Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

[nameless]

Wicked awesome. Except the Grier bit.

I'm going to constrain my responses to any possible connection with the AAP, not UFOs in general.
These are my opinions only and I fully expect to get lambasted for them.

• Material objects, and are either …
  • Artificial, and are either …
    • Made by human beings ….
      • On the earth …
        • At the present time--anthropogenic hypothesis. No. If someone has this technology, they've had it for 50+ years and quite frankly we'd see it in more widespread use and they'd be running the joint. Neither seems to be the case.
        • In the far future--time travel hypthesis. No. As I stated here: Micah Hanks and "The UFO Singularity" | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums - I don't see the basic economics and reasoning for thinking they're ourselves coming back from the future. In short, either they wreck their own timeline and existence, or they can't impact their own timeline therefore there's no point.
        • Or somewhere else--intraterrestrial hypothesis. Maybe. Maybe the "many-worlds" theory is true, and what we're witnessing is visitors from many different variants of the earth. This would explain the divergent morphology, the intelligent insect reports, the intelligent reptile reports, the popping in and out of existence, and the simple damn fact that they can for the most part breathe our air, have one head, two eyes, two legs, and two arms.
    • Or made by nonhuman beings …
      • On the earth--cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. No. I love Mac Tonnies as much as the next guy, but this has zero evidence going for it and a hell of a lot of evidence not going for it -- the simple fact we've imaged the entire surface of the earth, and the seabed. If they are here, and a rival civilization, then where the heck are they?
      • Or somewhere else--extraterrestrial hypothesis. Maybe. Fits within the standard model of physics, the standard model of evolution, and only requires one technology to make it happen: propulsion.
  • Or natural, and are either …
    • Living things--zoological hypothesis. No. There may be 'biological' UFOs but I doubt they're responsible for the AAP phenomena. You'd have to discount all the accounts of landings, with beings coming out of apparent technological craft.
    • Nonliving natural phenomena--geophysical hypothesis. No. I can see a good theory for the 'earthquake lights' with possible tangential thinking around geophysical stress inducing similar "visions" or "feelings" as was demonstrated by that helmet in Canada... can't remember who did that. But I fail to see a correlation with fault lines and AAP, and I for one live in an area that is very geologically stable.
  • Or apparitions, and are either …
    • Objectively real, and are either...
      • Best understood via Christian theology--demonic hypothesis. No. Give me a model of how/why/etc and how you can come up with a completely different Descart-ian model of physics that would undermine everything we know about the universe, good onya. Count me out.
      • Or best understood via alternative faiths--ascended masters hypothesis. No. I don't even know what this means.
      • Or best understood outside either option--ultra-terrestrial hypothesis. Again, I don't even know what this means.
    • Or only subjectively real, and are either …
      • Produced by the nervous system--neurological hypothesis. Maybe, there are some good models for some (or most) AAP reports. Hypnogogic states, "Old Hag" syndrome, and the aforementioned helmet which I wish I could find.
      • Or produced by perceptual and psychological factors--null hypothesis. No. If your explanation is simply that you can't trust your experience, are crazy, or otherwise stupid and extrapolate that across all the accounts (including my own), then sit and spin as far as I'm concerned. That's neither empirical, or science, and a really crappy execution of the logical fallacy known as "Argument from Authority." Basically "it can't be true, therefore the evidence and everyone involved in it is wrong."

none of these things on this list are clear and distinct. With UFOS we are witnessing all, some, one or none of these things. Some of these are just semantics.

The position I would take would be, scepticism, self-awareness of your own personal filters, cultural context, scientific method where applicable, consideration of all hypothesis without dogmatism to a particular one. Each based on each others adherence. One or any of the above could be a possibility, so they must be entertained but none must be wholeheartedly believed without entering in the materialist cul-de sac, assume nothing. Better to keep an open mind then a narrow one, but not so open that your brains fall out. I don't mind people putting things in it, they have my permission.

 

[nameless]

If we must assume and take leaps of the imagination lets exhaust all the terrestrial possibilities first. This thread has barely done that before we started playing ray guns with zorg. Lets at first start with the self then the other, then others, then the earth, then the universe? And before we enter this lets remove cultural prejudice, check your gag reflexes and you instant dismissal notices, check the connotations you have to cultural misnomers and perhaps the wrongly defined, you own personal motivations for excepting/accepting a narrative, check your emotional and your seemingly logical causalities that makes you take a "leap". Whats that four letter word, the one that makes you believe in something without the concrete proof, the evidence the holy grail smoking gun? Maybe it will point to what you want to believe in, what choice or alternative is the most attractive and hopeful then actually the truth. Maybe its the more practical, more useful? maybe its a mirror?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Very familiar.

As in, performed it myself.

Then you clearly understand the dependable nature of pattern making within observed photoelectric matter. All bets are off with respect for "what is reality". Both philosophically and scientifically, as if there is ever a real difference. Consciousness experiences reality observably, typically, reality itself reacts to consciousness. Therefore consciousness is not integral to the individual, but rather a component of nature through which we experience reality. For all you know, you're a supremely advanced gelatinous mass existing under a rock somewhere. We are merely decoding reality and I believe with great conviction that real advancements within the study of consciousness will reveal that code. At any one time, the sum total of all reality is contained between our ears. That includes everyone you meet. Apart from personal experience, they do not exist. All you have is you. That's why consciousness is our reality's container. Understand *it*, and reality's cake. Only then will humanity experience nature by and through willful intent/design.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Could you break down what you're saying in plainer language, Jeff?

Yes, and very happily. But could you forgive me, as I am exhausted right now and WILL devote my first post to it in the morning.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

If we must assume and take leaps of the imagination lets exhaust all the terrestrial possibilities first. This thread has barely done that before we started playing ray guns with zorg. Lets at first start with the self then the other, then others, then the earth, then the universe? And before we enter this lets remove cultural prejudice, check your gag reflexes and you instant dismissal notices, check the connotations you have to cultural misnomers and perhaps wrongly defined, you own personal motivations for excepting a narrative, check your emotional and your seemingly logical causalities that makes you take a "leap". Whats that four letter word, the one that makes you believe in something without the concrete proof, the evidence the holy grail smoking gun? Maybe it will point to what you want to believe in, what choice or alternative is the most attractive and hopeful then actually the truth. Maybe its the more practical, more useful? maybe its a mirror?

Ok, I checked all the above, now what? It's still ALIENS!!!!! lol

 

[marduk]

Then you clearly understand the dependable nature of pattern making within observed photoelectric matter. All bets are off with respect for "what is reality". Both philosophically and scientifically, as if there is ever a real difference. Consciousness experiences reality observably, typically, reality itself reacts to consciousness. Therefore consciousness is not integral to the individual, but rather a component of nature through which we experience reality. For all you know, you're a supremely advanced gelatinous mass existing under a rock somewhere. We are merely decoding reality and I believe with great conviction that real advancements within the study of consciousness will reveal that code. At any one time, the sum total of all reality is contained between our ears. That includes everyone you meet. Apart from personal experience, they do not exist. All you have is you. That's why consciousness is our reality's container. Understand *it*, and reality's cake. Only then will humanity experience nature by and through willful intent/design.

Not at all and this is a basic, common misunderstanding of QM.

All bets are not off towards what is reality. If you stop believing in the baseball bat coming at your head from a home invader, the baseball bat does not go poof in a puff of QM.

QM is not magical thinking. QM does not mean anything is possible. QM means that things that happen at the nanoscopic scale are uncertain, and is measured in probabilities -- termed "wave functions" which incorporate position, momentum, and other measures. The term quantum comes from quanta which means discrete numbers -- meaning that certain physical quantities can only exist in discrete states (like the electron valence). These nanoscopic scales can sometimes be enlarged either in very low or very high energy states.

QM excels at providing an underpinning for discrete quantization of physical properties, the uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, and quantum entanglement.

The uncertainty principle theorizes that there is a fundamental limit to measurement by the nature of the universe -- broadly speaking that you cannot measure with accuracy both a particles momentum or position. You can get one or the other, because the act of measuring alters one or both properties. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the observer effect. This is a theoretical limit on measurement.

Wave-particle duality does not mean that the universe conforms to how you want it to be because you looked at it. Standard models of QM follow the lead of the HUP by simply stating this is how things are -- you can describe a particle as a wave and a wave as a particle. Some non-standard models of QM assert this is the impact of consciousness on the universe, but has yet to explain how or why this would be true. For example, is looking a measure? Is a ruler? Is a scanning electron microscope? New agers like to have a lot of hand waving and angels dancing on the head of a pin about this one, but the Copenhagen interpretation requires no observation effect to be true, and is more akin the the uncertainty principle in that you can either measure a quantized unit of energy as a wave or a particle, but not both. No consciousness is required for this assertion. Additionally, non-sentient measuring systems have been devised that show wave-particle duality stays constant with or without a sentient (i.e. human) observer present.

So poof goes the "consciousness is necessarily tied to the nature of the universe argument."

More than 20 years ago I myself wrote a paper asserting that God cannot exist in a universe where the observer effect is true so either God is not true, or the OE is not true, or they both are. Because god is omiscient, due to the OE all probability waves everywhere would collapse and the universe would become spontaneously newtonian.

I'm pretty sure I got an D+. The D was for being a smartass and the + was for original thinking.

Oh, and QM is a model of reality. It's useful for many situations.

It does not necessarily describe reality.

 

[Constance]

Yes, and very happily. But could you forgive me, as I am exhausted right now and WILL devote my first post to it in the morning.

No problem. Whenever you can get to it will be fine. Would you also explicate these lines from your most recent post:

At any one time, the sum total of all reality is contained between our ears. That includes everyone you meet. Apart from personal experience, they do not exist. All you have is you. That's why consciousness is our reality's container. Understand *it*, and reality's cake.

Thanks.

 

[mike]

At any one time, the sum total of all reality is contained between our ears. That includes everyone you meet. Apart from personal experience, they do not exist. All you have is you. That's why consciousness is our reality's container. Understand *it*, and reality's cake.

Which is at odds with your instinctive grasp of schrodengers cat , indeed it was Intended as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation.

The cat is either dead or alive in accordance with the mechanism as described, the observer has no effect at all.

Like wise reality is independent of your conciousness, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, it makes the same noise as if someone were.

Our version of reality is skewed by our perceptions, but the reality goes about its business regardless of our perceptual limitations, for example Its raining neutrinos

Billions of them raining down on you as we speak, that you do not observe them is of no importance
100 billion neutrinos per cm2 per second rain on us to be as exact as one can with this

Whats contained between our ears is the sum total of our sensory bandwidth, not reality itself

 

[Jeff Davis]

Which is at odds with your instinctive grasp of schrodengers cat , indeed it was Intended as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation.

The cat is either dead or alive in accordance with the mechanism as described, the observer has no effect at all.

Like wise reality is independent of your conciousness, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, it makes the same noise as if someone were.

Our version of reality is skewed by our perceptions, but the reality goes about its business regardless of our perceptual limitations, for example Its raining neutrinos

Billions of them raining down on you as we speak, that you do not observe them is of no importance
100 billion neutrinos per cm2 per second rain on us to be as exact as one can with this
Whats contained between our ears is the sum total of our sensory bandwidth, not reality itself

Actually, this is a matter of theoretical opinion. There is NO right or wrong. The act of observation itself effects the experiment.

The emboldened above *is* reality. The emboldened sentence above is inaccurate. Reality is subjective and does NOT exist apart from yourself or the human condition. Absolutely impossible to prove otherwise. It is impossible to separate or isolate observation apart from ANY conscious reasoning. Lots of assumptions in your post Mike. Certainly very little hard fact. This stuff is 100% theoretical at this point. We have to accept it as such if we are to remain reasonable.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Not at all and this is a basic, common misunderstanding of QM.

All bets are not off towards what is reality. If you stop believing in the baseball bat coming at your head from a home invader, the baseball bat does not go poof in a puff of QM.

QM is not magical thinking. QM does not mean anything is possible. QM means that things that happen at the nanoscopic scale are uncertain, and is measured in probabilities -- termed "wave functions" which incorporate position, momentum, and other measures. The term quantum comes from quanta which means discrete numbers -- meaning that certain physical quantities can only exist in discrete states (like the electron valence). These nanoscopic scales can sometimes be enlarged either in very low or very high energy states.

QM excels at providing an underpinning for discrete quantization of physical properties, the uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, and quantum entanglement.

The uncertainty principle theorizes that there is a fundamental limit to measurement by the nature of the universe -- broadly speaking that you cannot measure with accuracy both a particles momentum or position. You can get one or the other, because the act of measuring alters one or both properties. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the observer effect. This is a theoretical limit on measurement.

Wave-particle duality does not mean that the universe conforms to how you want it to be because you looked at it. Standard models of QM follow the lead of the HUP by simply stating this is how things are -- you can describe a particle as a wave and a wave as a particle. Some non-standard models of QM assert this is the impact of consciousness on the universe, but has yet to explain how or why this would be true. For example, is looking a measure? Is a ruler? Is a scanning electron microscope? New agers like to have a lot of hand waving and angels dancing on the head of a pin about this one, but the Copenhagen interpretation requires no observation effect to be true, and is more akin the the uncertainty principle in that you can either measure a quantized unit of energy as a wave or a particle, but not both. No consciousness is required for this assertion. Additionally, non-sentient measuring systems have been devised that show wave-particle duality stays constant with or without a sentient (i.e. human) observer present.

So poof goes the "consciousness is necessarily tied to the nature of the universe argument."

More than 20 years ago I myself wrote a paper asserting that God cannot exist in a universe where the observer effect is true so either God is not true, or the OE is not true, or they both are. Because god is omiscient, due to the OE all probability waves everywhere would collapse and the universe would become spontaneously newtonian.

I'm pretty sure I got an D+. The D was for being a smartass and the + was for original thinking.

Oh, and QM is a model of reality. It's useful for many situations.

It does not necessarily describe reality.

You completely miss the point and have adopted what is the materialist's interpretation of the matter. That's all. Presently you are holding on fast to approx. what 60% of the present scientific consensus states. There is NO hard line in what you are declaring here. You cannot prove it and Bell's Theorem denounces what you are stating completely. It does not support the mechanism point of view that you have adopted. The guy that wrote the most classic QM college text book currently out there does NOT agree with you. Yes, these matters are indeed theoretical. However, it is mine, and MANY others far and away more so credentialed than myself, convictions, that stand in direct opposition to your consensus interpretations of these truly theoretical matters. So yes, Reality is COMPLETELY up for grabs at this point.

 

[marduk]

You completely miss the point and have adopted what is the materialist's interpretation of the matter. That's all. Presently you are holding on fast to approx. what 60% of the present scientific consensus states. There is NO hard line in what you are declaring here. You cannot prove it and Bell's Theorem denounces what you are stating completely. It does not support the mechanism point of view that you have adopted. The guy that wrote the most classic QM college text book currently out there does NOT agree with you. Yes, these matters are indeed theoretical. However, it is mine, and MANY others far and away more so credentialed than myself, convictions, that stand in direct opposition to your consensus interpretations of these truly theoretical matters. So yes, Reality is COMPLETELY up for grabs at this point.

So explain this.

When I ran the double slit experiment, I was not present. In fact, I used a CCD rig to record and measure the result.

The experiment was ran several times during the night, recorded by CCD into files on my computer, which then interpreted the results to say "Yes" or "No" ("Yes" being the expected result where the photons interfere with themselves).

When I came in the next day, it was all "Yes."

Where was consciousness in the measurement of this experiment that made the quantum wavefunctions collapse in accordance with the Copenhagen interpretation? I was at home with my girlfriend at the time, and very distracted (hey, it was university!)

Real science runs demonstrating similar non-conscious observation here:
[1205.4926] A quantum delayed choice experiment
Disentangling the wave-particle duality in the double-slit experiment | Ars Technica

The wavefunction collapses when it's measured, regardless of a conscious mind observing the measurement or not.

There are also logical arguments that are tough to explain if a conscious observer is required to make wavefunctions collapse.

Namely, who observed the universe during the big bang? Who observed the Earth before life? Who observed mankind before we became conscious? You can go down many philosophically handwringing arguments like "everything is conscious" but then we're back to a strictly newtonian universe.

You would also need to explain exactly how much consciousness is required to make the observer effect happen -- a human, a chimp, a bonobo, a dolphin... where does it end? Can a rat observe a quantum measurement and change the universe? A spider? An amoeba?

On top of that, you would require an explanation of how exactly consciousness informs the universe that it's being observed. Is there a magical instantaneous (in fact, sometimes retroactive) consciousness ray that pokes a hole in the QM balloon to let the probability out?

Now, myself, I have a romantic bent towards the many-worlds interpretation. Because it would be so cool if it were true.

But I'm an empiricist at heart. I go where the data takes me, not where I want to believe it's true.

 

[trainedobserver]

Well, I think everyone would agree that there is no one solution to the UFO problem. No one hypothesis could explain everything.

I'm thinking we simply don't have enough information, or probably more likely, we don't possess the perspective from which a proper interpretation of the data can be made.

On top of that, there is no explanation that I am aware of that could be interpreted as "good for humanity."

If a superior alien civilization has found us, we are screwed. History tells us you want to be the discoverer, not the discovered.
If a machine intelligence from the future (or whatever) is visiting us, we are screwed. Any regard they could have for biological life-forms would be highly questionable.
If extra-dimensional predators have discovered us, we are screwed.
If time traveling humans are attempting to change the past for whatever reason, we are screwed.

We can cross our fingers and hope for some version of Star Trek's Federation of Planets to come calling, but in all reality (if Earth history is any indication) we are more likely to get the Galactic Empire knocking at our door. I think we should hunker down and hope we aren't found and hope that all of this has just been "an undigested bit of beef." Know what I'm saying?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Could you break down what you're saying in plainer language, Jeff?

I originally wrote: There is no question that the entirety of UFO lore dwells in the forests of expanded natural context. It speaks to me as being consistent with a matter of facility, rather than a non integral event. The matter seems transitory with respect to human progress. It's in us. Not outside of us. Either by natural or artificial design. The question is, hypothetically, are we being taken there in a natural progression, or are we being influenced to go there by and within mechanisms of our own consciousness that we are yet to understand and develop a working context for?

Constance,
The word "context" for me is extremely important. Context is actually nothing more than human memory, and yet NOTHING is more perceptively critical than memory with respect to what is reality. All context is determined by memory. 100%. When something paranormal happens, it is always a matter of contextual interpretation. That's why when @Burnt State, @ufology, & @Jeff Davis have witnessed (observed) UFOs, we identify them the way we do. If we lived 500 years ago they would be determined, (whether interacting with the phenomenon in an experiential manner or not) as being whatever we had parked in our memories via talk at the local tavern. Fairies, Goblins, Trolls, Changling mysthos, whatever. We can back up from the phenomenal experience into a hindsight vantage point wherein it is obvious beyond reason where such influence originates. It ALWAYS originates within the natural context of our memories. All perceptions are assembled determinations.

The word "facility" refers to our natural evolutionary interactive consciousness status within which our intellect performs cognitive determinations via memory. IMO, this is a status undergoing tremendous progressive change. In fact, the one aspect of measurable human evolution progressing at a notably remarkable rate is the human brain according to paleontologists monitoring such a cause. If you believe as I do that the human reality mold is shaped, experientially developed, and executed via this facility, it is most likely that the natural environmental fullness or completeness of our existence, for which we are presently at a loss for what is a true understanding, will continue to follow despite memory based interpretation of these natural integral processes.

In understanding this, it is best to view humanity's past physical evolutionary status as being one that exemplifies Julian Jaynes theories. I believe Jaynes workings and research point to the type of ongoing psychical developments that still include vivid hallucinatory experiences induced by facilitation within our interactive relationship to and with the environmental component of consciousness. Facilitation that has yet to be identified and studied within the workings of the human mind. Personally, it is my own speculation that our own DNA is encoded with humanity's evolutionary template. IMO, the AAP is triggered from within, rather than one that chooses the individual arbitrarily from an external perspective.

I hope this helps a bit to explain my deranged viewpoints.

 

[trainedobserver]

Young's slit experiment debunked! Includes a practical demonstration using a needle and a laser.

 

[Jeff Davis]

So explain this.

When I ran the double slit experiment, I was not present. In fact, I used a CCD rig to record and measure the result.

The experiment was ran several times during the night, recorded by CCD into files on my computer, which then interpreted the results to say "Yes" or "No" ("Yes" being the expected result where the photons interfere with themselves).

When I came in the next day, it was all "Yes."

Where was consciousness in the measurement of this experiment that made the quantum wavefunctions collapse in accordance with the Copenhagen interpretation? I was at home with my girlfriend at the time, and very distracted (hey, it was university!)

Real science runs demonstrating similar non-conscious observation here:
[1205.4926] A quantum delayed choice experiment
Disentangling the wave-particle duality in the double-slit experiment | Ars Technica

The wavefunction collapses when it's measured, regardless of a conscious mind observing the measurement or not.

There are also logical arguments that are tough to explain if a conscious observer is required to make wavefunctions collapse.

Namely, who observed the universe during the big bang? Who observed the Earth before life? Who observed mankind before we became conscious? You can go down many philosophically handwringing arguments like "everything is conscious" but then we're back to a strictly newtonian universe.

You would also need to explain exactly how much consciousness is required to make the observer effect happen -- a human, a chimp, a bonobo, a dolphin... where does it end? Can a rat observe a quantum measurement and change the universe? A spider? An amoeba?

On top of that, you would require an explanation of how exactly consciousness informs the universe that it's being observed. Is there a magical instantaneous (in fact, sometimes retroactive) consciousness ray that pokes a hole in the QM balloon to let the probability out?

Now, myself, I have a romantic bent towards the many-worlds interpretation. Because it would be so cool if it were true.

But I'm an empiricist at heart. I go where the data takes me, not where I want to believe it's true.

What is the act of measurement relevant to? Does it EVER separate itself from human consciousness? No it does not. That would be impossible. It is not YOUR consciousness as an individual that effects anything. Why? Because you do not contain consciousness. It contains you. Individual cognition is what you are confusing with consciousness. Not the same thing. Consciousness is environmental. Cognition is the individual mental human fingerprint.

 

[marduk]

What is the act of measurement relevant to? Does it EVER separate itself from human consciousness? No it does not. That would be impossible. It is not YOUR consciousness as an individual that effects anything. Why? Because you do not contain consciousness. It contains you. Individual cognition is what you are confusing with consciousness. Not the same thing. Consciousness is environmental. Cognition is the individual mental human fingerprint.

That's a lot of hand-waiving Jeff. Explain a process or provide evidence that what you say is true.

 

[nameless]

Well, I think everyone would agree that there is no one solution to the UFO problem. No one hypothesis could explain everything.

I'm thinking we simply don't have enough information, or probably more likely, we don't possess the perspective from which a proper interpretation of the data can be made.

On top of that, there is no explanation that I am aware of that could be interpreted as "good for humanity."

If a superior alien civilization has found us, we are screwed. History tells us you want to be the discoverer, not the discovered.
If a machine intelligence from the future (or whatever) is visiting us, we are screwed. Any regard they could have for biological life-forms would be highly questionable.
If extra-dimensional predators have discovered us, we are screwed.
If time traveling humans are attempting to change the past for whatever reason, we are screwed.

We can cross our fingers and hope for some version of Star Trek's Federation of Planets to come calling, but in all reality (if Earth history is any indication) we are more likely to get the Galactic Empire knocking at our door. I think we should hunker down and hope we aren't found and hope that all of this has just been "an undigested bit of beef." Know what I'm saying?

That's why I am raising money for developing light sabres and a big muthafkin space gun. Y'all in? PayPal me @ [email protected] . I hope to weaponise space by the end of the century with photon lasers but am mostly doing this to piss of Greer.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Well, I think everyone would agree that there is no one solution to the UFO problem. No one hypothesis could explain everything.

I'm thinking we simply don't have enough information, or probably more likely, we don't possess the perspective from which a proper interpretation of the data can be made.

On top of that, there is no explanation that I am aware of that could be interpreted as "good for humanity."

If a superior alien civilization has found us, we are screwed. History tells us you want to be the discoverer, not the discovered.
If a machine intelligence from the future (or whatever) is visiting us, we are screwed. Any regard they could have for biological life-forms would be highly questionable.
If extra-dimensional predators have discovered us, we are screwed.
If time traveling humans are attempting to change the past for whatever reason, we are screwed.

We can cross our fingers and hope for some version of Star Trek's Federation of Planets to come calling, but in all reality (if Earth history is any indication) we are more likely to get the Galactic Empire knocking at our door. I think we should hunker down and hope we aren't found and hope that all of this has just been "an undigested bit of beef." Know what I'm saying?

This is really good reasoning and actually underlines why none of these possibilities is a likelihood. Far more likely is the notion that the paranormal represents a quasi portion of ourselves, that is integral to our condition, rather than external to it. You're right, the externalized views are contextually determined assemblies. Relevant speculations nonetheless.

 

[Jeff Davis]

That's a lot of hand-waiving Jeff. Explain a process or provide evidence that what you say is true.

We are ALL here to wave hands Sir. If you don't understand that, you do not understand the most basic premise in psychology possible. See, I'm waving at you and smiling.

 

[nameless]

Discoclosureproject is a way in which we can pressurise the CIA, NSA, AA, UPS, build-a-bearers into telling us stuff or else " I start dancing" and you don't want me to do that.