curtain. My suggestion is to determine just how much of a shadow are we looking at and can we learn to separate the human bias components from the act of seeing to try and better know the source (Greg Bishop's closing suggestion in his essay).

You can't really ask the source as it's nonreproducible so that leaves you with studying the witness' pre, during and post event. I don't see that as fulfilling any alien agenda as I don't really know how much, if any agency at all, we should assign to the source of this external stimulus. All we really have are a bunch of theories. Some people are comfortable in writing complete histories for their theories.

On a sliding scale of belief and doubt about the UFO the Co-creation Hypothesis is fairly far away from the ETH, which happens to sit a lot closer to the Contactee and Disclosure theories and are in fact all in the same family of beliefs as Alien religious cults. All start from the premise that this is all about aliens from space and so tbe story gets written the way it does. That approach pulls more and more wool curtain over our eyes imho.
 
Well if we continue to see ourselves as passive test subjects then a cult is what we are in fact working on.
That's not what I'm suggesting.
I think there is also a danger in keeping the object of mystery held so firmly and assuredly at an interstellar distance.
Maybe it's interstellar, maybe it's something less likely. It's not like Joe Public has access to it either way.
Gods don't reveal themselves and we don't appear smart enough to understand how to begin to look behind the curtain. My suggestion is to determine just how much of a shadow are we looking at and can we learn to separate the human bias components from the act of seeing to try and better know the source (Greg Bishop's closing suggestion in his essay).
That makes sense and it's essentially the same thing I've been saying, except that I've been more specific. It's all fine and dandy to tout platitudes about attitudes. It's another to actually apply them to something, and in this case it's the witnesses that are evidence we have to work with. I think they hold a lot more promise in determining what the phenomena is about than a piece of memory metal or a video of a craft flying past a camera. Again, no slam against Chris' SLV project there and I don't really want to have add that caveat each time, so in the future lets take that as a given.
You can't really ask the source as it's nonreproducible so that leaves you with studying the witness' pre, during and post event. I don't see that as fulfilling any alien agenda as I don't really know how much, if any agency at all, we should assign to the source of this external stimulus. All we really have are a bunch of theories. Some people are comfortable in writing complete histories for their theories.
That's all fine. Let people write out their theories and supporting circumstantial evidence. I don't have a problem with that.
On a sliding scale of belief and doubt about the UFO the Co-creation Hypothesis is fairly far away from the ETH, which happens to sit a lot closer to the Contactee and Disclosure theories and are in fact all in the same family of beliefs as Alien religious cults. All start from the premise that this is all about aliens from space and so tbe story gets written the way it does. That approach pulls more and more wool curtain over our eyes imho.
Or maybe after all the noise is stripped away, it is aliens from space, and arbitrarily dismissing or downplaying that possibility because somebody wants to make their theory more fashionable in order to sell more books is only adding more noise to picture. It's not like I or a number of other ufologists haven't been down this road already. Personally, I'm willing to say that the aliens might not be from off planet because there's a remote possibility that they are from here. I also think it's possible that they're from off-planet and have clandestine bases that have been here a long time, and that once in a while we see a supply ship. So sightings might be a combination of on and off planet craft.

Whatever the case, we're shut out of any direct experience regarding the alien's point of origin. And maybe that's not such an important facet of their presence here as we're making it out to be anyway. Which is why I've been saying that maybe we should try harder to determine why they're here rather than where they're from. If we get that figured out, I suspect a lot more will fall into place on its own. And in the meantime, who knows? Maybe disclosure will happen or someone will make a breakthrough scientific discovery, or the aliens will engage in open communication.

I dunno. I've been at this since I was a kid and all I know is that they're real and they act as if we're part of their studies. So working with that what can we extrapolate? I think I've already offered plenty of food for thought there. There's pretty much no shortage of bizarre phenomena, and virtually all of it can be explained by a high tech alien presence. So why invoke supernatural explanations? Just because it gets better ratings? I don't have a dog in this fight, at least not yet. So I've got no particular agenda to sell.
 
Last edited:
Going on similar events as folks on the forum one exception is sleep paralysis/dream state does not create physical object flying around the room and other eyewitness seeing the demon? type creatures not so call commercialism version of the Grey. Moreover, physical ability to morph into our reality with gnarly teeth and hot breath in your face. Long claws like a Werewolf like creatures and jumping through the yard. Also Orbs with glimpse into other Worlds which look similar to the Movie 'Avatar' which the event happen decade ago before the movie appeared on the screen.
 
The first essay in Reframing is about how some believers of the ETH have constructed a religious cult. The second essay after that is from someone who is certain they have been an abductee. And all the essays that follow, including the anti-materialists, all take time to qualify their position by beginning, "and not to dismiss the ETH as a viable option but..." Some writers have been decades in the field. All are interested in new angles of investigation in order to find new ways of contemplating: the evidence, disclosure, ET folklore, the phenomenon's effect on our culture, how the UFO can be used for personal transformation and how seeing works and the role of consciousness and memory in the witness experience. Many promote the idea of paying more attention to the witness.

No one thinks the ETH is an impossibility. Most are just bored with it because it hasn't yielded much and, because they are lateral and imaginative thinkers, they are looking at new approaches. Very few would specifically identify themselves as promoters of the Co-creation hypothesis but I can't see many who would disagree with it based on their writing, convos and podcast appearances.
As I said on the show, the fact that it hasn’t yielded much doesn’t actually mean anything.

Saying a hypothesis doesn’t work before you even test it isn’t really rational unless you think it’s not worth testing at all.

Vallee is right; we haven’t even begun the basic science to test any hypothesis at all.

Saying the ETH is boring or invalid because it hasn’t yeilded results before you test it is like saying the earth isn’t round because I don’t know what the other side of it looks like... but I’m not going to leave my back yard.
 
Well if we continue to see ourselves as passive test subjects then a cult is what we are in fact working on. I think there is also a danger in keeping the object of mystery held so firmly and assuredly at an interstellar distance.

Gods don't reveal themselves and we don't appear smart enough to understand how to begin to look behind the curtain. My suggestion is to determine just how much of a shadow are we looking at and can we learn to separate the human bias components from the act of seeing to try and better know the source (Greg Bishop's closing suggestion in his essay).

You can't really ask the source as it's nonreproducible so that leaves you with studying the witness' pre, during and post event. I don't see that as fulfilling any alien agenda as I don't really know how much, if any agency at all, we should assign to the source of this external stimulus. All we really have are a bunch of theories. Some people are comfortable in writing complete histories for their theories.

On a sliding scale of belief and doubt about the UFO the Co-creation Hypothesis is fairly far away from the ETH, which happens to sit a lot closer to the Contactee and Disclosure theories and are in fact all in the same family of beliefs as Alien religious cults. All start from the premise that this is all about aliens from space and so tbe story gets written the way it does. That approach pulls more and more wool curtain over our eyes imho.
Counter thought, and one right out of homo deus:

We are already gods by any stretch of the pre-industrial imagination.

We speak and our voice is heard around the world. Our life span is 3x greater, with practical immortality around the corner. We can see atoms. We can see the cosmic superstructure of the universe. We can impregnate the barren, we can cure genetic diseases in the womb, and we are about to be able to design new human beings. Each of us has access to more new information created in a day than even existed in the entire historical record of humanity a couple hundred years ago. We can kill entire civilizations from half a world away. We are altering the weather of our planet. Each of us has access to more energy than the entirety of or species had access to collectively a few hundred years ago. Etc.

We are already our own gods.

Perhaps this is us inventing new ones?
 
Back
Top