Bring some evidence and science will look at.
Yes, as it has evolved, it is evidentiary and materialist based. Confined to that realm it is/can be par excellence. Our science seen as engineering as in applied science is breathtaking. It is when fair Psyche enters the picture that it starts to falter and even now is wobbling a bit trying to grasp the incongruities, from Physics to Astronomy. (If one just drops the Doppler effect, the universe becomes far more static and as a consequence far more interesting and understandable - a lot gets cleared up).
If there is no evidence, what do people want a scientist to look at, unless he is otherwise personally interested in the topic? A scientist is not someone who can divvy truth from air (or isolated witness testimony), the scientist can only do what a scientist does.
Yes and no. I agree in general. Evidence, however, can be of several kinds. However, science currently only measures and quantifies the physical, material world. It's instruments of detection are physically based and that being so nothing outside the physical universe will be 'seen'. The 'aperture' for 'seeing' is extremely limited.
The 'aperture' - or instrument - to see beyond the physical is the human being itself.
It is when the evidence being presented, as in regards UFOs or the paranormal, is not materially based that science cannot cope. Evidence in scientific terms must have very particular attributes, all limited by the material universe. Money/work/labor is tied to this. We have no (official) mechanism to allow research into anything other than the material.
Thus, Vallée may be a scientist but he doesn't look at UFOs in a scientific way, he looks them at them in a cultural way, he ask questions and people respond.
Jimi H, you remain a source of interesting sources. LINK:
Jacques Vallée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and LINK:
Jacques Vallée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WIKI:
"Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact."
Hmmm......deception.....methinks we create the kind of gods we can understand.
I am really not well-read in the UFO field - I was only a marginal reader in the very early days of UFOs. Vallee is very interesting - however, he brings up the core problem with all the ETH ideas, that postulate backwards. It's as though science - in divesting itself from notions of God/Spirit - is creating an overlay of extraterrestrials to explain the past statements of humanity. It's as though the term extraterrestrial has more cache than spiritual beings (like Angels - Devas in the East - or Archangels and Archai) - probably because the bias of science is definitely material-based. Physical aircraft zipping around 'makes sense' (That is: of the 5 material senses that perceive the physical universe) than do spiritual beings a la religious belief or spiritual experience.
Vallee is interesting. This fascinating bit from Wiki:
"Vallée also proposes that a secondary aspect of the UFO phenomenon involves human manipulation by humans. Witnesses of UFO phenomena undergo a manipulative and staged spectacle, meant to alter their belief system, and eventually, influence human society by suggesting alien intervention from outer space."
I see he has studied the Marion Apparitions (I just initiated a series of threads and posts in the Seer Section relating to these) and the exact same thing could be said of the 'Lady' and the 'Angelic' presence - though less cynically couched in terms that suggest aliens are Public Relations advance teams. It's as though - with the tossing out of the spiritual paradigm - 'science' (alternative ufo science) is backing itself into the same ideas but clothed in different terms.
Wiki:
"The ultimate motivation for this deception is probably a projected major change of human society, the breaking down of old belief systems and the implementation of new ones. Vallée states that the evidence, if carefully analyzed, suggests an underlying plan for the deception of mankind by means of unknown, highly advanced methods."
I know this is a Wiki article and I am not reading Vallee himself but from this I am again struck by the term 'deception'. However, from a spiritual perspective, Vallee is very close to stating the esoteric perspective, albeit he is coming at it from a different direction. Instead of from esoteric or 'inner research' Vallee is coming from exoteric or outer analysis of what he receives in the outer world. (It's the old Platonic and Aristotelian dialog repeated yet again).
I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the Urantia Book.
LINK:
The Urantia Book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If ever there was a clear-cut exposition - in very technic language - of other-worldly intervention, it is that book. In fact, I wonder if L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, wasn't inspired by Urantia.
Wiki:
"Vallée expresses concern about the often authoritarian political and religious views expressed by many contactees. Amongst the groups profiled are the nascent Raëlian movement and an early form of the Heaven's Gate suicide cult, against which Vallée prophetically warned potential converts, "you only risk your life!" He also argues that Scientology is another example of a UFO cultwhich has organized itself as a religious organization."
I certainly have to agree about the authoritarian aspect of ufology with my (very brief) experience of the LA MUFON group (which has since morphed into the UFO and Paranormal Research Society of LA). The 'religious views' - or 'religious-like' views of many I met was also in evidence.
Wiki:
"Vallée feels the entire subject of UFOs is mystified by charlatans and science fiction."
Aw, low blow.
Concerning Science Fiction. If anything, not enough people are writing science fiction and are consequently taking their story-lines a tad too seriously.
However, there is truth in images - everything we see around us (man-made) was imagined once and would have been viewed as insane ramblings. In fact, numerous spiritual streams see the entire created universe as the result of Thought - God's one great thought or the god-head's underlings (hierarchies of being) manifesting into existence the universe. Rather than conflate the spiritual/extraterrestrial - it's more likely (imho) two separate events. Some of these 'folks' on the spiritual spectrum have been around for quite some time, like 'Our Lady'. The Archangel Michael in one long lived dude, as well - because he not only showed up at Garabandal, but in the first verses of Genesis, and we recognize his persona in the ancient Persian Marduk, and so it goes.
If evidence is being withheld by 3rd parties, those parties should be dealt with first. Whether they be Ray Stanford or the N(A)SA. Until then, scientists are more or less innocent imo.
Which I don't understand btw. And I base that on human nature. It seems unlikely to me that this kind of stuff would be withheld. Why? What earthly reason could prompt such a worldwide withholding - because it would have to be that to be effective - when we are fighting each other and starving and busy scrambling Wall Street. There's not enough hours in the day to be maintaining silence on such an important fact. Somebody somewhere - and lots of somewheres - would be spilling the beans. Don't you think?
In the case of Hessdalen, Norway, people are gathering evidence for science to look at. But when Eric Davis says: "there are scientists who are aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic techniques and methodology." I'm thinking: what evidence is he talking about?
I personally do think that some cases are quite convincing, but I'd not be able to argue that I had a lot of evidence to back it up.
His statement is too nebulous. It's inserted to tantalize and 'convince' through mystery imo. How we all love a mystery - and it plays to some people's already extant paranoia about government. So it's a win-win. More is achieved by the suggestion of secrecy than any evidence. So if one wants to gull the easily gulled - those who want very much to have it be true will latch onto that: 'if only' we had the hidden evidence. So it goes.
