Does the Phenomenon deserve study

[boomerang]

We aren't making much better progress in understanding the nature of gravity than of high strangeness phenomena such as ufos. But that doesn't stop us from trying, and there are a handful of very ingenious experiments underway attempting to unite our understanding of gravity with other known physical forces of the universe.

Science is increasingly confronted with phenomena that don't readily yield to the scientific method. But it remains the best set of tools we have. I think we ultimately have no choice but to model and analyze whatever invades our sensory channels, high strangeness or otherwise.

 

[Trajanus]

The thing is religions are at their core creation myths
Myth and reality are incompatable
If history serves as an example religious devotees are not going to be able to handle an ET reality.
Galileo ended up under house arrest when his version of reality conflicted wuth the prevailing myth of his day.
Darwins evolution theory met with a similiar reaction when it conflicted with the religious creation myth, to the point where creation myth vs evolution reality is still argued today.
In this matter we have access to the same source material as Darwin and its still rejected by many because it exposes their cherished beliefs as myth.
If ET were to expose Themselves tomorrow, and and convey their version of reality it too would conflict with local creation myths , with the added disadvantage of us not having access to the source data as we did with darwins work. we would have to take their word for it.
It would be akin to going into a kindergarten/child care centre and exposing the reality santa claus is a myth, why bother when history shows they will mature in their own time and learn the truth without the trauma that an early disclosure would produce.
One could in fact make a coherant case that the reason they remain elusive is because of the immature myth structure thats still very much a part of the planetary mindset.

But is certainly waning, at least in advanced societies. One sign is the grave shortage of catholic priests--fewer people than ever take that stuff seriously enough to be willing to accept the necessary sacrifices like celibacy.

Christianity is not just a creation myth, its a creation myth with an imbedded re-creation myth inside. ie Noah.
The evidence this "story" is just that is overwhelming. to house the avian species alone would have required a boat far larger than the dimensions quoted in the myth, let alone every other animal as well, not to mention the massive amount of feed that would have been required.
There are over 10,000 species of birds, two of each is 20,000 birds in one boat plus a shipload of feed

How many species of animals are there ?
Estimates range from 10 to 100 Million. About 1.8 Million have been given scientific names.
Even two of each of the 1.8 million given scientific names is 3.6 million animals on the one boat........
Six people would not be able to shovel up the poo let alone feed them all....
Dont even start me on the insects......

Further Noah would have to have dropped off those animals native to africa then moved on and dropped of those native to Australia, then down to new zealand to drop off the giant moa bird, letting the Dodo off at Mauritius on the way....... the list goes on
The reality cannot fit inside this myth
And then we have the six human survivors noah and his family, from which we are expected to believe the african races, the asian races the polynesian and indian races all sprang from in a space of time woefully inadeqate for the current reality

The evidence is clear that this re-creation myth imbedded in the perfect word of god, is a fiction

Of course, and do you know where it originally came from? After the jews were exiled to Babylon, they picked up some of the local flood mythology, and brought it back home, where it became part of their own and later christian doctrine.

Yet despite this evidence the obvious facts, ppl like the saint are happy to jump on this mythological bandwagon, and then lecture us about our own views.

"I am the living bread" devotees are in no position to lecture, period.

The local news is reporting religious intolerance and associated violence is on the rise in indonesia, with graphic footage of a man being beaten to a bloody corpse with poles and large rocks.
Can you imagine how that must look to an ET onlooker ?, believing a myth despite the obvious evidence is one thing, but to express that belief with violence........ how primative our mindsets must seem

Well, they were probably no better when they were at our stage of development.

If a father with ten children were to find 9 of them had been bad, and decided that in order to forgive them he should torture and beat his only good son..... nail him to a plank and then finish him off with a spear

Of course I agree with your assessment of doctrine, but the alleged coup de grace with a spear was just another lie of gospel writers--it occurs only in john, the last of the canonical four to be written, and the least historically reliable.

Bit by bit we ourselves are desconstructing these silly myths and replacing them with knowledge and reality, yet still they linger on here.
An ET reality will never "fit" inside our local myth models, better (and safer) to wait until we mature in our own time before saying hello

Maturity will owe much to people like us.

 

[RJHark00]

I don't think that you present a very nuanced view of what religion is or the spectrum of beliefs it entails; it comes across as just another knee-jerk reaction to the 700 Club. You'll certainly never get any argument out of me that the biblical flood narrative is historically credible or anything more in its original than an amalgam of earlier traditions. If some of the people I see in ufology were as discerning as you, and didn't claim that the Nephilim story in Genesis 6 has any historical credibility, then maybe ufology would get somewhere.

To the matter at hand, the field is always worth studying because it truly affects a large number of people in many different ways. I submit that much of "reality" as most people articulate about ufology is, in fact, a "myth." But I can't accept that myth is, by definition, something which is categorically untrue or invalid. Myth is the very act of reconciling the unexplainable.

 

[mike]

One of the definitions of Myth according to the webster dictionary is

an unfounded or false notion

Its in that context i use it to describe religion.

I contend that not only does the noah "story" fit that description, but the rest of the narrative does too.

There are people today who still insist god sent a great deluge, resulting in a great flood which wiped out all life on earth except for noah , his family and his floating zoo....


Thats a Fiction, and yet there are plenty of people who will insist its a fact, and then go on to insist UFO's are not real, that aliens dont exist.

http://grandcanyonflood.com/

Vs


http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-was-the-grand-canyon-formed.html

Which of the above is fact ? which a fiction ?

Seperating Fact from Fiction is the key to real knowledge on any subject, ppl who subscribe to an obvious Fiction are in no position to lecture me on the Facts of any subject.

It would be like taking financial advice from a hobo, or marital advice from charlie sheen

Santa claus is a myth, the tooth fairy is a myth, jack frost is a myth, i personally dont see UFO's or Ufology being a part of that set.
Yes there are aspects of the genre that have to date defied explanation, but that hardly transforms the subject to myth

Individuals do indeed sometimes have unfounded and false notions about UFO's but that doesnt translate up to the subject itself, as is the case with superstitious religious beliefs

Religion primarily deals with two Myths, creation myths ie how did we get here and death Myths, ie what happens when we die.

To my mind there is a fundamental difference between Ufology and religion.
In Ufology most people acknowledge there are lots of questions and few answers, and seek to fill that gap by collecting data using it to make credible conclusions , religion on the other hand has the answers, those gaps are filled, where did we come from ? god made us.... where do we go ? gods house. The Myth/Fiction is used to fill the gaps in knowledge
In religion the questions are answered , in Ufology they are not
The unexplainable is still unreconciled where the UFO question is concerned, the unexplainable is reconciled in religion, but where religion is happy to settle for a fiction as an answer, in Ufology we still seek the facts and recognise we dont yet have them.

 

[Trajanus]

Seperating Fact from Fiction is the key to real knowledge on any subject, ppl who subscribe to an obvious Fiction are in no position to lecture me on the Facts of any subject.

It's worse than fiction, it's lunacy. If society were structured properly, guys in white coats would be after the "I am the living bread" crowd.

Santa claus is a myth, the tooth fairy is a myth, jack frost is a myth, i personally dont see UFO's or Ufology being a part of that set.
Yes there are aspects of the genre that have to date defied explanation, but that hardly transforms the subject to myth

Of course not; the phenomenon is empirical. People have seen these things, heard them, touched them. Interpretations may vary but it's obviously real; unlike the bunk which requires faith.

To my mind there is a fundamental difference between Ufology and religion.
In Ufology most people acknowledge there are lots of questions and few answers, and seek to fill that gap by collecting data using it to make credible conclusions , religion on the other hand has the answers, those gaps are filled, where did we come from ? god made us.... where do we go ? gods house. The Myth/Fiction is used to fill the gaps in knowledge
In religion the questions are answered , in Ufology they are not
The unexplainable is still unreconciled where the UFO question is concerned, the unexplainable is reconciled in religion, but where religion is happy to settle for a fiction as an answer, in Ufology we still seek the facts and recognise we dont yet have them.

Well, we do have facts even if not enough to be certain of some things--although the government may have more answers.

 

[RJHark00]

If you want to reduce myth to truth or falsehood then you have to recognize that religion is more than just myth. It's an entire cultural system of symbols and behaviors that impute meaning to a particular social group. The claims people make within them may be true or false within experiential reality, but the most important functions of religious systems are the personal and social aspects of identity. This is how I compare religion and ufology.

There are plenty of people in ufology like yourself who admit that they don't have all the answers of existence. There are religious people who claim the same, notwithstanding the person/people who made the silly website you cite above. You make great points, but realize that neither you nor I will ever reason or use science with those people because they don't use reason or science. It's a veneer, IMO.

I guess this brings us back to whether there is a fundamental difference between religion and ufology: which version of religion? Which version of ufology? Something happened or it didn't, but I see the Bible and other faith claims as another form of grasping with the unknown. Maybe I just don't view the role of religion the same way but I don't see its adherents as necessarily satisfied that they have settled on all the answers. The most interesting thing to me is the emergence in the past 60 years of full-blown "UFO religions," replete with an entire foundational mythology and self-appointed prophets, but that's a conversation for another thread.

It's worse than fiction, it's lunacy. If society were structured properly, guys in white coats would be after the "I am the living bread" crowd.

Was that even necessary? Most Christians, like ufologists/enthusiasts would NOT want to all be thrown into the same bin.

Of course not; the phenomenon is empirical. People have seen these things, heard them, touched them. Interpretations may vary but it's obviously real; unlike the bunk which requires faith.

People have seen, heard, and even touched (or been touched by) religious phenomena such as angels, stigmata, or the Virgin Mary. Claiming that ufology in its current state is wholly empirical or intrinsically "more real" by these standards requires -- say it with me -- "a leap of faith."

 

[trainedobserver]

Santa claus is a myth, the tooth fairy is a myth, jack frost is a myth, i personally dont see UFO's or Ufology being a part of that set. Yes there are aspects of the genre that have to date defied explanation, but that hardly transforms the subject to myth

UFOs are a real pheomena, however virtually everything that gets passed off as knowledge about them is myth or fiction. People have been writing books and giving lectures that have done nothing but feed the mythology since the get-go and the selling of it remains a cottage industry today. Any study of UFOs can rapidly become the study of the UFO mythology machine itself. Which in all reality may be the only thing we can study about the phenomena. That might explain why so little progress has been made over the years.

 

[Ron Collins]

UFOs are a real pheomena, however virtually everything that gets passed off as knowledge about them is myth or fiction.

Bingo! That is exactly right. It is also why we need dedicated academics to study the phenomenon. To hell with all the preconceived notions of what it is and what it is not. I still think something physical can be studied in all of this. We have radar tracks, landing traces, visual data, and we have seen that certain locations become hotspots. Those places must have something that is at very least interesting. We could employee all manner of investigation about those places and that specific period of time. There are a billion angles that can be explored. Not one of them will hold the answer. We have to make a tapestry of findings and non-findings. Every single solid research data bit is a thread in that tapestry. Once we have accumulated enough bits of data we may be able to see further patterns emerge.

Whatever the UFO's are, they do seem to be intelligent. Thus, unless someone can show me otherwise, they have to have an agenda. They must have a purpose. I think we (human intelligence) are capable of discerning what the phenomenon is and what purpose it has. We just need to commit to finding out.

 

[trainedobserver]

Whatever the UFO's are, they do seem to be intelligent. Thus, unless someone can show me otherwise, they have to have an agenda. They must have a purpose. I think we (human intelligence) are capable of discerning what the phenomenon is and what purpose it has. We just need to commit to finding out.

Unless they are just overrun by some incredible incompetence, I cannot help but think that the NRO and the NSA have been committed to this from their inceptions. As a recent article speculates, the NRO may have already figured it all out years ago and finds the concealment of that knowledge a strategic ace in the hole.

It seems to me we are faced with either an intelligence and military community that is so incompetent and inept that they see no reason to study the unidentified and uncontrolled penetration of national airspace or they find it disadvantageous to discuss the subject at all. I think it is the latter and it colors everything they do in relation to information about the phenomena.

The public's investigation of the UFO phenomena is crippled by a lack of any real resources or accountability and continues to look like a wild circus act in some German Impressionist film or something despite so many people's efforts over the years. We can only hope that somewhere, someone whose actual job is understand what is flying in our skies is getting what they need to do the job.

 

[Trajanus]

Most Christians, like ufologists/enthusiasts would NOT want to all be thrown into the same bin.

But that "living bread" stuff is standard doctrine.

People have seen, heard, and even touched (or been touched by) religious phenomena such as angels, stigmata, or the Virgin Mary. Claiming that ufology in its current state is wholly empirical or intrinsically "more real" by these standards requires -- say it with me -- "a leap of faith."

I don't think there's any real comparison. So called religious experiences reflect cultural conditioning. In contrast, many UFO experiencers were initially indifferent or skeptics. And, while the empirical data for UFOs--photos, landing traces etc--may leave something to be desired, it's certainly way better than anything the holies have.

---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

Bingo! That is exactly right. It is also why we need dedicated academics to study the phenomenon.

We've had them for some time--Jacobs, Hynek and many others.

To hell with all the preconceived notions of what it is and what it is not. I still think something physical can be studied in all of this. We have radar tracks, landing traces, visual data,

To hell with all the preconceived notions? Radar sightings and landing traces are inconsistent with one key preconceived notion?

and we have seen that certain locations become hotspots. Those places must have something that is at very least interesting. We could employee all manner of investigation about those places and that specific period of time. There are a billion angles that can be explored. Not one of them will hold the answer. We have to make a tapestry of findings and non-findings. Every single solid research data bit is a thread in that tapestry. Once we have accumulated enough bits of data we may be able to see further patterns emerge.

Whatever the UFO's are, they do seem to be intelligent. Thus, unless someone can show me otherwise, they have to have an agenda. They must have a purpose. I think we (human intelligence) are capable of discerning what the phenomenon is and what purpose it has. We just need to commit to finding out.

I have no doubt we can discern their agenda. Look at all the vast technical difference between the classical world and the present. Despite all that, our motives would be perfectly understandable to them. They had spies, treaties, diplomacy, alliances..

 

[boomerang]

Ufos very much deserve whatever analysis we can apply, so long as we admit what we do not know, and also take the irrational power of the "Oz" factor into account. This means distinguishing ufo lore, general opinion, and the personalities involved in ufology from what little we can currently say with confidence.

 

[Trajanus]

Ufos very much deserve whatever analysis we can apply, so long as we admit what we do not know and also take the irrational power of the "Oz" factor into account. This means distinguishing ufo lore, general opinion, and the personalities involved in ufology from what little we can currently say with confidence.

Assuming "general opinion" =ETH, I don't think it is distinguishable from, or inconsistent with, most of the evidence gathered over the years. Or, it probably wouldn't be the "general opinion."

 

[boomerang]

Assuming "general opinion" =ETH, I don't think it is distinguishable from, or inconsistent with, most of the evidence gathered over the years. Or, it probably wouldn't be the "general opinion."

I agree that evidence available to the general public is not inconsistent with the ETH hypothesis. But as per Vallee, I think this phenomenon seems to studies us more effectively than we study it. It seems to be in control and has a very long history of playing the role of "trickster". I'm suggesting that we study ufos with the best tools available, but not let it develop into a mythological belief system based on folklore.

There is also the "wildcard" of evidence held in secret by elites. This would, of course, change the whole equation.

 

[Trajanus]

I agree that evidence available to the general public is not inconsistent with the ETH hypothesis. But as per Vallee, I think this phenomenon seems to studies us more effectively than we study it. It seems to be in control and has a very long history of playing the role of "trickster".

Of course.

There is also the "wildcard" of evidence held in secret by elites. This would, of course, change the whole equation.

Absolutely. And while we don't know, for a fact what it is, plenty of testimony suggests ET.

 

[mike]

I agree that evidence available to the general public is not inconsistent with the ETH hypothesis. But as per Vallee, I think this phenomenon seems to studies us more effectively than we study it. It seems to be in control and has a very long history of playing the role of "trickster". I'm suggesting that we study ufos with the best tools available, but not let it develop into a mythological belief system based on folklore.

There is also the "wildcard" of evidence held in secret by elites. This would, of course, change the whole equation.

I agree, but then it makes perfect sense they would be more effective in studying us, for the same reason we are more effective in studying chimpanzees than they are in studying us.

The trickster aspect is from my pov just deliberate deception, a ploy we ourselves use when studying other animals here. usually this takes the form of visual camoflage building blinds to conceal ourselves in so's to observe them behaving naturally, their behaviour tends to change if they know we are watching.
But it can take the form of high strangness too for example spraying ourselves with the scent of another animal.
You can almost imagine a deer saying what the ,what the ? it looks like a two legged man thing, but smells like a female deer, straaaaaange.
I agree we should use the best tools available, both those available now, and those yet to be invented.
We can and should do better than mythology as an explanation for anything.
Thats not to say mythology hasnt done its best to descripe the same phenomena, but we should recognise that there are more accurate descriptions available in the modern world

 

[Trajanus]

I agree, but then it makes perfect sense they would be more effective in studying us, for the same reason we are more effective in studying chimpanzees than they are in studying us.

Study does seem to be part of their mission but it seems much more is involved. I don't think Malmstrom or Cash-Landrum about study.

The trickster aspect is from my pov just deliberate deception, a ploy we ourselves use when studying other animals here. usually this takes the form of visual camoflage building blinds to conceal ourselves in so's to observe them behaving naturally, their behaviour tends to change if they know we are watching.
But it can take the form of high strangness too for example spraying ourselves with the scent of another animal.
You can almost imagine a deer saying what the ,what the ? it looks like a two legged man thing, but smells like a female deer, straaaaaange.

Interesting analogy. In both cases the idea is to get the subject to overlook the observer, or be unsure of what he/it is. It's possible ETs act strangely just to appear less believable, thus avoiding a general disruption of the world they're studying--or not alerting the world they're trying to take over.

I agree we should use the best tools available, both those available now, and those yet to be invented.
We can and should do better than mythology as an explanation for anything.
Thats not to say mythology hasnt done its best to descripe the same phenomena, but we should recognise that there are more accurate descriptions available in the modern world

I'll say.

 

[tyder001]

O.k I declare that you can no longer study this Phenomenon! Ya can't put it under a test tube or measure it. Ya can't replicate it on cue. A magician on t.v. can easily fool ya with a trick. You can't get a grant and a chair at a major university for it. You only have hearsay and "eye" witness testimony which a good attorney could rip to shreds in court with inuendo. After all they could say something like: "Mr./Ms Smith have you ever seen or read a science fiction book or watched a science fiction movie?" Ever looked up and saw an airplane at night and had to look twice to make sure it wasn't a u.f.o.?" Ever heard the term u.f.o.? There, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. These witnesses were clearly biased from birth.

Can you show a scientist any physical proof of an alien craft? Hmmmm? Can you define these so called space bros for me? What do they look like? Where do they come from? Where are they now? Nope, just not enough evidence. I can't help but laugh at the folks who come on here and spew venom at people who believe in esp or a higher power or the hope of faith. Then turn around and take some "trace sampe" What the hell is a trace sample anyway? Trace of what? Dog poop? Alien Burger King? Sasquatch urine? Anway, nope just gotta put this one in the woo woo basket. O.k. I've debunked it now so why are you still here?

Disclaimer:

The above was just a flow of b.s. before I go to an early lunch so to all the jr. scientist and space bro luvers out there. Don't get mad and don't take this stuff to seriously. It's fun and as somebody once said about the bible...it fits all kinds of stuff: "Important if true!" 8)

 

[kukalakana]

Does the UFO phenomenon deserve study? Yes. Everything deserves study if you can find out more about it -- even just for the sake of finding out more! (Curiosity, and all that.)

However...

There are priorities.
* Sort out welfare, education, and public health insurance.
* Make sure your kids know how to pronounce the names of small countries before you decide to bomb them!!
* Get enough set aside to insure against unexpected natural and other disasters.
* Do what you can to help people get enough to eat.

And several other things. Then UFOs.

 

[Trajanus]

Can you show a scientist any physical proof of an alien craft? Hmmmm? Can you define these so called space bros for me? What do they look like? Where do they come from? Where are they now? Nope, just not enough evidence. I can't help but laugh at the folks who come on here and spew venom at people who believe in esp or a higher power or the hope of faith. Then turn around and take some "trace sampe" What the hell is a trace sample anyway?

Indentations from landing gear, and bits of metal. That's the key difference between belief in "god" and belief in UFOs--the latter has at least some evidence in fact quite a bit. I can understand the frustration at lack of definitive resolution of the UFO problem, even after decades. But if some just can't hang in there, why come here at all?

The above was just a flow of b.s.

I'll say.

 

[tyder001]

Uhhh, dude I got bits of metal in my yard.....Oh no run Ethel we got a Alien in our backyard.