1.) Well technicially according to leading consciousness research we are always hallucinating. 2.) But you keep placing the ufo in the container of the ordinary. It's not just something new.....it's something unique that is beyond our sensory capacity. This is not like seeing a new kind of fish....we've been down that road before. I'm arguing the the ufo is such a strange and bizarre stimulus that it results in the up close high strange witness reports as we know them.
And giving them agency is wrong think as well. 3.) We have to start first with how the human perceives a unique stimulus before we get into all that magical alien mind control thing that people look to. We need to stop inventing realities for the ufo and start with understanding human perceptual reality first.
Forgive me please for responding to two different posts, but both seemed very much in the same context. One post just more or less adding complimentary weight and perspective to the other.
1.) Why forum members here that are seriously into the UFO phenomenon don't "get" what your stating, is truly puzzling. It's not like what you are contending or expressing is given to, or synonymous with, witness delusion, diminished veracity in reporting, or personal credibility, or even that it cancels out the ETH altogether. It's merely the manner in which we process the fundamental nature of consciousness and information. With respect to a solid theoretical neuroscientific approach to a theoretically proposed understanding of reality, information theory is very near the top. In fact it *is* the top with respect to solid theories represent of fundamental consciousness. When combined, or perceived in conjunction with, Hoffman's cognitive science models, the matter in question practically takes on a prolifically mainstream attribute. This being for what are comprehensively proposed perceptual aptitudes regarding consciousness and the base manner in which we experience reality. There is a great deal of substance there and denying as much would seem illogical with respect to examining all the phenomenal evidence possible.
5 Thought-Provoking Quantum Experiments Showing That Reality Is an Illusion
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality | Quanta Magazine
Odds are we're living in a simulation, says Elon Musk
Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
2.) I used to term this as being a form of outright personification or projecting. Then I started referring to it, with respect to investigative approaches, as being "left brained ufology" vs. "right brained ufology". In ontological terms the former IMO is a science fiction based methodology vs. the latter being IMO, more of a metaphysically relevant conceptualization for witness experiential responsibility. Both place humankind at the center of their respective orientations in terms of responsible hypothetical equations, and both do in fact bear out real merit and possibility. It's just that the former depends on what there has been no real correlative evidence in support of, even considering the very real possibility that the MIC is in possession of phenomena relevant technology, that certainly doesn't mean it's spacefaring technology. The latter, we have seen a good deal of correlational supportive evidence for. Both in scientifically founded parapsychological circles, as well as in demonstrated quantum mechanical scientific principles.
3.) Presently, this is ultimately a very tough issue to reconcile, because we don't have a clue what that unique stimulus consists of. Is the responsible agent for the stimulus solely our brains? Is it consciousness? Or is the stimulus some element within nature itself the excites a temporary modification or mutation of the reality signal between or within our brains and consciousness? Could the stimulus be due to a form of nonhuman, or future human technology, that we simply have no known reference for? So truly, there is both the mystery of the stimulus, as well as that which the stimulus' effect is contingent upon in order to specifically elicit, or simply allow for, the experience.
Personally, I suspect that reality/consciousness, or information itself, or specific gradient parts thereof, is the medium upon whichever relevant technological orientation (nonhuman/future human) is actuating.
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.
4.) 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.
5.) 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.
4.a.) 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.
6.) 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.
4.) IMO, this *is* the personified and projected nature of the "fit in order to build" assembly of the ETH story line.
4.a.) The "hoops" represent the forced and unnatural way the mind can be self consensus trained to repeatedly go out of it's way to pick and choose data selectively, while disregarding the obvious height and fire induced dangers of sloppy incomplete research, all in the comfortably habitual name of an nonthreatening and attractive ETH treat at the end of the show.
5.) This is a fascinating observation, and I have a tendency to want to lump it into witness relevant high strangeness. Is that what you're stating here to the effect that the closer the object is to the witness, the more so the witness is influenced or effected by the stimulus of what it is they are witness to?
6.) To dismiss any prominent UFO researcher is unwise IMO. Let alone, as you clearly elude to, two of the greatest minds to ever engage and study the phenomenon. To do so almost assuredly means a willful exercise in irrational prejudice. I truly feel bad for those that treat the ETH as a zealot would their religion of choice. The have denied themselves so much intrigue, and so much potential understanding. Ultimately, they have denied themselves the most fundamentally important attribute that the well disciplined scientific process can ever yield. Certain knowledge of the the truth.
