Jacques Vallee

[Angel of Ioren]

We've all probably had strange experiences, one way or another. It's just that some of explain them in different ways. One man's vivid dream is another man's alien abduction.

 

[tyder001]

One last thing real quick. I do respect Kaku and Sagan and I understand James Randi to a point. But, please understand that there are other legitimate thinkers and researchers that are and have come to different conclusions based on their research. We know about Dr. Kaku because he is the celebrity pop scientist of the moment. But for every Kaku and Sagan and Sheldrake and Mack there are countless folks behind the scenes doing science and research and wondering about the nature of reality.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

We've all probably had strange experiences, one way or another. It's just that some of explain them in different ways. One man's vivid dream is another man's alien abduction.

Hi Angel, you were gone for a few days there.
The problem that I have with your explanation is that no matter what I or others might experience you can always smugly toss it aside as a "vivid" dream. Thing is you don't know the future or know what somebody on the other side of the country said in a normal dream. It may be that we don't have the proper tools yet to understand all we need to know about being a human or a being in this universe. Doesn't mean we can't and shoudn't try. But, just as some try to make the bible relevant to politics and birth control and other things it doesn't really address in a simplistic manner. Some also try to make science an arbriter of things that science doesn't even claim (even if there were some entity called science) to know. I think it's great that we have such smart folks and we can take a heart out of one person and put it in another. But, if that person has worth then we should at least "honor" that persons abiltiy to understand their own inner life. Otherwise we are just (sorry T.O. I know it's not that simple but ya know I gotta say it Brain farts.

 

[MacDaddy]

There is ample evidence from such folks as Sheldrake, Chris Carter, Rhine Institue, University of Virginia, John Mack, Ian Stevenson and other military and private funded institutions that there is "something" more than chemical reactions to our reality.

The evidence generated by the cited entities has not amounted to much, as far as I know. Most of the supposed breakthroughs are very ambiguous and well within the margin of error of flawed experimental design. In any event, where's the beef? I know, for example, that the government put some effort into remote viewing. If there was anything to it, it would be game over, lights out and sayonara to conventional physics and vast amounts of resources would be shifted to this research PDQ. It didn't happen. Respectfully, I doubt that there's anything close to ample evidence.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

One last thing real quick. I do respect Kaku and Sagan and I understand James Randi to a point. But, please understand that there are other legitimate thinkers and researchers that are and have come to different conclusions based on their research. We know about Dr. Kaku because he is the celebrity pop scientist of the moment. But for every Kaku and Sagan and Sheldrake and Mack there are countless folks behind the scenes doing science and research and wondering about the nature of reality.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------




Hi Angel, you were gone for a few days there.
The problem that I have with your explanation is that no matter what I or others might experience you can always smugly toss it aside as a "vivid" dream. Thing is you don't know the future or know what somebody on the other side of the country said in a normal dream. It may be that we don't have the proper tools yet to understand all we need to know about being a human or a being in this universe. Doesn't mean we can't and shoudn't try. But, just as some try to make the bible relevant to politics and birth control and other things it doesn't really address in a simplistic manner. Some also try to make science an arbriter of things that science doesn't even claim (even if there were some entity called science) to know. I think it's great that we have such smart folks and we can take a heart out of one person and put it in another. But, if that person has worth then we should at least "honor" that persons abiltiy to understand their own inner life. Otherwise we are just (sorry T.O. I know it's not that simple but ya know I gotta say it Brain farts.

Of course I can always smugly toss it aside and I'll gladly do so. That in no way makes me right, as long as you understand that I could be. Does that make sense? To me, a vivid dream, hallucination, sleep paralysis, etc, is much more plausible than an alien abducting someone.

 

[tyder001]

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. The government may or may not be researching even now. Don't won't to sound like a conspiracy nut so I won't pursue that one. The other folks are still researching. Well, except for Mack and Stevenson. They now know for certain.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The evidence generated by the cited entities has not amounted to much, as far as I know. Most of the supposed breakthroughs are very ambiguous and well within the margin of error of flawed experimental design. In any event, where's the beef? I know, for example, that the government put some effort into remote viewing. If there was anything to it, it would be game over, lights out and sayonara to conventional physics and vast amounts of resources would be shifted to this research PDQ. It didn't happen. Respectfully, I doubt that there's anything close to ample evidence.

I've posted this here before, but it's apt in this discussion:

xkcd: The Economic Argument

 

[tyder001]

Angel I appreciate that you do leave "room" for the possibiltiy that you could be wrong. I am leaving room for the possibiltiy that you could be right. I hope not but ya never know.

 

[MacDaddy]

As for the Tuatha Dé Dannann (MacDaddy) fairies and wee-people. There is actual-real life history spanning back centuries way before the Birth of the Roman Empire. Historians in Celtic Countries who know the history, don't object to or discount a people called the Tuatha Dé Dannann existed, and they were often depicted as people, in the many records and books written by Monks in the 11th and 13th century, that are now in public and private ownership across the UK and Ireland. The argument among Historians is the accuracy of the tales that are depicted, especially since the 17th century, not all, but lot of them tales are talking about "Magic" being used. They'd the ability to change the weather patterns, there is lot of weird stuff in the original tales, to go into now in one post. Here is just one. When the King of the Tuatha "Nuada" lost an Arm in fierce battle with the FIR-BOLG, his surgeon replaced that arm with a working silver one, he almost died from injury but he survived to do battle later! Battles were often described in accurate detail with names and places and Frankly the vivid descriptions of what just can't be denied.

I don't know how to respond to this. Can you tell me some vividly described legends that you don't believe? Do you believe that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse in front of thousands? Does Thor hurl thunderbolts? Zeus? If you don't believe that Medusa had a head full of snakes and could turn people to stone, on what basis do you doubt it? I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but you seem to believe in some really out there stuff. I can see where the photograph you posted would affect a person like you very viscerally, but I really can't get too excited about it. I wish you all the best, I do. You seem like a nice person.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

To me, a vivid dream, hallucination, sleep paralysis, etc, is much more plausible than an alien abducting someone.

That's what it comes down to, in a nutshell. I would change "much more plausible" to "mind-numbingly, wildly more plausible" but I won't quibble. Nice post.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

I've posted this here before, but it's apt in this discussion: xkcd: The Economic Argument

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the link to this cartoon. Just awesome!

 

[tyder001]

Uhhh ya gave credit to me for something Angel said. I happen to have had expereince with the so called "vivid dream" and it's not quite as reductionist as you might like to think. Anyway, one man's vivid dream is another man's experience of "knowing." It's just that once you've been there and you know it's hard to take the old "it's only a dream" and "dreams are not viable to reality" seriously anymore. It only takes one white crow to know that all of em are not black.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

FYI - I edited your post MacDaddy because something I said was attributed to tyder and I don't think he would like that

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

Uhhh ya gave credit to me for something Angel said. I happen to have had expereince with the so called "vivid dream" and it's not quite as reductionist as you might like to think. Anyway, one man's vivid dream is another man's experience of "knowing." It's just that once you've been there and you know it's hard to take the old "it's only a dream" and "dreams are not viable to reality" seriously anymore. It only takes one white crow to know that all of em are not black.

Man, you read it pretty quick before I fixed it!

 

[tyder001]

Here's my thing. I was raised as a Christian. As I got older the dogma of the church didn't work for me. I still love some of the traditions and the hope and inner strength of the faith of my youth. But, I just can't buy the dogma anymore. Then as I got older I was told "science has proven that there is no future that can be seen cause it hasn't happened yet. It has proven that we are just a brain and since that is true. Then there can be no E.S.P. no survival and no way of "seeing" the future. Well, just as with my religious dogma I found that I did indeed (more than once) know something by dreaming and even by simply just knowing before it happened. Then I (not a researcher) But Me myself had encounters that showed me that I was more than simply a chemical reaction in a brain. So, just as my dogma got ran over by my life expereince so did the reductionism of the materialist.

Now, the fact that I am not a fundi in no way should or will cause other Christians to stop their faith. The fact that I am no materilst will not and should not cause atheist to repent in sack cloth and ashes.

But, it does put the lie to anybody saying we are no more than chemical reactions and all expereince is in the gray matter. Then of course there has been much research in quantom theory and no I'm not a scientist so I can't explain it. But reading folks such as Rodger Penrose and others has convinced me that the old 18th centurary model of physics will not hold up to scrutiny.

So, if you don't beleive in anything except "science" then that's fine. I beleive in science also. But, I also "know" that I truly am. Also, that the old dogma both of my religion and scientism is dead.

 

[MacDaddy]

Well, just as with my religious dogma I found that I did indeed (more than once) know something by dreaming and even by simply just knowing before it happened. Then I (not a researcher) But Me myself had encounters that showed me that I was more than simply a chemical reaction in a brain. So, just as my dogma got ran over by my life expereince so did the reductionism of the materialist.

I hear you. Dreams are powerful things. Years ago my wife had a dream in which I did some things for which she is still angry with me. And I have never even met the woman in question.

I have caught myself on several occasions incorporating dreams into my memories. The best example of this is that for years I had a vivid memory of going to a circus as a child and getting my bubblegum caught up in the hair of a lady sitting in front of my parents and me. I never doubted this memory and it became part of me and who I think I am. My parents say this never happened. I now think that it was just a vivid dream that I gradually took on board as a real memory. In some other cases, vivid memories have been proven false by other eyewitnesses and (in two cases) photographic proof! I doubt that I am alone in experiencing this phenomenon. If I had to bet, I'd say that the human brain is wired in such a way that these things happen from time to time, hardly at all for some people, lots and lots for others. I suspect that brain phenomena of this this kind are at the bottom of many good-faith reports of the paranormal. And this is why I, personally, need more objective proof for this stuff.

I agree that consciousness, emotion, imagination, pain, joy --- the whole spiritual magilla --- sure seem to be more than exchanges of chemicals and electrical activity in the brain. But ongoing scientific research sure seems to be pointing us in that direction. Every new discovery in brain science seems to ratchet us closer to a materialistic explanation. This is very suggestive to me.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

No amount of collecting human stories and trying to fit them into a speculative pattern qualifies as science. It's entertaining, even interesting, but does nothing to advance our knowledge about the way the universe works. Science does that all the time. When science has a load of data it wishes to fit into a speculative pattern, it jolly well tests to see if that pattern fits with the way nature works. If it doesn't, it gets thrown out and some new pattern is devised and tested. If the data is any good in the first place, real advances occur in our understanding. Ufology is a source of humor in the wider world because it deserves to be. It appears to be a bunch of often intelligent people expending vast amounts of energy in "researching" a subject without ever discovering a single useful piece of knowledge about it. And when nothing ever (ever!) is nailed down, do the ufologists rightly conclude that there just may be nothing to all of this data but the vagaries of human perception and need to tell stories?

I tend to agree with the majority of your points (personal attacks and insulting humor notwithstanding), however as I just posted on another thread regarding true skepticism, to not look into the nature of UFO's (and ghosts and other claims of paranormal activity) is to discredit and disregard literally thousands of claims of such activity throughout the continental United States. Expand the borders more and the numbers grow proportionately. I'll grant you the unreliable nature of human beings regarding our ability to accurately witness our environment and the events that occur there-in, but are you honestly suggesting that every single UFO claim, whether it be sighting or direct encounter, is false? Are you taking the umbrella that is skepticism and tossing it over the entire body of evidence and anecdote?

I agree, also, that we do not have the smoking gun evidence of UFO's. Scientific observation has not provided that, but in the absence of empirical and replicable evidence, science falls back on raw data-gathering in an attempt to establish patterns or paths of thought that could lead to hypotheses. I believe this is what Vallee, as an information scientist, is attempting to do. His goal is to gather as much data as possible, offer some carefully marked speculation, and move on with additional research, but my true point is this; Vallee understands there are thousands of UFO reports from around the world, annually, and he believes there's something going on that's paranormal (or at least non-human) to some of those reports. As a result he's doing what he's trained to do within the boundaries of science, and the evidence and claims presented. Does he have the answer? No...none of us do, however unlike a LOT of so-called UFO researchers, Vallee is willing to admit that.

My 2 pennies.

 

[tyder001]

I suggest you might want to read Chris Carter and others for a different slant on the whole brain/mind thing. Still, I do agree that memories and chemicals and dreams are a mis mash of experience. That's why even though I have a certain "memory" of somthing that happened to me years ago I don't talk about it. Not because I don't think it happened but because I can't be sure of how much is actual memory and how much is knowledge after the fact. Also, as I said before it only takes one white crow and I have had that. So, even though I don't deny the reality of brain and injury and chemical reactions I also know it's not the answer to who I am.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I hear you. Dreams are powerful things. Years ago my wife had a dream in which I did some things for which she is still angry with me. And I have never even met the woman in question.

I have caught myself on several occasions incorporating dreams into my memories. The best example of this is that for years I had a vivid memory of going to a circus as a child and getting my bubblegum caught up in the hair of a lady sitting in front of my parents and me. I never doubted this memory and it became part of me and who I think I am. My parents say this never happened. I now think that it was just a vivid dream that I gradually took on board as a real memory. In some other cases, vivid memories have been proven false by other eyewitnesses and (in two cases) photographic proof! I doubt that I am alone in experiencing this phenomenon. If I had to bet, I'd say that the human brain is wired in such a way that these things happen from time to time, hardly at all for some people, lots and lots for others. I suspect that brain phenomena of this this kind are at the bottom of many good-faith reports of the paranormal. And this is why I, personally, need more objective proof for this stuff.

I agree that consciousness, emotion, imagination, pain, joy --- the whole spiritual magilla --- sure seem to be more than exchanges of chemicals and electrical activity in the brain. But ongoing scientific research sure seems to be pointing us in that direction. Every new discovery in brain science seems to ratchet us closer to a materialistic explanation. This is very suggestive to me.

Another explanation to the bubblegum incident; perhaps your parents remember the incident incorrectly and that it did, indeed actually happen? Psychological studies into implied, false, or corrupted memories are always fascinating and, I believe, very credible. Then again, if our memories can be so deceptive when taken at face value, what can we believe when it comes to our 'reality' and our perception there-of?

Welcome to the Matrix.

 

[tyder001]

I might also point out that the fact that your parents say you never went to the circus as a child in this life doesn't mean it was simply some dream that you have forgotten. There may be more mundane or mysterious reasons than you know. I sure don't know.

 

[Kandinsky]

I hear you. Dreams are powerful things.

I agree that consciousness, emotion, imagination, pain, joy --- the whole spiritual magilla --- sure seem to be more than exchanges of chemicals and electrical activity in the brain. But ongoing scientific research sure seems to be pointing us in that direction. Every new discovery in brain science seems to ratchet us closer to a materialistic explanation. This is very suggestive to me.

Your mileage may vary.

Same here. I've several vivid memories of things that never really happened. The earliest is me and and a girl, Jenny, going to a playground without permission. Our parents came after us and we ran and locked ourselves in the bathroom. It's a total technicolour memory with shifting 'camera angles' and perspectives that told me, as an adult, the incident never happened.

The experience is real to me and kinda foreshadowed the person I'd grow to be...parental nightmare and oppositional SOB. Not so much now. The thing is, our minds can create perceptions that are almost (if that) impossible to distinguish from the consensual reality.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Excellent points. Science will nearly always follow the money. Places like MIT and the east and west coast elite universities spin off scientific start-ups like mushrooms on a damp lawn. The very fact that there is little if any scientific pursuit of paranormal topics is an indication that the topics probably do not have much potential for exploitable knowledge. It's already well-established that humans will cling to strange beliefs like barnacles and that fact is being amply exploited (just listen to the ads on the Paracast or note the massive amounts of time and money devoted to religious pursuits of all stripes). Beyond that, it's slim pickings. It seems to me that anyone who makes a real breakthrough in subjects like ESP, UFOs or the existence of tricksterish entities (to name just three) would stand to make silly amounts of reputation and money. The fact that our best and brightest (and most money-hungry) universities expend very little effort in these fields suggests to me that they have concluded that there just isn't much chance of there being anything useful to discover. They might be wrong, but they have a pretty good track record of shifting their resources to the right places.

So to say that because the sciences haven't found the answers shows that using it in any sceptical argument is a waste of time then. All we have really established is that science doesn't really do or want to do any real study of the phenomena for a number of reasons known only to itself. Until it does it is a lame duck.
Why can't you prove a negative? You most certainly can prove a
negative! When we know one thing to be true, then we also know that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue. If you say there are no such things as UFOs, I want to see you prove it. Words are meaningless. There are reams of evidence that says there is. Prove that Kelly Cahill didn't see what she saw. Prove that Col. Halt and his men didn't see what they saw at Bentwaters. If you say that they saw lighthouses or flaming piles of shit, i want to see you prove it. Those tactics have already been tried and make less sense than the airmen's original statements.
Debunkers hide behind the "you can't prove a negative" slogan because it's easy to call BS on something when you were not there. Unless you were there to see what happened how can you make any intelligent assessment of the incident. All you are doing is corrupting the evidence with your own personal bias. And that scenario goes for the doe eyed believer as well. (of which there are very few on theses forums.) Although the Skepto/debunkers suddenly try to convince everybody here that all that don't agree with them are doe eyed and believers, but not necessarily in that order.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

So to say that because the sciences haven't found the answers shows that using it in any sceptical argument is a waste of time then. All we have really established is that science doesn't really do or want to do any real study of the phenomena for a number of reasons known only to itself. Until it does it is a lame duck.
Why can't you prove a negative? You most certainly can prove a
negative! When we know one thing to be true, then we also know that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue. If you say there are no such things as UFOs, I want to see you prove it. Words are meaningless. There are reams of evidence that says there is. Prove that Kelly Cahill didn't see what she saw. Prove that Col. Halt and his men didn't see what they saw at Bentwaters. If you say that they saw lighthouses or flaming piles of shit, i want to see you prove it. Those tactics have already been tried and make less sense than the airmen's original statements.
Debunkers hide behind the "you can't prove a negative" slogan because it's easy to call BS on something when you were not there. Unless you were there to see what happened how can you make any intelligent assessment of the incident. All you are doing is corrupting the evidence with your own personal bias. And that scenario goes for the doe eyed believer as well. (of which there are very few on theses forums.) Although the Skepto/debunkers suddenly try to convince everybody here that all that don't agree with them are doe eyed and believers, but not necessarily in that order.

I can understand why scientists don't want to get involved in this. Most of the time there is no science to be done, just a lot of listening to stories. The opportunity to do real scientific work presents itself only occasionally in this field and scientists want to be doing science all the time, not detective work 99% of the time and scientific experiments 1% of the time. But having said that it bothers me that they so often feel it is necessary to denigrate the people who are willing to take the time to look into it and also make broad, sweeping statements when in fact they don't know a damned thing about the data in question.

 

[MacDaddy]

Why can't you prove a negative? You most certainly can prove a negative! When we know one thing to be true, then we also know that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue. If you say there are no such things as UFOs, I want to see you prove it. Words are meaningless. There are reams of evidence that says there is. Prove that Kelly Cahill didn't see what she saw. Prove that Col. Halt and his men didn't see what they saw at Bentwaters. If you say that they saw lighthouses or flaming piles of shit, i want to see you prove it. Those tactics have already been tried and make less sense than the airmen's original statements. Debunkers hide behind the "you can't prove a negative" slogan because it's easy to call BS on something when you were not there. Unless you were there to see what happened how can you make any intelligent assessment of the incident. All you are doing is corrupting the evidence with your own personal bias. And that scenario goes for the doe eyed believer as well. (of which there are very few on theses forums.) Although the Skepto/debunkers suddenly try to convince everybody here that all that don't agree with them are doe eyed and believers, but not necessarily in that order.

OK. Prove to me that there is no Santa Claus. You can't. Some negatives can be proven, but they are very rare in discussions of this type.

Of course there are such things as UFOs. For some people, the planet Venus is a UFO. When I was a teenager and besotted with the works of Ivan Sanderson, I initially mistook three helicopters for a formation of interstellar craft. It is possible that there are witnesses to that flight for whom those helicopters are still UFOs. I was lucky enough to be at a location which allowed me to eventually identify them, but if I hadn't been, who knows?

The Bentwaters case has been explained to my satisfaction as a nearby lighthouse, but I can't prove that it wasn't a pack of woodland fairies on magic motorcycles and neither can you. There are a million explanations, but only a very few make sense in our world. From my point of view, you choose a very far-fetched scenario to believe because that's what you want to believe. Wishing doesn't make it so.

We all make intelligent assessments of things that happened when we weren't there to witness them. Otherwise, our store of knowledge would be very limited. If anyone is corrupting the evidence with personal bias, it is you.

And you need to organize your thoughts a little better because some of your statements are difficult to decipher. The last sentence in particular. Go over it again and see if you can make it say what you want it to say. If you choose to take a lecturing tone with me I will happily play that game with you and I will win. Your post has gone and made me grouchy.