Interesting Roswell post on Frank Warren's blog

[David Biedny]

Well, a good deal of what we've heard points to ET.

NOTHING we've heard "points to ET".

Get a clue.

dB

 

[Rocketsauce]

I'm in the mist of reading Vallee's Dimension's book and within the larger historical context of unknown advanced flying machines and short big headed beings, Roswell doesn't seem as crucial, at least not in terms of being the "inciting" incident that started our interaction with these beings (if in fact that is what happened at Roswell).

If it is true that Roswell invovled a crash advanced vehicle and included bodies of unknown species, given the historical context provided in Dimensions (up to page 138 ), Vallee would possibly argue it's just as likely these beings are what have been known throughout human history as interdimentional elves/fairies/leprachans/demons/good people/....etc.....

In other words, not from another planet in the way Stanton would argue. The Roswell beings as described from various alleged witness actually seem to fit very snuggly within the context of folklore that goes back hundreds if not thousands of years where short humanoids sometimes with big eyes have interacted with humans often in conjunction with a flying machine of some type. This is purely based on what I have read in this book so far and I don't see citations for all of the old stories he describes in this book so who knows.

 

[Gareth]

NOTHING we've heard "points to ET".

Get a clue.

dB

I COL'd.

(chuckled out loud - new meme, tell your friends)

 

[ondafritz]

The more I get into this the less sure I am about anything in regards to the entire subject.

I'm almost over it.

What keeps me interested are the reports and recollections of people who have absolutely nothing to gain from talking about their experiences.

 

[ondafritz]

I COL'd.

(chuckled out loud - new meme, tell your friends)

How about SQTM - "smiled quietly to myself" ????

 

[Gareth]

How about SQTM - "smiled quietly to myself" ????

I like it. Appropriate in many context's.

 

[Trajanus]

NOTHING we've heard "points to ET".

Witnesses have described nonhuman entities in an advanced flying machine.

 

[Trajanus]

The more I get into this the less sure I am about anything in regards to the entire subject.

One purpose of government machinations.

What keeps me interested are the reports and recollections of people who have absolutely nothing to gain from talking about their experiences.

Except publicity, but I'd be reluctant to get this kind of publicity, especially if the story were baseless.

 

[Trajanus]

I'm in the mist of reading Vallee's Dimension's book and within the larger historical context of unknown advanced flying machines and short big headed beings, Roswell doesn't seem as crucial, at least not in terms of being the "inciting" incident that started our interaction with these beings (if in fact that is what happened at Roswell).

It's long been known that some UFO sightings are very old but Roswell essentially coincide with the start of the modern era of greatly heightened sightings.

If it is true that Roswell invovled a crash advanced vehicle and included bodies of unknown species, given the historical context provided in Dimensions (up to page 138 ), Vallee would possibly argue it's just as likely these beings are what have been known throughout human history as interdimentional elves/fairies/leprachans/demons/good people/....etc.....

It boils down to whose interpretation is better, that of modern proponents of the ETH, or those of people centuries ago? "Fairies" could've been a medieval/ancient term for ETs.

In other words, not from another planet in the way Stanton would argue. The Roswell beings as described from various alleged witness actually seem to fit very snuggly within the context of folklore that goes back hundreds if not thousands of years where short humanoids sometimes with big eyes have interacted with humans often in conjunction with a flying machine of some type.

If they're not from another planet, where did they originate, and where are they headquartered? The center of te Earth? Also, is there anything at all in the fossil record sugesting an evolutionary development that led to advanced beings on Earth long before Homo sapiens? Not to my knowledge.

This is purely based on what I have read in this book so far and I don't see citations for all of the old stories he describes

That figures.

 

[Siani]

Witnesses have described nonhuman entities in an advanced flying machine.

That still doesn't mean they're definitely extra-terrestrial, though, does it? How about the possibility of them being inter-dimensional? Or ultra-terrestrial? Supernatural? None of us can reach definitive conclusions about what these entities are or where they emanate from. We simply do not know.

Although your ET hypothesis is as valid as any other, and I respect your right to express it, it is just a hypothesis. The reason a few of us are challenging you so vociferously, is because you're touting an unproven hypothesis as a definitive conclusion. Have you read anything by Jacques Vallee or Mac Tonnies? I was a die-hard proponent of the ETH until I discovered Vallee, about 15-20 years ago, and realized there was considerably more to the UFO phenomenon than I had originally discerned.

 

[Paul Kimball]

That still doesn't mean they're definitely extra-terrestrial, though, does it? How about the possibility of them being inter-dimensional? Or ultra-terrestrial? Supernatural? None of us can reach definitive conclusions about what these entities are or where they emanate from. We simply do not know.

Although your ET hypothesis is as valid as any other, and I respect your right to express it, it is just a hypothesis. The reason a few of us are challenging you so vociferously, is because you're touting an unproven hypothesis as a definitive conclusion. Have you read anything by Jacques Vallee or Mac Tonnies? I was a die-hard proponent of the ETH until I discovered Vallee, about 15-20 years ago, and realized there was considerably more to the UFO phenomenon than I had originally discerned.

We should always remember that it may well be that more than one answer is correct - we may be dealing with ET, time travel, other dimensions, some form of non-human terrestrial intelligence, "God"... or none of the above. The problem comes from people who want to assign a definitive answer to a mystery that at the moment defies certainty. This need for certainty says more about the party asserting it than it does the UFO enigma, and is an interesting subject for sociologists, but it doesn't move the study of the phenomenon (or phenomena) forward - in fact, it halts it in ints tracks. After all, what's the point of investigating new cases when you already "know" you have the answers?

 

[Rocketsauce]

It's long been known that some UFO sightings are very old but Roswell essentially coincide with the start of the modern era of greatly heightened sightings.

And do you think this detracts from the idea that Roswell should be taken into context with other similar descriptions that are older rather than being commonly sold as "the" beginning??

It boils down to whose interpretation is better, that of modern proponents of the ETH, or those of people centuries ago? "Fairies" could've been a medieval/ancient term for ETs.

I wish it boilded down to these 2 scenarios, but unfortuantely for all of us, I think it boils down to something much more complex and I think Paul Kimbal's post above is about right.

My larger point is that IMO it's important to look at the entire picture including the high strangeness and ancient accounts that are often not brought up in this discussion as well as the modern pilot and military sightings which are often brought up and see where the larger picture of evidence leads us and not try to twist anything that doesn't fit a particuar theory just to fit that particular theory. Of course a modern pilots account I would take much more seriously, but I would still consider older folklore that described similar incidents repeatedly over thousands of years and look for clues and context.

I've found from reading books like the Spirit Molecule and Vallee as well as paying attention to the high strangeness, the subjective nature and the absurdity of the testimony from experiencers, that that this field appears to involve the manipulation of our reality and would lean much more towards an inter-dimentional phenomena than the standard ETH. That's not to say that both of these aren't true at the same time, which they might very well be. It's just to say that to be so certain about a particular conclusions on the source of this phenomena is nearly as absurd as the experiences that people have encountered when interacting with it.

If they're not from another planet, where did they originate, and where are they headquartered? The center of te Earth? Also, is there anything at all in the fossil record sugesting an evolutionary development that led to advanced beings on Earth long before Homo sapiens? Not to my knowledge.

If I knew this answer I would be Steven Greer. Is there anything in any branch of modern science that can come even close to explaining any of this stuff other than name dropping quantum physics?

That figures.

Are you being sarcastic? Although there are not many citations in this book which I do find a little strange, I would still challenge you to discredit Jacque Vallee and his work, assuming you've read some of his work.

 

[Trajanus]

That still doesn't mean they're definitely extra-terrestrial, though, does it? How about the possibility of them being inter-dimensional? Or ultra-terrestrial? Supernatural? None of us can reach definitive conclusions about what these entities are or where they emanate from. We simply do not know.

The ETH is by far the most parsimonious and well-supported view. The more "far out" manifestations of the phenomenon could be due to super hi tech. Besides many descriptions of "nuts and bolts" gear, there are a plethora of cases with physical traces. Add to that the Hill map, and many reports of aliens claiming to be from such and such a star or planet.

you're touting an unproven hypothesis as a definitive conclusion.

Unproven to us lay people, perhaps; there are excellent grounds for thinking the government has proof.

Have you read anything by Jacques Vallee or Mac Tonnies? I was a die-hard proponent of the ETH until I discovered Vallee, about 15-20 years ago, and realized there was considerably more to the UFO phenomenon than I had originally discerned.

Of course I've read Vallee and I already adressed that above.

 

[Trajanus]

We should always remember that it may well be that more than one answer is correct - we may be dealing with ET, time travel, other dimensions, some form of non-human terrestrial intelligence, "God"... or none of the above.

Honestly I seriously doubt it. Note the rather abrupt intensification of all manifestations of the phenomenon beginning in '47. It would be pretty remarkable for so many "unconnected" things to start acting up simultaneously, more or less.

 

[Trajanus]

Is there anything in any branch of modern science that can come close to explaining any of this stuff..

The idea of ETs, at least, is acceptable to modern science. I never heard of anything "supernatural' or "fairies" being accepted even in principle, lol. I don't doubt that some old experiences could be real, and that the absurdity of many experiences may seem like a problem for the ETH--but not insurmountable.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Add to that the Hill map, and many reports of aliens claiming to be from such and such a star or planet.

The Hill "star map" is effectively useless, as any number of commentators far more qualified than Marjorie Fish or Stan Friedman have pointed out. Further, even if it were accurate, what's to say that the "aliens" weren't just making it all up? Honestly, we seem to think that our government lies at every turn, but we would accept the word of "aliens" as gospel. I find this most peculiar indeed.

As for the physical trace cases, none of them - NONE - support the conclusion that aliens are visiting planet Earth from another star system.

Finally, the ETH is not the most parsimonious explanation - that would be the null hypothesis. It is also difficult to credit the ETH in light of the ongoing nature of the phenomenon, and its different manifestations, over the centuries - something the ETH proponents rarely discuss, because it makes them understandably uncomfortable.

I think the ETH is the easiest explanation for people to wrap their head around, given how we've been inundated with sci-fi star travel entertainment for sixty years now. It's simple for them to understand, and it fits with a relatively ordered view of our universe, i.e. it's the paranormal explanation least likely to rock the apple cart. It also happens to be one that continues to emphasize our importance in the grand scheme, because ET has chosen to come all the way here, either to see us or our planet, or both.

It's the Jerry Springer of paranormal UFO explanations, appealing to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Rocketsauce]

The idea of ETs, at least, is acceptable to modern science. I never heard of anything "supernatural' or "fairies" being accepted even in principle, lol. I don't doubt that some old experiences could be real, and that the absurdity of many experiences may seem like a problem for the ETH--but not insurmountable.

On one hand I think modern science is the best approach we have to understanding the nature of things.......... but I also think there is a very real phenomena (supernatural) that modern science doesn't understand and on a large scale, really doesn't go out of it's way to invest financial resources to study (I think there are many good reasons why this is).

So the fact that the ET is more acceptable to "modern science", doesn't do much for IMO because on the whole, modern science doesn't seem very interested in studying this subject on a large scale (and I don't blame them, it's fleeting, misleading, not repeatable under lab conditions,etc...).

If academia did invest in this subject and the NSF put forth serious funding, then I would not be surprised if the goofy non acceptible term of 'fairies' and 'supernatural' would probably be called something more scientific and all of sudden what used to be 'fairies' etc.. are just as acceptible to modern science as ETH. Until modern scienctist look at all the evidence, including all the absurd stuff, I'm not sure what they think is 'accectible' is as relevent as it is in other areas of study.

 

[Gen]

But generally the government doesn't want us to believe in the ET interpretation.

That's what they say. But their lame official "solutions" to the Roswell mystery suggest otherwise.

Any intelligent person would question the crash test dummies story. That's what the story may be designed to make you do.

 

[Trajanus]

That's what they say. But their lame official "solutions" to the Roswell mystery suggest otherwise.

Sure, but at least outwardly ("generally" as I said before) they maintain it wasn't ET.

Any intelligent person would question the crash test dummies story. That's what the story may be designed to make you do.

Well I don't know about that. There are plenty of people, many seemingly intelligent, who are eager to believe anything but ET.

 

[Trajanus]

Further, even if it were accurate, what's to say that the "aliens" weren't just making it all up? Honestly, we seem to think that our government lies at every turn, but we would accept the word of "aliens" as gospel. I find this most peculiar indeed.

I don't doubt that aliens lie like crazy, but their alien nature doesn't rest on mere words.

As for the physical trace cases, none of them - NONE - support the conclusion that aliens are visiting planet Earth from another star system.

Not even indentations fom landing gear, or burned areas seen after landings? Many UFOs are obviously craft, and far beyond our technical ability. Add that to the nonhuman appearance of the occupants, and the lack of any evidence of earthly origin.

I think the ETH is the easiest explanation for people to wrap their head around, given how we've been inundated with sci-fi star travel entertainment for sixty years now. It's simple for them to understand, and it fits with a relatively ordered view of our universe, i.e. it's the paranormal explanation least likely to rock the apple cart.

In some ways it has the potential to rock it far more than anything else. A supernatural phenomenon, consistent with religion, would in part strengthen the status quo.

It also happens to be one that continues to emphasize our importance in the grand scheme, because ET has chosen to come all the way here, either to see us or our planet, or both.

I question that last notion--it's very humbling to see beings so incredibly ahead of us. The implication of the ETH is we're not the center of the Universe or its highest manifestation, not by a longshot.