UFO Debates

[Randall]

Time Good - The saga continues

Tim Good's OK. He's a little out there sometimes, especially for those not already into ufology, but he generally seems to have a genuine and constructive interest, even if you don't agree with every single thing he says.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Tim Good's OK. He's a little out there sometimes, especially for those not already into ufology, but he generally seems to have a genuine and constructive interest, even if you don't agree with every single thing he says.

Randall, what do you think of the Italian 'Friendship' case? I have heard Tim speak about it and I am often left wondering if Tim is a straight-up serious researcher (as seen in Above Top Secret) or a bit 'John-Lear' and swallowing some pretty sketchy cases?

 

[Jimi H.]

@Jimi - what about the polygraph examiner saying that they were being truthful? I can imagine one or two people out of 6 'beating' the test but all of them?



Also, if you say that they faked it for the contract money, well weren't some offered much, much larger sums to admit it was a hoax? If they could keep quiet for X amount, then surely one or more would crack for many times X?

The article which I quoted previously alludes to research by Philip Klass and it contains a quote from an early polygraph examiner:

Although Walton passed a polygraph test arranged by a UFO organization, Klass learned that Walton dictated to the examiner what questions would be asked. Further investigation by Klass led him to an earlier unpublished polygraph test of Walton, conducted by Jack McCarthy, one of the top polygraph examiners in Arizona. McCarthy gave Klass his assessment of Walton’s story: “Gross deception!” He added that Walton employed polygraph countermeasures, such as holding his breath.

Whatever you think of Klass, I doubt he'd make up that testimony.

This one is incriminating:

His brother Duane confessed: “He’s not even missing. He knows where he’s at, and I know where he’s at.

I found the section of the book where that quote is from:
http://www.textfiles.com/ufo/UFOBBS/3000/3339.ufo

I have not done any fact checking, but I think Klass is a decent source.

Furthermore:
Why was Walton not thin and sick from not eating for 7 days? Why did his mother and family not show signs of sorrow? Etc.

I think, if we heard this story today, we'd look for evidence, or other witnesses, or at least we should.
I'm not willing, without some form of evidence (luminous material, strange readings or whatever, or other witnesses), to forego all knowledge about biology etc just because we're dealing with a supposed UFO. They say it was a UFO. Does that justify the case's status as important in the field of ufology? Even considering the many suspect circumstances? Not if you ask me. I think it's thin.

I wonder how much Walton and his brothers made from the movie? It's still on the shelves at Blockbuster! The book? The t-shirt? The CSETI engagements? Mind you, I'm not saying Walton is wrong for doing all that, if it was real, quite the contrary. Anyways, he's made a lot of money on it, his brothers likely got/get some of that (I'm speculating), and at least the brothers are much more famous now than when they were just chopping wood.

 

[Randall]

@Jimi - what about the polygraph examiner saying that they were being truthful? I can imagine one or two people out of 6 'beating' the test but all of them?

Also, if you say that they faked it for the contract money, well weren't some offered much, much larger sums to admit it was a hoax? If they could keep quiet for X amount, then surely one or more would crack for many times X?

If as Jimi points out, that confessing to a hoax left them liable for legal charges ( fraud ) and civil lawsuits, all the way back to the beginning, any extra offers could easily get eaten up in legal bills. Civil suits into the millions from the publishers and film companies are easy to imagine.

 

[Randall]

Randall, what do you think of the Italian 'Friendship' case? I have heard Tim speak about it and I am often left wondering if Tim is a straight-up serious researcher (as seen in Above Top Secret) or a bit 'John-Lear' and swallowing some pretty sketchy cases?

Well, like I said, I think Tim is sincere, and when he finds evidence contrary to his position he has been known to change it. The MJ-12 documents are one example. He included them in Above Top Secret ( still an excellent book ), but retracted them from his sequel Beyond Top Secret after most of them turned out to be a deception. I'm not sure what his current views are on the Italian Friendship case, but I suspect that if he once thought there was something to it, that he probably had his reasons at the time. I think it's important to take what any researcher says and evaluate it in context, cross reference it with other sources, and apply some independent critical thinking. At least that's the process I use when editing the USI website.

 

[uforadio]

WBZ News reporting about mysterious0 fly overs
posting in the sense of available public discussions (not in the sense of any interpretation of the events):

 

[uforadio]

1995 Lateline - credits to Andre Skondras' list for alert:
Archives: ABC TV journalist Kerry O'Brien interviews Jenny Randles, Paul Gross, and Budd Hopkins.

Part 1

Part 2

 

[uforadio]

John Keel Lecture 1992 (only 4 minutes excerpt)

 

[Randall]

John Keel Lecture 1992 (only 4 minutes excerpt) ...

So Keel says UFOs aren't machines, but are intelligent energy blobs, and that those UFOs that look like vehicles are actually only hallucinations, and they're all dependent on humans for their existence ( "like if a tree falls in the forest" ). This type of rationale is based on Subjective Idealism, but the application being made in the video has a fatal flaw. The actual principle involved with the thought experiment about a tree falling in the forest is whether or not the tree makes a sound if nobody is there to hear it fall, not whether or not there is a tree if nobody is there to see it fall. But in either case, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that reality is not purely a subjective manifestation of our own consciousness.

The most obvious reason is that if reality is purely a subjective manifestation of our own consciousness, then we wouldn't need any sensory input systems to translate the world beyond our selves into the things we perceive inside our heads. In other words the very act of perceiving existence beyond our material selves is proof that a material world beyond ourselves exists. If it didn't, then there would be nothing for our senses to perceive. To put it even more succinctly, there is no evidence that our eyes emit light in a projector like manner to form an illusion of reality. There is however overwhelming evidence that our eyes receive light from an external reality that is translated by our brain into images.

These are such basic concepts that I'm amazed how many people are still confused by them. This confusion has been a real windfall for those who promote the idea that we can somehow manifest our own reality simply by imagining it into existence ( Think The Secret ). Those concepts were originally founded on a completely different process that involves visualization followed by actions in the real world that bring the idea to life. What people tend to skim over in these new agey mystical methods is that last part about actions. Why? Because it's more attractive think that if you just sit around and dream about success it will magically come to you. There's an old saying. It goes like this: "Get real."

 

[Burnt State]

The most obvious reason is that if reality is purely a subjective manifestation of our own consciousness, then we wouldn't need any sensory input systems to translate the world beyond our selves into the things we perceive inside our heads. In other words the very act of perceiving existence beyond our material selves is proof that a material world beyond ourselves exists. If it didn't, then there would be nothing for our senses to perceive. To put it even more succinctly, there is no evidence that our eyes emit light in a projector like manner to form an illusion of reality. There is however overwhelming evidence that our eyes receive light from an external reality that is translated by our brain into images.

It's in the moment of translation that things break down, especially during moments where a certain set of variables are in play. Those variables may be contained solely in the head i.e. In the book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For His Hat" there are a series of visual processing effects that cause people to see things that are not there, or in some cases to not see that which is entirely present, like the one character who could not see people's faces and his brain just blended everything from the tops of people's shoulders up into the background and faces became wallpaper.

In other variables that are external there can be very heightened moments of excitation where we can easily process information and our brain will translate it into something entirely fantastic. In the split second before a car accident I was in where my brother fell asleep at the wheel, it was late at night, and we found ourselves hurtling through an intersection about to crash into a large cube van I screamed him awake. As he slammed the brakes and our car hit the driveway ramp we leapt into the air and I saw the van we were inevitably going to destroy our car into loom before me this is what my brain did in about 1/2 a second: I saw or car lift into the air and start flying over the trees. I suddenly realized my brother's intention was to take a shortcut home. Our car flew over the van, the trees and above my childhood park. We gracefully navigated our way home over he park and safely into our driveway-about a minute's drive from the scene of our accident. Then I was back in the car getting ready to crash again and my brain said to me, "ok, you're going to crash into that van. It's going to be a bad scene but everything's going to be fine." And then we crashed! We destroyed the vehicle and both stepped out of our seatbelts without a scratch.

But, my brain did a lot of things and saw a lot of stuff that was just not there. I think this sort of thing happens all the time, and are not part of the medical hallucinations listed previously. Ironically our car accident was no less than 200 meters from where I saw up close in person two well defined structured, circular and metallic craft in the presence of other witnesses - go figure. My flight path in the car accident 10 years after my witnessing two well defined UFO's was entirely similar to their flight path low over the houses in the same park. Connections? I can't say, but it is what it is.

 

[uforadio]

Kreskin meets dr. J. Allen Hynek, UFO specialist
(from 06:23 min.)
(thanks to Andre Skondras' list for a lead)

 

[uforadio]

Check up UFO flame wars in the comment sections on the Sheaffer's recent article at his blog:

Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe - by Robert Sheaffer: Guerilla Skepticism - Now We Have Klass' Wikipedia Back

 

[Constance]

It's in the moment of translation that things break down, especially during moments where a certain set of variables are in play. Those variables may be contained solely in the head i.e. In the book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For His Hat" there are a series of visual processing effects that cause people to see things that are not there, or in some cases to not see that which is entirely present, like the one character who could not see people's faces and his brain just blended everything from the tops of people's shoulders up into the background and faces became wallpaper.

In other variables that are external there can be very heightened moments of excitation where we can easily process information and our brain will translate it into something entirely fantastic. In the split second before a car accident I was in where my brother fell asleep at the wheel, it was late at night, and we found ourselves hurtling through an intersection about to crash into a large cube van I screamed him awake. As he slammed the brakes and our car hit the driveway ramp we leapt into the air and I saw the van we were inevitably going to destroy our car into loom before me this is what my brain did in about 1/2 a second: I saw or car lift into the air and start flying over the trees. I suddenly realized my brother's intention was to take a shortcut home. Our car flew over the van, the trees and above my childhood park. We gracefully navigated our way home over he park and safely into our driveway-about a minute's drive from the scene of our accident. Then I was back in the car getting ready to crash again and my brain said to me, "ok, you're going to crash into that van. It's going to be a bad scene but everything's going to be fine." And then we crashed! We destroyed the vehicle and both stepped out of our seatbelts without a scratch.

But, my brain did a lot of things and saw a lot of stuff that was just not there. I think this sort of thing happens all the time, and are not part of the medical hallucinations listed previously. Ironically our car accident was no less than 200 meters from where I saw up close in person two well defined structured, circular and metallic craft in the presence of other witnesses - go figure. My flight path in the car accident 10 years after my witnessing two well defined UFO's was entirely similar to their flight path low over the houses in the same park. Connections? I can't say, but it is what it is.

Fascinating description. In a universe based in quantum entanglement, who is to say that all those events were not 'real'?

 

[Randall]

It's in the moment of translation that things break down, especially during moments where a certain set of variables are in play ... my brain did a lot of things and saw a lot of stuff that was just not there. I think this sort of thing happens all the time ...

Well, it is an interesting account for sure, but it's probably an exaggeration to say such things happen "all the time". The vast majority of the time the evidence suggests that what we perceive to be there in an objective material sense is there in an objective material sense. Regarding the reality of the imagery in your experience. What seems to have happened is that the two realities we perceive in the subjective & objective sense were superimposed on your conscious mind, which in turn processed it all to produce your overall experience. Thank you for sharing it with us !

 

[Constance]

I think there is just one reality, its complexity more accessible to consciousness/mind than to mechanical measuring devices, but still far from satisfactorily accessible to us in these conscious existences in local spacetime. I think that if or when we have access to it, everything will 'make sense'. Such an experience of 'everything suddenly making sense' has often been described by NDEers. I have my own reasons (based in personal experience) for expecting that this is true.

 

[Randall]

I think there is just one reality, its complexity more accessible to consciousness/mind than to mechanical measuring devices, but still far from satisfactorily accessible to us in these conscious existences in local spacetime. I think that if or when we have access to it, everything will 'make sense'. Such an experience of 'everything suddenly making sense' has often been described by NDEers. I have my own reasons (based in personal experience) for expecting that this is true.

When I speak of separate subjective and objective realities, I'm referring to two separate classes of reality:

1. External objective reality.
2. Internal subjective reality.

I don't see how it's possible to find the equivalency between the two realities above that would be required in order to support the idea that there is only one reality. As for the numbers of realities, there is a supportable argument that there are as many realities for point 2. (above) as there are sentient beings.

 

[Jimi H.]

Fascinating description. In a universe based in quantum entanglement, who is to say that all those events were not 'real'?

Huh? How does that have to do with anything?

Are you thinking about 'multiple realities' and do you suggest that Burnt State got a glimpse of two 'real' realities?

 

[Jimi H.]

..This type of rationale is based on Subjective Idealism .. But in either case, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that reality is not purely a subjective manifestation of our own consciousness.
.. ..This confusion has been a real windfall for those who promote the idea that we can somehow manifest our own reality simply by imagining it into existence ( Think The Secret ). Those concepts were originally founded on a completely different process that involves visualization followed by actions in the real world that bring the idea to life. What people tend to skim over in these new agey mystical methods is that last part about actions. Why? Because it's more attractive think that if you just sit around and dream about success it will magically come to you. There's an old saying. It goes like this: "Get real."

Much truth in this.

I remember a noted Danish reviewer who reviewed The Secret, she wrote that it was selling a psychopathic fantasy Namely, it suggests that the world will behave according to a subjects will, which is not only nutty, but also so self-servingly subjective that it's equivalent to psychopathy!

One of my favorite authors, Edward Abbey, wrote something which always makes me laugh, I think it's somewhat relevant here :
"To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar. His logic may be airtight but his argument, far from revealing the delusions of living experience, only exposes the limitations of logic."

Desert Solitaire - Edward Abbey - Google Books

In other words, he says that, whatever one might speculate about, reality is still very real. If you don't believe it, don't duck when the rock is about to hit you in the head, because, why would it matter?

 

[Constance]

Huh? How does that have to do with anything?

Are you thinking about 'multiple realities' and do you suggest that Burnt State got a glimpse of two 'real' realities?

It comes from my weird attempt to put together parts of the world that don’t fit together very well, at least not to my understanding. I'm already ready to retract it.

 

[Randall]

Much truth in this.
"To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar.

Ouch! That sounds a bit harsh, but it's funny to imagine as a cartoon .