A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[Trajanus]

Now that would kind of make sense if perhaps the UFO's were originating on our moon (which they aren't).

Of course thats not where they originally came from but they might have bases there or under the sea so (even without mother ships readily available) they wouldn't need interstellar flight capability to send craft where witnesses see them.

 

[Trajanus]

I think I've pointed this out elsewhere an f possibly on this thread but the idea of discontinuous evidence strikes me as a major failing in UFO case consolidation. We look for evidence that confirms the witness report. Just as my burnt shingles and tree tends to support my ufo hovering above the tree and the garage. It sure looked like that's what it was especially in terma of the circular arc of shingles. But I did not see the burning. We like to connect dots even if we can't verify the dots are connected.

Well, there is the scientific principle of parsimony.......

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

First of all, "E.T." isn't (and hasn't) been in contact with "the government".

How the hell do you know? and civilizations are spoon feed in a chain of command /tribal unless you are in the need to know ( top of the food chain) ( who every they are). Government what part of defense, science,economic , civilian? Going on historical data from the Project Blue Book its seems there were unknowns ?? agree it doesn't mean ET .

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think the most fascinating thing about the UFO riddle is how it engages each of us in an attempt to understand it's fundamental nature. The manner in which we personally "fit" it into our base beliefs and philosophies is ultra indicative of a vast expanse of philosophical orientations. Those ranging from pure atheistic humanism, to that of cult inducing theistic implications, to the many varying shades of deistic determinism. However, in any and all cases wherein the phenomenon is seriously considered, it commands us to at very least consider ulterior systems to our own that are clearly indicative of a superior control system and intelligence in what are many environmental applications.

There is absolutely no doubt in my subjective, and therefor quite fallible mind, that it (UFOs) essentially represents an objective (real) ulterior system. One that is separate from the native experiential consciousness system that we ourselves are engaged by, and presently contained within.

Many great minds have proposed the notion that the experiential reality that we are all participants within, is in fact, a construction. A heck of a lot of extremely intelligent and well educated theorists, as well as leading scientists, hold firm to this much postulated and supported idea. Whether or not said reality construct is the responsible product of a completely natural synthesis, or the produced synthetic results of an ulterior independent source of intelligent motives, is a proverbial moving target with regard to the UFO.

The fact that UFO relevancies bear out many exemplifications wherein base ingredients of our own native reality's parametric constraints, like those of time and matter for instance, are seemingly not even recognized obstacles of relevant resistance, is in fact extremely telling when studied from a perspective that relies on many other fundamentally reported correlations.

Oftentimes, in reports bearing out potential high strangeness significance, ones wherein illumination is cast on what is the intersection of the UFO/witness experience, we find a resulting personally relevant transmogrification of environmental experiential awareness. Countless humanoid encounter reports bear out this personally relevant, real time, dream like quality in which pieces of the witness's everyday environment and routine are infused within the reported experience that they relate. Is this possibly due to the initial concurrent cognitive process of retrieving identification relevant information in relation to the unfolding of an encounter event that's so subtly shock saturated that personal and environmental relevancies from the subconscious mind of the witness become layered or infused confabulations that are recalled as factual memories afterward? Could such an event's unfolding even serve to posture the notion for an unperceived external third party's involvement wherein a natural mediation of two natively differing parasitically relevant sources of awareness are being reconciled amid/by a single host?

These types of speculative considerations are typified in alignment with a myriad of specifically UFO event relevant correlations that are reported directly by witnesses to them.

IMO it is very foolish to pretentiously discard select reported UFO relevant information because it fails to align itself with one's belief systems. The anomalistic nature of Fortean phenomena is such that one thing is absolutely certain with respect to seriously researching it. If one ever hopes to align one's self with the underlying principle truth of the matter, even get close, one cannot hope to find as much according to concepts developed by and of relevant appearances. Folklore has proved itself time and time again to evade our reality's cast by being built and based on the precise same thinking. Just because we ourselves develop and implore highly sophisticated means to do this, that, or the other thing, does not mean that all of sudden this phenomena is going to "straighten up!" like a scolded school child might, polititely aligning itself with our best relevant guesswork in accord with it's appearances. If you research any manner of confounding phenomena solely by relevant appearances alone, it goes without saying that as much will remain by definition, mere phenomena.

Everything that's been deceptively damaging within the professional UFO community has been solely based upon the capitalization on and of belief systems derived from phenomenal appearances. It has done so much damage, and in fact has served to for the most part, to return us to the stone age of this matter's true understanding.

I find it to be too hilarious that so many "intelligent" minds blindly buy into the ETH. Sometimes I think this is due to our fallible human nature that seems to insist that we see ourselves as centric to everything. Other times I think it's just a product of capitalizing on our own laziness. All the ETHers state the exact same thing, that now we're scientifically at that point ourselves, well..., maybe we're not at that point exactly, but we're certainly theoretically very close! After all this is a matter of occam's razor, most wishfully contend. The simplest, and most likely definition, is the one claiming that UFOs are in fact the bearers of alien astronauts, right? Just like us, see? lol! Then I ask myself, why doesn't one single reported encounter with their occupants in ANYWAY resemble how we ourselves would conduct ourselves as human emissaries arriving on an alien world? Why don't their "ships" in anyway resemble the very real space faring technological understandings of our own. However, it's ultimately the question of why they've been coming here for thousands of years, without ever openly engaging us, the really knocks me for loop when attempting to reconcile their alien zeal for planetary exploration. Logically, you simply cannot throw out what you pick and choose to, from the reported information centering itself on the UFO phenomena, and hope to achieve an understanding of it. Just because the information doesn't align itself with your favorite hypothesis doesn't magically disqualify it. It's still logically just as valid a case for reported information concerning UFOs as that which you're clinging tightly to.

Hoping to ever accomplish anything, save a cult, or possibly a new book, or series on TV? Try throwing your belief systems out the window, and begin anew by reexamining your investigative methodology. A paradigmatic shift is awaiting all who do. And who knows? Maybe it will be YOU that finally reveals an understanding for what has been nothing short of a conundrum of ages.

 

[Trajanus]

How the hell do you know?

Lol, some people think they "know" a great deal. But regarding ET contact with our government, I think serious doubts can be raised about such claims, especially in view of acts of hostility.

 

[Constance]

Well, there is the scientific principle of parsimony.......

Yes, indeed. Otherwise one is forced to absurdities such as that of the British Empiricist traveling on a train in the English countryside who replies, when his traveling companion observes how long the wool is on the sheep near the track: "At least on this side."

 

[Creepy Green Light]

As I've pointed out several times already, the McMinnville object did NOT look "exactly" like the truck mirror! There are easily noticeable, significant differences, and nor does other known object match it.




And I reiterate Trent was a not a showman liar like Adamski etc....

That's like saying an Audi is shaped differently than a BMW - so it means they are not both cars. Yeah, they're the same thing, but different.

 

[Burnt State]

So, like empiricism taken to the max?

Well, there is the scientific principle of parsimony.......

Yes, indeed. Otherwise one is forced to absurdities such as that of the British Empiricist traveling on a train in the English countryside who replies, when his traveling companion observes how long the wool is on the sheep near the track: "At least on this side."

Probably the greatest problem in Ufology when it comes to case investigation is the ability to connect disconnected bits of information to the witness report to try and build a cohesive narrative. While I appreciate the parsimony principle I don't think this is empiricism taken to the max nor is it absurd. After all we're talking about a rather profound mystery, and while I can appreciate the desire to connect data points to prove a structured craft was present, that doesn't mean that scant, anomalous, or nonlinear elements should get herded together to prove the narrative.

If you go that route then crop circles with their bent nodes and crystallized bits of earth, along with everything Roger Leir had produced, is all good science proving extraterrestrial visitation. But I'm sorry to say that if it was all good science then the scientific world would have descended long ago onto those two camps to truly revel in the discoveries of ET here on earth who is not only implanting us but also communicating to us in the fields with pretty pictures. I actually find the real absurdity lies there. Unfortunately it's just not so. Sometimes broken branches are just broken branches and not undeniable proof that a craft landed in the woods.

 

[Red]

Have there been any attempts to rule out other prosaic items like pie tins with the Trents? I can see the side mirror possibility, but I can also see the possibility of it being a pie tin dented in at the middle when a hole was punched through and attached to a piece of hardware.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Have there been any attempts to rule out other prosaic items like pie tins with the Trents? I can see the side mirror possibility, but I can also see the possibility of it being a pie tin dented in at the middle when a hole was punched through and attached to a piece of hardware.

Pie tin Trent photo;

 

[Red]

Being that I used to be an inflight photographer in the U.S. Navy, I can tell you that nothing would have appeared on any film taken at night time anyway. But if the military released the photo and it showed structure and/or showed an elliptical shaped craft with no wings or horizontal/vertical stabilizers - then no, I would not say the military was hoaxing the photo.

On the other hand, when a farmer from Orygun miraculously has the worlds only "real" flying saucer photo that happens to look exactly like a truck mirror that is also miraculously below telephone wires - then yeah, I don't believe that.

Once again;

Yeah, if the other is a pie tin, why can't this one be a pie tin, too.

 

[Jeff Davis]

How the hell do you know? and civilizations are spoon feed in a chain of command /tribal unless you are in the need to know ( top of the food chain) ( who every they are). Government what part of defense, science,economic , civilian? Going on historical data from the Project Blue Book its seems there were unknowns ?? agree it doesn't mean ET .

I believe there is a consensus level acceptance for what are the agencies responsible for UFOs. I am even willing to believe that the MIC has some technology that they don't have a clue how to use or operate due to it's proprietary nature. I do not for one second believe that this technology is indicative of ET. Nothing within all of UFO culture bears this orientation out.

If you go that route then crop circles with their bent nodes and crystallized bits of earth, along with everything Roger Leir had produced, is all good science proving extraterrestrial visitation. But I'm sorry to say that if it was all good science then the scientific world would have descended long ago onto those two camps to truly revel in the discoveries of ET here on earth who is not only implanting us but also communicating to us in the fields with pretty pictures. I sctuakky find the real absurdity lues there. Unfortunately it's just not so. Sometimes broken branches are just broken branches and not undeniable proof that a craft landed in the woods.

I realize that you are stating that you do not accept present scientific validation of ET, but by the same token, in the alternate scientific universe that you propose, how could crop circles, implants, or any other anomalistic findings that might be attributable to the UFO scenario, scientifically substantiate ET as the responsible agency? Isn't that in and of itself merely a futile macro level exercise in dot connecting?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Yeah, if the other is a pie tin, why can't this one be a pie tin, too.

Can you restate that a different way so I can understand the question?

 

[Burnt State]

I realize that you are stating that you do not accept present scientific validation of ET, but by the same token, in the alternate scientific universe that you propose, how could crop circles, implants, or any other anomalistic findings that might be attributable to the UFO scenario, scientifically substantiate ET as the responsible agency? Isn't that in and of itself merely a futile macro level exercise in dot connecting?

what I'm saying is both the BLT crop circle researchers and Roger Leir have made specific scientific claims about their evidence that in their minds, and those who believe in them, feel that they in fact have scientific evidence of ET. what i'm saying is that if they had real science of ET implants and extraordinary effects on crops and soil then the broader scientific community would be all over it. as they are not it tells us something of their quality of science.

Leir's claims about isotope ratios belonging to the stars are bogus as the type of machine he used can not actually substantiate that level of finding. He needed to go up to the next level which is super expensive so he was happy enough to dazzle people with his "science" graphs and spectrosopy charts etc. when in fact the only thing he really proved about his implants is that they were made of the same stuff that human bodies are and no more than that.

Ufology does a lot of hoop jumping to try to prove its version of reality, which is most often clouded by its ETH lens instead of assessing the actual evidence they have.

A lot of the photography discussion cuts the same way. While the images are fascinating and often come with unique narratives, no one can definitively say it's a spaceship, just that it's something really curious.

My other theme is about proximity to the spaceship. ...why is it the closer people get to one the more bizarre and weird it looks and behaves. This tells me that perhaps when the fovea centralis is involved up close and personal the brain appears to have to do some back flips to take into consideration what it's actually seeing. Ships seem to morph or are made of strange materials. This makes me wonder if it's even possible to take a picture of a ufo that would resemble the kind of simple metal structured craft seen in popular photos. Like you, I think there is something much more strange going on.

But ufology often prefers to shave off these outlying cases and intense experiences in favour of the simple and more direct ETH narrative of spaceships from the stars even though that just doesn't match up at all. With apologies to Ted Phillips, but if he also had some great science going on then certainly trace evidence would be not only abundant on planet earth but our science would be all over it. Even the conservative Jerome Clark believes that you would never be able to hide from history an event as substantial as ET landing and making contact with the people of earth. His assessment is that we don't even have a language for what's taking place.

So if people are going to dismiss Clark and Vallee, arguably the two leading thinkers in the field, because even after all their deep concerted efforts that tallies up much more than what all of us have done in the field, then maybe the real issue at play here is believerdom and an inability to see past an ETH bias.

 

[marduk]

A lot of the photography discussion cuts the same way. While the images are fascinating and often come with unique narratives, no one can definitively say it's a spaceship, just that it's something really curious.

Which is exactly the wrong kind of evidence, as is anecdotal evidence.

Which is why gathering more gets us nowhere.

There's nothing for science to latch onto.

 

[Trajanus]

That's like saying an Audi is shaped differently than a BMW - so it means they are not both cars. Yeah, they're the same thing, but different.

Lol, both cars obviously exist but there is no truck mirror which actually matches the McMinnville object. Had it existed, after over 66 years it almost certainly would've been found, even if there are no extant examples left, just some blueprint.

 

[Red]

Can you restate that a different way so I can understand the question?

All of the McMinnville pictures are of pie tins, I think. I don't think the one that might have been identified as a side mirror is. I think Trent punched holes through the middle of pie tins, added some hardware that pointed up and hung them from the wires using fishing line. Pie tins, even fairly sturdy ones, would have been extremely common in most farm kitchens.

Does that help clarify? I realize I shouldn't be talking about anything before coffee like I did this morning.

 

[Constance]

Which is exactly the wrong kind of evidence, as is anecdotal evidence.

Which is why gathering more gets us nowhere.

There's nothing for science to latch onto.

Perhaps nothing for public and academic scientists to 'latch onto', but what about the scientists engaged privately in MIC black ops back-engineering of alien technology, some of whom have spoken in confidence to Bernard Haisch, for example? See (if you haven't) the introductory page at his website at UFO Skeptic

Extract:

". . . There is another aspect to the UFO phenomenon that involves politics and secrecy rather than observational evidence. I do not currently have a ticket to any SCI program, but over the years I have gotten to know individuals who for one reason or another would be aware of the existence of relevant black programs. From such sources, certain possibilities have made it through my credibility filter and now reside -- like Schroedinger's cat -- in kind of an unresolved mental superposition of quantum states having both the eigenvalues "true" and "false" and no operator around to collapse the wave function. My credibility filter is a function of several parameters such as my own knowledge of physical laws, state of technology and history of its origin, some personal experience with government agencies and security classification systems, but mostly the filter is tuned to the questions: Which people have I learned over the years to be trustworthy, sensible and knowledgeable? How would they be in a position to know the things they do? Why and to what extent would they tell me anything, even based on long-time friendship? Do they have anything to gain by telling stories or making claims? What consistency and convergence is there among various people's claimed information?

I see myself a bit like the kid standing next to the kid looking through the hole in the big tall fence at the baseball game. This means that the closest I am getting to inside information will be a recounting of what is going on in there. I myself am definitely not an insider, but contacts I have acquired and/or befriended over a long period of time seem to be on the periphery of some kind of inside which appears to contain at least remarkable information, and apparently more than that. Let me be (somewhat) more specific. I now have three completely independent examples of individuals whom I trust reporting to me that individuals they trust have admitted to handling alien materials in "our" possession in the course of secret official duties. And in yet two more cases, I am similarly one (trustworthy) step removed from a former head of a federal government agency who was involved with a special access program reporting decades-long extraterrestrial reverse engineering efforts and a head of state of a G8 country who also said he had been officially briefed on that program. Now the Air Force Project Blue Book of the 1950s and 1960s did have both a public and a classified side. I suspect that after the public half of Blue Book closed up shop following the Condon Report, its classified half may have continued, existing today as a black special access program (see below). . . ."

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Lol, we both cars obviously exist but there is no truck mirror which actually matches the McMinnville object. Had it existed, after over 66 years it almost certainly would've been found, even if there are no extant examples left, just some blueprint.

Lol @ "There is no truck mirror which actually matches the McMinnville object." Yeah? How do you know? Did you personally go and look at every truck mirror ever made? Of course you didn't. So you don't know.

 

[Trajanus]

"There is no truck mirror which actually matches the McMinnville object." Yeah? How do you know? Did you personally go and look at every truck mirror ever made? Of course you didn't. So you don't know.

The burden of proof is on those who say it's a truck mirror or who make any other specific claim. I felt it reasonable to assume that after SIXTY SIX years any truck mirror which really matched the McMinnville object would've been found by now--if only as an old blueprint or picture. 66 years is a very long time for investigators to find things, yet there is, to my knowledge, no known better resemblance than what you posted, which is really not a match at all. There's something else to consider, the widening at the edges, presumably to secure the actual reflective surface. If that was a feature in all truck mirrors back then, scratch one prosaic explanation...