• 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!

Ufological Assumptions

Forums New posts
H

hopeful skeptic

Guest
I was re-reading Stan Friedman's "Crash at Corona" today, and it got me thinking about some of the basic assumptions we make about UFOs and the way we react to them.

Why do we view our planet as being so barbaric? Why do we assume that a race technologically advanced enough to visit our planet is also morally superior to us? Why would wars over ideology, resources or religion stop simply because one has found a warp drive? I would presume that the first use of a warp engine, shielding device or laser beam would be to wipe out one's adversary. And why do we assume that the occupiers want contact, or desire to share their knowledge with us?

Why does the physical appearance of alleged alien pilots change so dramatically over time, and why is it often colored by the local culture? In the 50s, folks were seeing "Nordics" and having sex with their women. In the late 50s and into the 60s, Nordics faded out and the occupiers were seen as robotic or dwarfish, bent on soil samples. In the late 70s and into the 80s, the "Greys" appeared, and started abducting mass numbers of folks in the 90s. In the late 90s and into the new millenium, we're starting to hear about insectoids and Reptilians. I can't remember the last witness who claimed to have seen a Nordic (Billy Meier's alleged contacts seem to follow that general pattern, though). There are exceptions to all these generalizations, of course, but the pattern seems to hold true.

Why do descriptions of the craft differ by time period? Boomerangs and cigar shapes in the 50s and 60s; flying saucers in the 50s through the 80s; wedding cake pans in the 60s and 70s; now we're awash in black triangles and glowing orbs. Again, there are exceptions to all this, but "cigar" sightings are comparatively rare nowadays. Did those occupants move on to other systems?
 
Tune in next week for the answers to these questions and more! :)

You've pretty much covered all the crucial questions about UFOs and the probability that *some* may be ET craft - the point is that nobody in the UFO community is any nearer to the answers than they were 40 years ago.

The idea that some UFOs *may* be ET craft seems probable to me - I can't think of any reason why ETIs *wouldn't* be here. Of course, that doesn't prove that they are here, but I'm sick and tired of the official stance which *excludes* the probability that some UFOs are ET craft - if they can't attribute a 'mundane' explanation to a UFO sighting then they put it in the 'unexplained' or 'insufficient evidence' file.

Can anyone give me a good reason why ETIs *wouldn't* be visiting us?
 
CapnG said:
Prime Directive?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, very 'Star Trek' - but that's supports the idea that they *are* here but just not showing themselves...I'm asking for one good reason why they *wouldn't* be here in the first place. I'm convinced that most people who have apathy towards the whole UFO/ET subject have never considered the probabilites. Until 'ordinary' people start thinking beyond the 'norm' there will never be worldwide acceptance of 'disclosure'.
 
Well you said "visiting us" , which implies direct contact. When I said "Prime Directive" I meant along the lines of the PD as writ, ie observation only, no interference.
 
CapnG said:
Well you said "visiting us" , which implies direct contact. When I said "Prime Directive" I meant along the lines of the PD as writ, ie observation only, no interference.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I thought the "prime directive" is observation *without* visibility - being visible to the civilization you're observing would count as interference in my book.

Anyway, where does this 'prime directive' come from - it's a human invention, no?

What I'm trying to get at is that trying to prove that UFO's are ET craft to 'ordinary' people is a step too far if they're not even comfortable with the idea that ET exists in the first place...I think the UFO community should take a step back from 'flying saucers' and make the case for the existence of ETIs more strongly using logical arguments and reason rather than 'fuzzy photos' of lights in the sky.
 
CapnG said:
Prime Directive?
Click to expand...

I always enjoyed watching Spock, Kirk, Data and Picard drone on endlessly about the PD, then violate it in nearly every damned episode. Kirk was particularly wanton about this, but, geez....

Maybe I'm not esoteric enough, but I buy UFOs as space vehicles far more readily than other explanations: ghosts, "spirit orbs" (whatever that means), inter-dimensional apparitions, time-travellers, etc. I'm willing to entertain the notion that the occupants or directors of these craft are closer in proximity to humans than previously suspected, though. I speculate without proof of any kind, of course.

If there is a PD for the presumed intelligences behind UFOs, they've already failed miserably to keep their presence unknown. Clumsily allowing yourself to be sighted, then sitting back while the whole planet goes into a tizzy, agonizing over the nature of - and intent behind - your appearance seems more damaging than actually landing on the White House lawn.

With my luck, they wouldn't land on the White House Lawn, or near N. 10 Downing Street, but in Pyongyang. They'd probably all look like Kim Jong-Il. God, what a horrorible thought.
 
Rick Deckard said:
Yeah, but I thought the "prime directive" is observation *without* visibility - being visible to the civilization you're observing would count as interference in my book.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said "as writ" and not "as clumsily executed in just about every episode of trek where the subject arises".

Rick Deckard said:
Anyway, where does this 'prime directive' come from - it's a human invention, no?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed but it's a good idea regardless. Besides, if some contactee stories are true it's already happening thanks to aliens who either look just like us or are so close that a simple disguise let's them blend in.
 
Speaking from a tongue in cheek point of view, I have always thought that Douglas Adams books might represent how alien races really might behave regarding us and our planet. Who knows why someone/something would visit us?
 
the point is that nobody in the UFO community is any nearer to the answers than they were 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF PHILIP J. KLASS

To ufologists who publicly criticize me, ... or who even think unkind thoughts about me in private, I do hereby leave and bequeath:

THE UFO CURSE:

No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs that you know today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.

Originally published in Saucer Smear, October 10, 1983 (Moseley and Pflock 2002:323-24).

The curse works. On June 24th it will be 60 years since Kenneth Arnold's sighting, and we don't know one thing more about UFOs than we did then.
 
What I dont like about pseudo skeptics who attack the UFO field, is the arrogance and snooty nosed air they have about them.

Ill explain what I mean in the following way -:

Pseudo skeptics stance -:

I dont believe its true, because I dont believe its true, therefore it isn't true. Ill treat everyone who does believe it could be true as ignorant, and bundle them in with all the rest of the paranormal world.

Proper Skeptic -:

I cant see how it could be true, so Ill research it to confirm or refute my belief.

Objective UFO person -:

I can see how that might be true, so ill look into it to see if the information supports it, or knocks it down.

Blind UFO person -:

I'm so open minded my brain has fallen out.
 
I guess I fall under your category of "Blind UFO Person". But I wasn't like this until I was actually blinded by a UFO. Where is my brain?!
 
mjw said:
I guess I fall under your category of "Blind UFO Person". But I wasn't like this until I was actually blinded by a UFO. Where is my brain?!
Click to expand...

lol,

This wasn't aimed at anybody. Just relating my experience of the type of people Ive met regarding UFOs.
 
hopeful skeptic said:
Why do we view our planet as being so barbaric?
Click to expand...

Because we kill eachother, poison our planet with toxins (for money no less), let people starve when it'd be easy to feed them, engage in genocide for a piece of worthless land...should I keep going?

hopeful skeptic said:
Why do we assume that a race technologically advanced enough to visit our planet is also morally superior to us?
Click to expand...

I dunno about morally superior, but it may be our perception that they'd have already daned the dance of death like us, and gotten past such concerns as killing one another, to such a point as to leave their planet and develop that technology.

hopeful skeptic said:
Why would wars over ideology, resources or religion stop simply because one has found a warp drive? I would presume that the first use of a warp engine, shielding device or laser beam would be to wipe out one's adversary.
Click to expand...

It very well might be. Henceforth having no predators would pretty much lead to peace, right? Whjatever enemies arent destroyed, aculturation would deal with the rest.

hopeful skeptic said:
And why do we assume that the occupiers want contact, or desire to share their knowledge with us?
Click to expand...

I dont personally believe they want to share anything, but it's clear they seem to want something. I think people assume alot due to their own preconcieved notions or desires.

hopeful skeptic said:
Why does the physical appearance of alleged alien pilots change so dramatically over time, and why is it often colored by the local culture? In the 50s, folks were seeing "Nordics" and having sex with their women. In the late 50s and into the 60s, Nordics faded out and the occupiers were seen as robotic or dwarfish, bent on soil samples. In the late 70s and into the 80s, the "Greys" appeared, and started abducting mass numbers of folks in the 90s. In the late 90s and into the new millenium, we're starting to hear about insectoids and Reptilians. I can't remember the last witness who claimed to have seen a Nordic (Billy Meier's alleged contacts seem to follow that general pattern, though). There are exceptions to all these generalizations, of course, but the pattern seems to hold true. Why do descriptions of the craft differ by time period? Boomerangs and cigar shapes in the 50s and 60s; flying saucers in the 50s through the 80s; wedding cake pans in the 60s and 70s; now we're awash in black triangles and glowing orbs. Again, there are exceptions to all this, but "cigar" sightings are comparatively rare nowadays. Did those occupants move on to other systems?
Click to expand...

At least by what I've studied, the appearance is connected to us, and our perceptions. While youre chronological layout isnt always right, it's loosely on the right track. To me, my opinion only, it's a dog and pony show. All the soil samples and flying craft are for us, not anything this enigma needs. It seems to be actively trying to portray an ET culture visiting earth. But what is it really? And why is it that it appears to take on the culture's notions, i.e. fins on discs in the 50's? Sleek and streamlined forms in the present day? I'm convinced these are clues, and that we have an active part in how we view these events.

I've documented sightings where for instance, 9 people were present and saw the object. 7 saw exactly what 7 saw. 2 saw something else. I dont mean a different light here or there, or window not there but here, I mean a different object entirely...and no one could convince them otherwise.

Perception. However it appears to me that the subjective nature of the experience has alot to do with whats reported.

Which is why I never get into the nuts and bolts of UFOs like I used to. I just dont think it works that way.
 
Maybe this is a stupid suggestion but, why wouldn't they change?

Okay, in the first place, who knows how many alien species there are (assuming there are any) ? Obviously they'd all look somewhat different (perhaps drastically so). As to why different reports for different eras, sure it could be cultural but there could also be some completely obscure reason. Maybe they're taking it in shifts? Maybe they have to apply to the galactic council for some sort of permit that's only good for 10 years or so? Maybe they just show up, do what they have to and leave and the next one along is completely unrelated in any way?

As for the ships themselves, our technology is now advancing at a phenominal rate. Are we to assume that alien technology should remain stagnant? Seems a bit odd to me. Or, as above, perhaps different craft represent different technologies used by different species, there's no real way of knowing.

I guess it's what I liked best about Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the galaxy, the idea that aliens aren't really any better than us, they're just doing their own thing for their own reason. Doesn't matter how stupid that reason may seem to us, we're not them, so how can we even evaluate it?

As for the observational aspect, I wouldn't argue against it but I would point out that that statistic is pretty much true for any oddball observable event (car accidents, for example). People see what they see, that's not the point, the point is they see SOMETHING.

You'd think though, in this cam-phone, gadget-choked, security-paranoid era we're living in, more people would be taking pictures!
 
I've documented sightings where for instance, 9 people were present and saw the object. 7 saw exactly what 7 saw. 2 saw something else. I dont mean a different light here or there, or window not there but here, I mean a different object entirely...and no one could convince them otherwise.

Perception. However it appears to me that the subjective nature of the experience has alot to do with whats reported.
Click to expand...

What??

When was this?
 
Hello, I'm new here and I wanted to invite you to check out my website. I don't have a discussion board but I do have multiple photos of UFOs. One is docked, others are photographed at rooftop level in Jefferson City, Missouri. I have described some experiences and still have many more to get posted. I don't have anything for sale and you don't have to join anything to check it all out. I also have my own theories and opinions based on what I have seen, photographed, experienced and developed thru study and research on this subject. I have evolved from elation to serious concern over the presence of these creatures. I have reached the point where I am not so much interested in their history as I am in our future. When you have time please check it out and feel free to send me your comments. The site is located at: Photo UFO . The name of the site is "PHOTO UFO". I will come back here to post any future comments I might have to add to your community. Thanks, Gil, Sr.
 
Thanks for your response. I try to update as often as I can. My research has been slowed lately by some politicans who don't want to deal with this during their election campaign. Part of the territory I guess. Since you were there I have added some photos that I believe are a stargate at that location. Photo UFO
 
Back
Top