Bored with UFOs

[Konrad Hartmann]

After Philip Imbrogno was exposed as a liar. I've given up on Ufology. I rarely comment on the subject anymore.

I still believe in the UFO's subject. I genuinely experienced odd things like that in my life. But i'm not looking for answers anymore from this field of study.

I have watched hundreds of UFO videos, yet not one, resembles my personal UFO experiences. For me, that is prove positive genuine sightings of true unknowns is a rare thing. I'm not going to find what i saw on Youtube.

Can you describe your experience?

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

Seems like most of us eventually reach a point in ufology where we:

1. Are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the phenomenon is part of something very strange but very real. ("not visionary or fictitious")
2. Don't know what is causing it, or even know if anyone else does.
3. Are seemingly powerless to pierce the veil of obfuscation with which the subject seems to surround itself.
4. Doubt we will ever live to see beyond said veil.
5. Are repeatedly goaded back to some level of hopefulness and attention by the very fact that something very strange but very real has happened and continues to happen.

6.(optional) Seek coping strategies with which to remain involved despite frustration arising from cognitive dissonance in the steps 1. through 5. loop. I think forums like this may be one such strategy.

Yeah, I basically agree with you. My thoughts are, regarding the above:
1. I don't know if I would exclude visionary. There seem to be events in which not all the humans present will observe the phenomena. Also, there seems to be a lot of loading within us which tends to influence the perception of the event, and just as significantly, the memory of the event. What if some of the phenomena is non-physical? What if it takes place as an experience created in our minds by another entity, perhaps exploiting our imagination? Is it visionary? Is it fictitious? I don't know what to call it. If an intelligence wants you to see or experience something, does it necessarily have to use a physical device/experience or is it sufficient to create the memory of the physical device/experience?
2. I agree that we do not know, but there seems to be a UFO industry (per the Citizens Disclosure make-believe congressional hearing), composed of individuals with a shared belief in a certain set of circumstances. They are building their own collective model, and basing their work upon this system.
3. Yep. And I don't trust anyone who claims to know or have "the smoking gun."
4. Agreed. We may even be the veil.
5. I'm goaded back into a level of interest and attention. Hopefulness? Not so much.
6. I think the whole UFO industry works upon the principle that we're just on the verge of a grand discovery. I don't feel that way, so I may have a relatively low sense of frustration with the topic. I have a fairly high tolerance for uncertainty. At the moment, I wonder if we might learn much from the effects of UFO experiences on witnesses. Perhaps some of the phenomena may be seen reflected in the eyes of observers, so to speak. Who are the witnesses and how do these events change their lives? Do other people see these things, but just ignore them as either a figment of their imagination or a mundane aircraft? In other words, I'm wondering if, being so difficult to observe directly, we may study them indirectly in their effects on humans.

 

[Jeff Davis]

4. Agreed. We may even be the veil.

Yeah, I basically agree with you. My thoughts are, regarding the above:

1. I don't know if I would exclude visionary. There seem to be events in which not all the humans present will observe the phenomena. Also, there seems to be a lot of loading within us which tends to influence the perception of the event, and just as significantly, the memory of the event. What if some of the phenomena is non-physical? What if it takes place as an experience created in our minds by another entity, perhaps exploiting our imagination? Is it visionary? Is it fictitious? I don't know what to call it. If an intelligence wants you to see or experience something, does it necessarily have to use a physical device/experience or is it sufficient to create the memory of the physical device/experience?

Because multiple alternate serious attention is being given in response to this construct of boomerang's, I am compelled to press on.

Again, here is the original:

1. Are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the phenomenon is part of something very strange but very real. ("not visionary or fictitious")

In Konrad's first elucidated consideration, I find an undeniable and distinct fear of deception. This is HEALTHY. It is the primary instinct of survival in environmentally relative cognitive full bloom. Konrad keenly sums an awareness that cognitively determined environmental vulnerability may in fact pose a threat via the exterior UFO agents ability to manipulate observer perception. One cannot imagine the depth and scope of such a cognitive exercise apart from the obvious which imo constitutes 25% of the perception based cognitive assemblage relative to the formulaic external result. This is a natural high level process. These same processes have been keeping men and women alive for 10s of thousands of years.

Reflecting on my own present UFO relative construct, this is a mind blowing revelation. It states clearly, in a language comprised of that other calculative unseen 75% remaining informational black matter that none of us even begins to speak fluently in terms of our present sentient awareness, that the observation of UFOs is directly representative of an environmental aspect, possibly even a relative conditionally induced observational aspect, that what we have momentarily become sentiently aware is most likely represents a MUCH larger and far more so potential natural environmental expanse for which we have yet to gain natural orientation or access to. Namely because of the same temporally relative cognitive summation process, we typically in present fashion disavows as much as even remotely constituting an environmental reality because it really poses no knowing threat whatsoever and therefore rarely calls upon an instinctual reaction to as much.

 

[Randall]

Seems like most of us eventually reach a point in ufology where we:

1. Are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the phenomenon is part of something very strange but very real. ("not visionary or fictitious")
2. Don't know what is causing it, or even know if anyone else does.
3. Are seemingly powerless to pierce the veil of obfuscation with which the subject seems to surround itself.
4. Doubt we will ever live to see beyond said veil.
5. Are repeatedly goaded back to some level of hopefulness and attention by the very fact that something very strange but very real has happened and continues to happen.

6.(optional) Seek coping strategies with which to remain involved despite frustration arising from cognitive dissonance in the steps 1. through 5. loop. I think forums like this may be one such strategy.

All are reasonable observations that depending on the individual are probably to some extent true. However there is some room for elaboration that makes points 2 and 3 worthy of further reflection. Assuming we agree that UFOs are real as stated in point one, then saying we don't know what they are isn't entirely logical. However there seems to be a sort of paradox whereby even though we believe they are real, we must maintain an air of mystery, seemingly in order to maintain interest, and in some cases, possibly to retain the option of being the one to lay claim to solving it or having some special insider knowledge ( contactees for example ). In my view this is preventing us from applying a more focused pressure on what you call "the veil", and in my opinion the veil can be pierced if we allow ourselves the insight to do it.

The kind of pressure I'm referring to here is a clear minded and logical approach to what UFOs are, not what they aren't. I've been harping on about this for years now and despite the evidence before everyone's eyes, the tendency is still to shroud the topic in mystery by describing UFOs as something "unidentified" or "unknown" and while this is true within a certain context, the fact that the phenomenon has been studied to the point of excluding natural and manmade phenomena means that we have determined what they are to a certain extent. They are alien craft. Yet people are still afraid to come out and say it. Perhaps ufologists are also afraid of the ridicule? At least we've got Stanton Friedman who says he's no "apologist ufologist". He's seen through the veil. He knows we're dealing with alien craft and he's not afraid to say so. I can respect that, not merely for his courage, but because it's obviously true, and in my view truth wins out over fear every time. But let's take a moment to see how this situation came about in the first place.

The whole process of defining UFOs by what they aren't was started by the USAF because they wanted to downplay the idea that UFOs are alien craft ( flying saucers ). This is evidenced in official documents such as the Robertson Panel report and certain USAF policies on what to tell and what not to tell the public about UFO sighting reports. Most significantly, the pattern of using an inverse definition for UFOs was introduced after Project Sign ( which had originally concluded that flying saucers were probably interplanetary craft ). After that conclusion was rejected by the administration, the strategy of inversely defining UFOs by what they aren't set in, culminating during Project Blue Book in the form of AFR 200-2 Feb 5 1958, and when one really studies the evolution of these definitions it becomes glaringly obvious that they were designed to filter out everything but alien craft from the flow of reports while at the same time avoiding the impression that that is exactly what they were doing.

So why is this relevant? Because by removing all the deception caused by the backwards USAF definition, we can blow away the smoke that causing the obfuscation and clearly focus on the topic. When we do that we discover that UFOs aren't simply unidentified flying objects in the literal sense at all. They've been identified as alien craft ever since the dawn of the Modern Era, and it's high time that we ( especially ufologists ) accept that fact rather than continuing to obscure it by repeating the same old mantra over and over again that we don't know what they are. This is the sharp end of the stick ... the point of the drill bit ... the realization that pierces the veil. So what if we don't know exactly what kind of alien ship it is. That's not the point. If we see some car off in the distance, we may not know what make and model it is, but we certainly know it's a car ... and we call it a car. We don't suddenly call it an "unidentified rolling object" and define it as not a truck, not a boat, not a motorcycle ... yet for some reason this inverse logic has become the de facto standard when it comes to UFOs. It's time for that to change. Otherwise the "veil" you speak of is nothing more than our own willful ignorance.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

The kind of pressure I'm referring to here is a clear minded and logical approach to what UFOs are, not what they aren't. I've been harping on about this for years now and despite the evidence before everyone's eyes, the tendency is still to shroud the topic in mystery by describing UFOs as something "unidentified" or "unknown" and while this is true within a certain context, the fact that the phenomenon has been studied to the point of excluding natural and manmade phenomena means that we have determined what they are to a certain extent. They are alien craft. Yet people are still afraid to come out and say it. Perhaps ufologists are also afraid of the ridicule? At least we've got Stanton Friedman who says he's no "apologist ufologist". He's seen through the veil. He knows we're dealing with alien craft and he's not afraid to say so. I can respect that, not merely for his courage, but because it's obviously true, and in my view truth wins out over fear every time. But let's take a moment to see how this situation came about in the first place.

You may very well be right, Ufology, but how do you know? How do we know that they are are alien craft from another planet (which would mean another solar system or more likely galaxy, I suppose)? Do we have a body? Well, some people say so, but I cannot access confirmed information about it. Do we have a recovered spacecraft capable of interstellar travel? Again, not with any real confirmation, just what people say.

And here are questions that might actually have answers. Do we have recorded images of craft entering our atmosphere or solar system?

I understand how viewing these things as alien spacecraft seems to be a reasonable position, but I'm just wondering how supported it is. I think it's important that some people do pursue this line, but I don't know where the data is showing these things coming from another stellar point.

 

[Randall]

You may very well be right, Ufology, but how do you know? How do we know that they are are alien craft from another planet (which would mean another solar system or more likely galaxy, I suppose)?

That question brings us to the next point which is that alien doesn't necessitate ET. The concept of being alien applies to any given context whereby boundaries are juxtaposed by something foreign. For example the so-called "illegal aliens" aren't ETs, they're just people from another country. It can also be used to describe the invasion of foreign organisms into an ecosystem or body. In the case of UFOs, It means alien to our modern global civilization. There is some evidence that they have been tracked in space, but that doesn't necessitate that space is their ultimate origin. It may be that the aliens are from some as of yet undiscovered terrestrial location, or perhaps even an alternate universe, or are transports from Hell, but I ask you, when we consider those alternatives and compare them to the standard ETH, which seems the most reasonable? Which has the most proven science behind it? There is no evidence on Earth of the resource extraction, infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that would be needed to construct UFOs, especially the very large ones, the other ETH ( Extratemporal Hypothesis ) simply doesn't make any sense, neither does the EDH ( Extradimensional Hypothesis ), and the AUH ( Alternate Universe Hypothesis ), although possible, requires completely unproven and complex assumptions. On the other hand science has proven that other planets exist in the universe and that space is navigable. There is nothing unscientific about interstellar travel, and given sheer the number of stars and planets, it's a virtual certainty that other sufficiently advanced life exists in our universe. Of all the theories, the standard ETH remains the most scientifically reasonable explanation.

Do we have a body? Well, some people say so, but I cannot access confirmed information about it. Do we have a recovered spacecraft capable of interstellar travel? Again, not with any real confirmation, just what people say. And here are questions that might actually have answers. Do we have recorded images of craft entering our atmosphere or solar system?

I understand how viewing these things as alien spacecraft seems to be a reasonable position, but I'm just wondering how supported it is. I think it's important that some people do pursue this line, but I don't know where the data is showing these things coming from another stellar point.

Those are perfectly valid points. Although we know UFOs are alien craft, their ultimate point of origin has not been proven ( at least not to the public ). Exactly how they work, where they originate, and why they are here, are all questions for which insufficient evidence exists to draw any certain and detailed conclusions. But that still doesn't mean we don't know what they are. As I pointed out before, we may see a car at some distance on the highway, and we may not know its make or model or where it was manufactured, or who is driving it. But we still know it's a car and we define it by what it is ... not what it isn't. We don't suddenly call it an unidentified rolling object and define it as "not a truck, not an airplane, not a motorcycle, not a helicopter, not a snickers bar on wheels". The same logic should apply to alien craft. First they were called flying saucers, and then they were popularized under the name UFOs. But either way, we're still talking about the same thing. All the other anomalous phenomena fall under the heading of UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ), introduced by NARCAP. These are well established historical facets of ufology, yet as a ufologist, I still see far too much confusion about them ( even denial ) both within and outside the field, and this is what is preventing us from "piercing the veil" we talked about earlier. But when we view the subject as outlined here, we can clearly see that the veil has already been pierced. It's just that the hole is very small. What we need to do now is focus in on that tiny point in order to widen the aperture.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

That question brings us to the next point which is that alien doesn't necessitate ET. The concept of being alien applies to any given context whereby boundaries are juxtaposed by something foreign. For example the so-called "illegal aliens" aren't ETs, they're just people from another country. It can also be used to describe the invasion of foreign organisms into an ecosystem or body. In the case of UFOs, It means alien to our modern global civilization. There is some evidence that they have been tracked in space, but that doesn't necessitate that space is their ultimate origin. It may be that the aliens are from some as of yet undiscovered terrestrial location, or perhaps even an alternate universe, or are transports from Hell, but I ask you, when we consider those alternatives and compare them to the standard ETH, which seems the most reasonable? Which has the most proven science behind it? There is no evidence on Earth of the resource extraction, infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that would be needed to construct UFOs, especially the very large ones, the other ETH ( Extratemporal Hypothesis ) simply doesn't make any sense, neither does the EDH ( Extradimensional Hypothesis ), and the AUH ( Alternate Universe Hypothesis ), although possible, requires completely unproven and complex assumptions. On the other hand science has proven that other planets exist in the universe and that space is navigable. There is nothing unscientific about interstellar travel, and given sheer the number of stars and planets, it's a virtual certainty that other sufficiently advanced life exists in our universe. Of all the theories, the standard ETH remains the most scientifically reasonable explanation.

There's nothing unscientific about interstellar travel, but we don't know that it is feasible to do it. It may be theoretically possible, but so is the terrestrial creation of UFOs. We know that many potentially habitable planets exist in the universe, and that space is navigable to some extent, but there a large number of assumptions we have to accept in order to completely accept the ETH. I don't know if they are fewer in number than those required for the EDH and AUH (and I'll admit right now that the physics involved with those hypotheses are over my head). But for the ETH to work, we have to assume the ability to travel vast distances. Gliese 581 d and g are 20.2 light years away, right? We would need to be looking at a species capable of either a) building and manning a spacecraft, and being able to travel at least 20.2 ly in a single lifetime, b) developing said space program and manning it with the understanding that multiple generations will be born and die before the craft reaches Earth, c) manning the craft with non-biologicals, either intelligent or capable of receiving direction, or d) being able to travel at light speed by means of an as-yet unknown technology. There are possibilities and theoretical support for all of these, but none of them have been demonstrated. The ETH seems like a common-sense, scientifically reasonable explanation but like the other hypotheses, it requires unverified assumptions for it to work. One might argue that it's more plausible for a dog-sized dragon to exist than a whale-sized dragon to exist, but until we have a dragon to work from, do we really know?

Those are perfectly valid points. Although we know UFOs are alien craft, their ultimate point of origin has not been proven ( at least not to the public ). Exactly how they work, where they originate, and why they are here, are all questions for which insufficient evidence exists to draw any certain and detailed conclusions. But that still doesn't mean we don't know what they are. As I pointed out before, we may see a car at some distance on the highway, and we may not know its make or model or where it was manufactured, or who is driving it. But we still know it's a car and we define it by what it is ... not what it isn't. We don't suddenly call it an unidentified rolling object and define it as "not a truck, not an airplane, not a motorcycle, not a helicopter, not a snickers bar on wheels". The same logic should apply to alien craft. First they were called flying saucers, and then they were popularized under the name UFOs. But either way, we're still talking about the same thing. All the other anomalous phenomena fall under the heading of UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ), introduced by NARCAP. These are well established historical facets of ufology, yet as a ufologist, I still see far too much confusion about them ( even denial ) both within and outside the field, and this is what is preventing us from "piercing the veil" we talked about earlier. But when we view the subject as outlined here, we can clearly see that the veil has already been pierced. It's just that the hole is very small. What we need to do now is focus in on that tiny point in order to widen the aperture.

But I have a car. I can find all of the part numbers for every component. I can find out when and where it is manufactured. I have it registered with the state. If I see a cylinder flying or hovering in the sky, I cannot tell you what that is without referring to the assumptions created within 20th century ufology and science fiction. Yes, we can call them alien craft if we define alien as you described above. But does that mean we know what they are? If we don't know the origin, the material, the composition, and so forth, what certainty do we have?

 

[Randall]

There's nothing unscientific about interstellar travel, but we don't know that it is feasible to do it. It may be theoretically possible, but so is the terrestrial creation of UFOs ... One might argue that it's more plausible for a dog-sized dragon to exist than a whale-sized dragon to exist, but until we have a dragon to work from, do we really know?

In this analogy the logical thing that corresponds to the "dog sized dragon" are our existing spacecraft and probes. Space travel is a proven technology, and more sophisticated craft are under construction as we speak. And if we had "whale sized spacecraft" and correspondingly powerful engines, interstellar travel would be a reality. On the other hand we have no "dog sized dragon" to validate the plausibility of multiple universes, time travel, transports from Hell, or these other more exotic theories.

But I have a car. I can find all of the part numbers for every component. I can find out when and where it is manufactured. I have it registered with the state. If I see a cylinder flying or hovering in the sky, I cannot tell you what that is without referring to the assumptions created within 20th century ufology and science fiction. Yes, we can call them alien craft if we define alien as you described above. But does that mean we know what they are? If we don't know the origin, the material, the composition, and so forth, what certainty do we have?

Your own car isn't what the analogy refers to. The analogy refers to another car off in the distance, the make, model and driver of which is indiscernible with any certainty. You might try to catch up to it, to find these things out, but if you can't, does that give you sufficient reason to doubt that it's a car? Of course not. You still know what you saw was a car just like many UFO witnesses know what they saw was an alien craft and not a weather balloon or swamp gas.

On the cylinder flying or hovering in the sky, if that's all we see, then you are absolutely right, we don't have sufficient information. But let's also be clear here. At this point neither does it qualify as a UFO. To qualify as a UFO the object needs to be observed or detected clearly enough to determine that it's an alien craft and not merely a zeppelin or some kind of terrestrial technology. In the official definitions they use phrases like " ... by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to ... ( any number of other natural or manmade objects ). In other words, it needs to be identified as an alien craft, and if we don't get that information, then we're dealing with a UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon ), which are often anomalous, and might be alien craft, but haven't been seen clearly enough to be sure that's what it was.

 

[boomerang]

[quote="ufology, post: 159169, member: 2682"
So why is this relevant? Because by removing all the deception caused by the backwards USAF definition, we can blow away the smoke that causing the obfuscation and clearly focus on the topic. When we do that we discover that UFOs aren't simply unidentified flying objects in the literal sense at all. They've been identified as alien craft ever since the dawn of the Modern Era,

I think the premise of this argument is that there exists amongst us, in the conventional sociological sense, those capable of defining and describing the ufo phenomena in a way we would find intellectually satisfying. I am very less than sure. I would also disagree that ufos have been necessarily identified as alien craft. Unless we ascribe to a kind of breakaway culture scenario that leads to conclusions with lots of baggage.

Evidence for historical patterns of deception is quite strong. But I find myself at a loss to put this into any kind of plausible institutional framework.

 

[boomerang]

Yeah, I basically agree with you. My thoughts are, regarding the above:

1. I don't know if I would exclude visionary. There seem to be events in which not all the humans present will observe the phenomena. Also, there seems to be a lot of loading within us which tends to influence the perception of the event, and just as significantly, the memory of the event. What if some of the phenomena is non-physical? What if it takes place as an experience created in our minds by another entity, perhaps exploiting our imagination? Is it visionary? Is it fictitious?

Maybe I should have been more careful with terminology. "Not visionary or fictitious" was a back-handed reference to the infamous Gen. Twining memo asserting that more was going on with the ufo phenomenon that human imagination projected outwards.


The history of ufology as it currently stands (for the public, anyway) bears strong parallel to the formation of formalized religion. Individuals, or small groups of them, have for centuries undergone life-changing experiences during episodes that leave behind just enough evidence to garner devoted followers and persist in public imagination. But not enough evidence (keeping in mind the "breakaway caveat) to make them amenable to systematic investigation. We are thus left with not a science, but a persistent mythology that may be shaping our collective unconscious, as per Vallee. This is not what we want. But it seems to be what we get in spite of best efforts to the contrary.

Nothing new here, and I'm not saying this is necessarily the same mechanism by which organized religions are spawned and established. But I think the possibility deserves consideration. Where rationality comes up empty handed, mythology tends to take its place.

 

[starise]

I hear the same terms over and over-ufology, skeptic, scientific evaluation, the UFO "field".

I guess we need some way to attempt a description of what has been going on and most of what has been going on is internal. It all still feels very much like a grass roots attempt at something valid. The field this and the field that...or folks involved in UFOLOGY know this and do that. Blah Blah Blah. Long strings of thought that lead us nowhere.

It can't be demons or other entities ( or so some think). It can't be interplanetary. It is interplanetary. The government this and the the government that. Attempting to evaluate conditions we can't see, can't touch and can't catch. Self described evaluators evaluating other self described evaluators. Round and round and round digging a rut. Can't you see this thing goes in perpetual circles? Don't tell me, show me, comes up short every time.

This isn't aimed at any one individual. I just think the whole thing is absurd.

I think more harm has been done on this planet by self aggrandizing "experts" than any other single group on the planet.

 

[Jeff Davis]

As with any passionate interest, an interest in UFOs is integrally bound by it's very nature to our most sincere emotions. If such an interest finds a person in emotional turmoil due to such aforementioned emotional intricacies, one must recon themselves deluded and immediately seek to reorientate their rationale concerning the matter. There is NOTHING wrong with this whatsoever. It merely demonstrates the building of one's character.

At this point in human evolution, when a passionate interest in the subject of UFOs stops being a definitive pursuit of the unknown, know yourself deluded and right your path asap save you diminish your health and harmony as a result. To be compelled by the unknown in a truly healthy sense takes both skill and discipline. It can be a very energetic affair for certain. May all your questions be guided by both relativity and a well defined and understood sense of self worth lest your defeat be presumably of your own design.

The Unknown is like a mythical vampire. It has no reflection. The problem however, 9 out of 10 times, is that we do. If you find yourself staring into a mirror over the shoulder of the unknown and find yourself in familiar company, KNOW, you're not in Kansas anymore. Take a deep breath, a step back, and even enjoy a little time off if needed. Above all, be good to yourself by simply being yourself first and foremost. To know yourself is how to best appreciate what you don't know. Ahhhh, the joy of not knowing keeps my thrilling pursuit of the unknown ALIVE.

 

[Randall]

I think the premise of this argument is that there exists amongst us, in the conventional sociological sense, those capable of defining and describing the ufo phenomena in a way we would find intellectually satisfying. I am very less than sure. I would also disagree that ufos have been necessarily identified as alien craft. Unless we ascribe to a kind of breakaway culture scenario that leads to conclusions with lots of baggage.

When someone says they, "disagree that ufos have been necessarily identified as alien craft", they're making a common error in usage. To use the car analogy, it's like saying that a car hasn't necessarily been identified as an automobile. What would be more accurate would be to say that not all the objects described in UFO reports turn out to be UFOs.

I won't deny that there is an element of intellectual satisfaction in arriving at a coherent definition for UFO that is based on critical thinking and in keeping with the historical evidence. After all, if we are to study something, it helps to have a solid foundation from which to proceed. One of the problems with ufology is that because of a lack of formal structure, various opinions are often given weight based on popularity rather than critical analysis. Clearing up this issue is just one small but important step in changing that.

 

[boomerang]

Investigating the ufo mystery: It's as if we stand at a semi-transparent and impenetrable wall while being constantly taunted by fleeting glimpses of wondrous things lying just beyond. And we have no tools by which to scale or breach the barrier. At least not yet.

Throw in the towel? No way! Our inquisitive monkey-minds remain curious. And we enjoy a mystery. As long as investigation does not degenerate into nothing more than a cult of personality and plastic alien dolls, our purpose is intact. But I have to wonder what effect centuries of this kind of focused intellectual frustration might have on our species.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Investigating the ufo mystery: It's as if we stand at a semi-transparent and impenetrable wall while being constantly taunted by fleeting glimpses of wondrous things lying just beyond. And we have no tools by which to scale or breach the barrier. At least not yet.

Throw in the towel? No way! Our inquisitive monkey-minds remain curious. And we enjoy a mystery. As long as investigation does not degenerate into nothing more than a cult of personality and plastic alien dolls, our purpose is intact. But I have to wonder what effect centuries of this kind of focused intellectual frustration might have on our species.

In a physical universe as we understand it's relation to us, based on relativity alone, I would think such a consideration extremely beneficial to us as a progressively evolving sentient species. Stress is the very design blueprint for environmentally relevant evolution. I can think of several very distinct environmentally based speculative scenarios relative to us as a progressively evolving sentient species. Lets start by elucidating just one of these speculations with more so a straight forward environmental theme.

1) Like all things within the physical universe that we live, we are the specific result of our energetic relationship to a myriad of temporal constants all arising from a single relative consciousness that we all seemingly share a relationship to. Every significant material difference is the result of cognitively interpreted and thereby determined environmentally relative feedback. Speculation in question #1: Does the sentient nature of mankind's relationship to consciousness itself represent a cellular like feedback network used by a vast number of differing yet native sentient species as a navigable medium through which they travel, or possibly, merely become temporally observable within, when quasi environmental conditions are right or permissible for them to be seen by us? There may be many species that utilize such a relevant technological means for both mass transit through this consciousness relationship as well as one on one sentient confrontations with human beings. Think of it as a hypothetical "locomotion of translation". Could the later explain the vast modicum of descriptively colorful humanoid encounters in which observer specific details are routinely intertwined with the encounter process? Think of the interaction often described by UFO witness observational reporting in which UFOs seem to respond to the witness. If many UFOs are in fact representative of Quantum relevant technology that in some way interfaces our species specific relationship to consciousness, is it possible that our perception of their hypothetical response to us is actually a form of temporal displacement induced illusion or mirage resulting from the manner in which we cognitively mate their superimposition upon our native field of visual reference? Think of it as a form of precognitive synchronicity (time matching) just micro seconds post the actual observational event.

 

[Randall]

Does the sentient nature of mankind's relationship to consciousness itself represent a cellular like feedback network used by a vast number of differing yet native sentient species as a navigable medium through which they travel, or possibly, merely become temporally observable within, when quasi environmental conditions are right or permissible for them to be seen by us?

Sounds like a premise for a cool sci-fi story. I think you should go all the way with it and create characters and a plot. It has the potential to become a cult-classic.

 

[boomerang]

Sounds like a premise for a cool sci-fi story. I think you should go all the way with it and create characters and a plot. It has the potential to become a cult-classic.

I agree. It could make for one helluva' powerful story. Painfully hard to write. But very powerful.

 

[Randall]

I agree. It could make for one helluva' powerful story. Painfully hard to write. But very powerful.

Ya, It's a bit of a stretch as a serious concept, but in a sci-fi setting it has all the potential of The Matrix. I'd buy the book and go see the movie.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Sounds like a premise for a cool sci-fi story. I think you should go all the way with it and create characters and a plot. It has the potential to become a cult-classic.

Honestly, I am really not a big science fiction guy in the sense that I've read a lot of books by famous sci fi authors or religiously watched Star Trek or whatever. I'm too ADD for that. My favorite shows on TV do tend to mix science fiction and the surreal however. Like Fringe, The X-Files, or a great older show that was called Carnivale on HBO. I'm more the mad scientist type guy minus any real credentials.

The bizarrest thing about Science Fiction however is just how much of it written throughout the last 100 years has come to be science fact in the last 2 decades. It's truly mind blowing even as Ridley Scott's Prophets of Science Fiction show has clearly pointed out. I guess that's why Einstein contended that imagination is so much more important than knowledge. Which of course plays quite well within the basic notions of progressive quantum reasoning as it's comprised primarily of the imagination's mathematically affirmed proofs.

 

[Randall]

Honestly, I am really not a big science fiction guy in the sense that I've read a lot of books by famous sci fi authors or religiously watched Star Trek or whatever. I'm too ADD for that. My favorite shows on TV do tend to mix science fiction and the surreal however. Like Fringe, The X-Files, or a great older show that was called Carnivale on HBO. I'm more the mad scientist type guy minus any real credentials.

The bizarrest thing about Science Fiction however is just how much of it written throughout the last 100 years has come to be science fact in the last 2 decades. It's truly mind blowing even as Ridley Scott's Prophets of Science Fiction show has clearly pointed out. I guess that's why Einstein contended that imagination is so much more important than knowledge. Which of course plays quite well within the basic notions of progressive quantum reasoning as it's comprised primarily of the imagination's mathematically affirmed proofs.

The Insolent Skeptic: "But doctor ... how do you know it's not just all in your imagination?"
The Mad Scientist: "You idiot! The basic notions of progressive quantum reasoning as it's comprised primarily of the imagination's mathematically affirmed proofs ... that's how."