January 21, 2018 — Greg Bishop and Don Ecker

[Thomas R Morrison]

Some people do have critical thinking skills and the ETH is a viable theory. If I implied that some ETH supporters were less than intelligent, I apologize. I am just bored with it.

It's nice to see some equanimity about this point, and it's sad how rare that is.

I'm a bit stunned that anyone could consider the prospect of alien intelligences with dramatically superior technologies traversing our airspace as "boring," however. Usually the objection to the idea is exactly the opposite - for most it's such a mind-boggling possibility that they can't even seriously consider it. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Seth Shostak seem to fit squarely in that category, but they have a lot of company in that view. And frankly I find that perspective pitifully myopic, and woefully unscientific, especially given what we've learned about our place in the cosmos in recent decades.

I suppose I'm somewhere in the middle - when I consider what alien intelligences who can travel between the stars must have learned along the way, the knowledge that they must've gleaned about the physics questions that plague our scientific progress, and the myriad living worlds they've likely encountered, and the varieties of intelligent beings they've probably observed and communicated with - spanning countless eons of varying levels of technological and biological and mental advancements and intrinsic differences, my mind is flooded with wonder. Fifteen minutes of candid communication with such a being could transform the course of human civilization, if one could ask the right questions and receive comprehensible answers. It's too bad that never seems to happen.

I should probably know this, but I don't - what triggered your interest in this subject? Have you witnessed the inexplicable, or are you simply one of those rare people like Gene who recognize that there are too many credible accounts to dismiss them all as something mundane? Because I seem to be seeing a pattern, where the people with striking personal experiences approach this topic with an exceptional level of urgency and intensity - they seem driven to know what is going on, to fully understand it. So they seem more interested in finding the objective truth, than in speculating about the range of possibilities that this ancient and mysterious universe might present to our senses.

 

[Randall]

Some people do have critical thinking skills and the ETH is a viable theory. If I implied that some ETH supporters were less than intelligent, I apologize. I am just bored with it.

I don't think you need to apologize for anything as much a be aware of the general perception that results from making generalizations tied to our biases. We're bored with the ETH and still don't have any certain answers so let's look at the alternatives, the implication being that because we aren't certain about the ETH and it's no longer exciting ( to us ) that it's not the right answer. I think this is a trap that more intelligent minds fall into when faced with having to deal with the same problem and answer over and over again.

We instinctively look for something novel to challenge our mind, and if there's an added incentive, like the revenue from a new book, then there won't be much stopping that mind from following that path, even if the right answer is the one they came up with in the first place. I think Vallée fell into this trap. He himself admitted that if UFOs turned out to be "just spaceships" that it would be disappointing, and I think that's because he'd already done that thought experiment to death, needed something to be a challenge to his own science, and sell a new book.

I'm not sure if you noticed my post in the Realty Shifting - Mandella Effect thread, but I recently posed the idea that maybe the aliens are as much a victim of it as we are. We assume they're in control, but maybe they're not. Maybe they just suddenly find themselves materialized in someone's room, or in the sky over Phoenix, and wonder WTF before they're transported back to where they came from by some mechanism that is as mystical to them as it is to us. I was sort of excited for 15 seconds because I'd never heard that particular twist on the idea before, and intellectual people like that little intellectual rush. It doesn't mean they're right. But it feels good, so they want it to be right.

 

[pigfarmer]

On a microscale, It all depends, such as with MUFON, a fee is paid, an online course is taken & shazam, you’re an official MUFON field investigator. In the realization that years are taken to become a proficient detective, one is of the opinion that most so-called investigator’s training is woefully inadequate. Additionally, since there is rarely (if ever) physical evidence, the experiencer’s narrative is critical. That is why in a perfect world training in psychology would be necessary.

Just how many cases are there where investigators have inadvertently led witnesses to conclude that what they saw was some otherworldly object?

Such as with Christopher Mellon presenting to an audience with a Mylar party balloon in the background.

One thing that bugs me about MUFON is that they seem to hand out impressive sounding titles like candy canes. Secretly I've always wanted to be a Kentucky Colonel, but sadly I've never been there so I don't expect it to happen. I do like bourbon so maybe they'll take volume into consideration. In the meantime I may have to settle for being a Doctor of Divinity in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I've listened to interviews with bonafide kooks who have or have had such titles. The one that comes to mind right now is an Open Minds UFO Radio interview in which the guest detailed his military background and his MUFON title(s) and then spoke with great certainty about things that I think everyone in this forum would probably raise an eyebrow to. He described how Nazis had somehow captured an alien spacecraft, mounted a 'panzer cannon' on it only to find that it destroyed the vehicle when the thing was fired. Right-O. . That's when I crawled out from under the car I was working on and turned on something else. I have to give Alejandro credit - he rolled with that one nicely.

Just saying that some people wrap themselves in cloaks of authority with impressive titles and backgrounds to lend credibility to what they're peddling. No news there but some raise it to such a degree my spleen swells.

 

[SRL+]

The one that comes to mind right now is an Open Minds UFO Radio interview in which the guest detailed his military background and his MUFON title(s) and then spoke with great certainty about things that I think everyone in this forum would probably raise an eyebrow to. He described how Nazis had somehow captured an alien spacecraft, mounted a 'panzer cannon' on it only to find that it destroyed the vehicle when the thing was fired. Right-O

When first arriving here, there were lofty expectations. Through the intervening years, and the desensitizing process completed resulting in complete numbness, I am no longer surprised by anything MUFON has to peddle. Except for what you have been so generous in sharing.

 

[Decker]

The question of what makes an effective UFO investigator is an excellent question. It encompasses many disciplines from science to behavior. When I made a decision to jump into the fray with UFO Magazine, I was naive enough to believe that with just the right questions and dogged investigation, the topic of the UFO enigma could be presented to "main stream" as a legitimate phenomena.


During that time frame the major stories were the Gulf Breeze UFO, the Japan Airlines encounter over Alaska, Bentwaters, and a number of cases that were highlighted by the Paranet BBS network. Of course Compuserve and a very few other networks (pay as you go networks) had their own favorite selection of cases. Next, who were the people involved in the field, Bruce Maccabee, PHd., Linda Howe, reporter, Stanton Friedman, background in nuclear power, Kevin Randle, U.S. Airforce and U.S. Army, pilot and researcher. Bill Moore (teacher) and Jaime Shandera (television exec) along with Cliff Stone, U.S. Army retired as an SFC. (in those days Stone was an "ace" document finder), Philip J Imbrogno and many others. Some names today would be familar and others not so much. Of course at that time the UFO field had already lost Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Major Donald Keyhoe and other names that were well known in previous years.

However this is about what is needed as an effective UFO investigator. Now the membership here at The Paracast comes and goes. I thought about using an example of an investigation I conducted and since we have many more recent Paracast users I pulled an example from 2011. During that time a well known UFO "investigator" named Philip J. Imbrogno was making the rounds of podcasts and radio shows. I interviewed him several times, and as an author of a number of books on the UFO field he was a popular speaker. A member of the skeptical community, Lance Moody, was a Paracast user who decided to conduct an investigation on Imbrogno's academic claims. On my show Imbrogno claimed to have been in the U.S. Army's elite Special Forces. Then the story blew up. If you were not there or if you've forgotten, here is a thumbnail sketch.

Philip J. Imbrogno; Academic Fraud and Stolen Valor

Imbrogno, Fraud, Stolen Valor

But what is it that makes an effective investigator or an effective investigation? The answer is money and how many of us know a Harry Reid type sugar daddy to finance us? All of my stuff since leaving the field has been out of pocket. Almost every person throwing their hat into the UFO field goes it alone. The usual suspects that finance research (academic institutions, government institutions and the like) will not touch UFOs or most paranormal pursuits ever. Reasons range from the ridicule factor to the lunacy factor. Most do not take it seriously at all. Forget the past several months, this too shall pass. So, it is left to we poor deluded people that think or believe that some day it may matter. This is simply my two cents worth, for whatever that may mean. Almost every time someone with serious intent has tried to set up a serious and legitimate research effort, they collapse. Might it someday change? This is unknown.

Decker

 

[Walter Bosley]

"Forget the past several months, this too shall pass."

(Standing ovation)

 

[spacebrother]

It's nice to see some equanimity about this point, and it's sad how rare that is.

I'm a bit stunned that anyone could consider the prospect of alien intelligences with dramatically superior technologies traversing our airspace as "boring," however.

I should probably know this, but I don't - what triggered your interest in this subject? Have you witnessed the inexplicable, or are you simply one of those rare people like Gene who recognize that there are too many credible accounts to dismiss them all as something mundane? Because I seem to be seeing a pattern, where the people with striking personal experiences approach this topic with an exceptional level of urgency and intensity - they seem driven to know what is going on, to fully understand it. So they seem more interested in finding the objective truth, than in speculating about the range of possibilities that this ancient and mysterious universe might present to our senses.

Thank you for your acknowledgment.

I mainly find the ETH "boring" because we have no objective evidence that I can see that sets it above some other theories. More importantly, the vast majority of UFO proponents adhere to this idea, and by nature, I run away from crowds because they are often ruled by a crowd mentality. So a lot of this is my own personality. The implications of how we interface with the unknown are far more interesting to me at this time.

Perceptive of you to notice that I have no deep stake in proving to anyone what I think about the subject or its origins. I have had three sightings of things I cannot explain, but it was after I became interested, and two were so far from me that they are not significant. The other was described in my last book, "It Defies Language!" and didn't instill any sense of urgency in me. Yes, I believe that there are far too many reports of strange things in the skies and elsewhere to ignore as mundane occurrences. I once wrote a piece on the difference between believing and knowing, and how that affects people and how they communicate their beliefs to others. I think people that are affected on a deep level (those with closer, unequivocal encounters) want to make sense of the experience by proving to themselves and others that the weirdness they experienced has some sort of basis in our collective reality. That hasn't happened yet, so there is a cognitive dissonance associated with the aftermath.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I have found that once you've experienced certain things, you're better equipped for the aftermath if you already have a good grip on solitude. For me, it has been best to mostly keep it to myself. I'm not going to put someone else in the position of having to comment on something they won't believe happened and I'd rather not subject myself to feeling dismissed as 'mistaken'. Besides, the experiences belong to the experiencer, not the public.

 

[pigfarmer]

[QUOTE="Thomas R Morrison, post: 268412, member: 7579"
what triggered your interest in this subject?[/QUOTE]

I realize you weren't asking me specifically but my interest was triggered by personal experience. Later in life when I developed the necessary critical thinking skills I was eventually able to explain it all. It was like finding out that Santa Claus isn't real - but then find that it doesn't really matter. My interest remained but not my credulity.

 

[Randall]

I have found that once you've experienced certain things, you're better equipped for the aftermath if you already have a good grip on solitude. For me, it has been best to mostly keep it to myself. I'm not going to put someone else in the position of having to comment on something they won't believe happened and I'd rather not subject myself to feeling dismissed as 'mistaken'. Besides, the experiences belong to the experiencer, not the public.

Hmm, that makes a certain amount of sense on a personal level, but it seems to me that making connections with people is part of human nature. Recently Canadian rules around solitary confinement have come under heavy fire for the psychological damage it causes. We want to share out experiences, we want them to matter to other people. When we're summarily dismissed it doesn't feel good, which is why not wanting to make one's self vulnerable to that rejection is understandable. But I don't see you as falling into that category.

You've written some controversial books, done presentations, appeared on radio shows, and participate in forums. You've basically made it your business to let as many people in the world know exactly what you think, so you're situation is actually completely backward to what you're claiming. This is a curious dichotomy. Perhaps in your mind you see some insulating layer between you and your audience that differentiates it from sharing the same story in a social setting where you don't know the layout of the land.

I'm completely the opposite. I enjoy seeing people's reactions whether it's dismissive or not, and more often than not, I find that it evokes a conversation that's interesting to more people in the room than just me. There have been few exceptions. One happened recently with an acquaintance who I figured was intelligent and fair minded enough to discuss the issue, but had a rather dismissive attitude toward it and said he finds it boring. I'm not entirely sure how that's possible without being misinformed or having some other negative preconception.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Hmm, that makes a certain amount of sense on a personal level, but it seems to me that making connections with people is part of human nature. Recently Canadian rules around solitary confinement have come under heavy fire for the psychological damage it causes. We want to share out experiences, we want them to matter to other people. When we're summarily dismissed it doesn't feel good, which is why not wanting to make one's self vulnerable to that rejection is understandable. But I don't see you as falling into that category.

You've written some controversial books, done presentations, appeared on radio shows, and participate in forums. You've basically made it your business to let as many people in the world know exactly what you think, so you're situation is actually completely backward to what you're claiming. This is a curious dichotomy. Perhaps in your mind you see some insulating layer between you and your audience that differentiates it from sharing the same story in a social setting where you don't know the layout of the land.

I'm completely the opposite. I enjoy seeing people's reactions whether it's dismissive or not, and more often than not, I find that it evokes a conversation that's interesting to more people in the room than just me. There have been few exceptions. One happened recently with an acquaintance who I figured was intelligent and fair minded enough to discuss the issue, but had a rather dismissive attitude toward it and said he finds it boring. I'm not entirely sure how that's possible without being misinformed or having some other negative preconception.

My presence out here has been for a long time to discuss my research and positions on related topics. Most people know that. I have refrained from discussing much personal experience and only recently have alluded to it again, usually to make a point about something. There's nothing curious about it to anyone who doesn't have an issue with me personally. It's merely a personal choice. You're right, a lot of people get something out of sharing such things and that's fine.

Anyway, this thread is about Greg and Don.

 

[withoutlimits09]

Hmm, that makes a certain amount of sense on a personal level, but it seems to me that making connections with people is part of human nature. Recently Canadian rules around solitary confinement have come under heavy fire for the psychological damage it causes. We want to share out experiences, we want them to matter to other people. When we're summarily dismissed it doesn't feel good, which is why not wanting to make one's self vulnerable to that rejection is understandable. But I don't see you as falling into that category.

You've written some controversial books, done presentations, appeared on radio shows, and participate in forums. You've basically made it your business to let as many people in the world know exactly what you think, so you're situation is actually completely backward to what you're claiming. This is a curious dichotomy. Perhaps in your mind you see some insulating layer between you and your audience that differentiates it from sharing the same story in a social setting where you don't know the layout of the land.

I'm completely the opposite. I enjoy seeing people's reactions whether it's dismissive or not, and more often than not, I find that it evokes a conversation that's interesting to more people in the room than just me. There have been few exceptions. One happened recently with an acquaintance who I figured was intelligent and fair minded enough to discuss the issue, but had a rather dismissive attitude toward it and said he finds it boring. I'm not entirely sure how that's possible without being misinformed or having some other negative preconception.

Why can't someone, in this case Walter, talk about some more general thoughts on these subjects, speculate on others, and ALSO keep some personal experiences to himself, for reasons that are important to him. I don't think it is at all a dichotomy that a person will share some things but not others. In fact, we do this every day in our personal and professional lives, for a variety of reasons.

So again, I think it is totally possible to be a public figure, write books, carry out presentations and participate in forums, while also having a realm of experiences that are personal and valuable. I don't at all think his behavior (if you will) leads to "psychological damage" or is even a signpost for curiosity. I think it is rather expected and normal.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Some people do have critical thinking skills and the ETH is a viable theory. If I implied that some ETH supporters were less than intelligent, I apologize. I am just bored with it.

It's not the ETH theory that's boring, it's the fact that there is no evidence to back it up conclusively, and it's boring listening to people that can't (or won't) acknowledge this lack of evidence for whatever reason. People who see the ETH as the ONLY viable theory are either ignorant, willfully in denial, or wallowing in wishful thinking. It's sad, but (IMO) it would seem critical thinking and objectivism have been sadly lacking in the "UFO" subculture since the great unwashed masses began to believe in the media's take on the subject.

 

[Walter Bosley]

It's not the ETH theory that's boring, it's the fact that there is no evidence to back it up conclusively, and it's boring listening to people that can't (or won't) acknowledge this lack of evidence for whatever reason. People who see the ETH as the ONLY viable theory are either ignorant, willfully in denial, or wallowing in wishful thinking. It's sad, but (IMO) it would seem critical thinking and objectivism have been sadly lacking in the "UFO" subculture since the great unwashed masses began to believe in the media's take on the subject.

There are some folks who've concluded it can't be anything but ETH.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

There are some folks who've concluded it can't be anything but ETH.

Ya'think Mr. Bosley? Could it be that there are too many intellectually lazy people inhabiting the theoretical side of ufool-ogy? Naw, it's just me and the mirror discussing one of several personal conundrums around the subject.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

It's not the ETH theory that's boring, it's the fact that there is no evidence to back it up conclusively, and it's boring listening to people that can't (or won't) acknowledge this lack of evidence for whatever reason.

I think you’re mixing up the idea of “proof” with the idea of “evidence” here.

There’s a gobsmacking mountain of evidence to support the ETH – and you know this. Multiple independent witness cases, radar-visual cases, trace evidence cases, photographic and video evidence. It’s not conclusive proof of the ETH, but there’s ample evidence for it. And I can’t think of any evidence against it, unless you get into the more “paranormal” cases, which may not even be related to the anomalous objects reported in the skies - such as ghost phenomenon and the weird stuff at Skinwalker Ranch, etc.

People who see the ETH as the ONLY viable theory are either ignorant, willfully in denial, or wallowing in wishful thinking.

Personally I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who falls into that category. Everyone I’ve encountered, personally, allows for all kinds of possibilities; rare plasma phenomena like ball lightning, secret military aircraft, the bazillion types of potential misidentifications and misperceptions, and general weirdness from the cosmos at large that we haven’t even dreamed of yet.

You may be getting mixed up about the selective interest of many people, myself included. I’m primarily interested in the cases that involve physical objects (the type of things that appear on radar, look to be solid to the naked eye, leave landing impressions behind after they’ve been spotted on the ground, break branches as they pass through forests, and dramatically outperform our most sophisticated fighter jets). The ETH is far and away the leading explanatory contender for that entire class of reports, although time travelers from our own future can’t be ruled out either.

But that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that other types of totally bizarre stuff can happen from time to time. Perhaps there are weird plasma-based life forms that evolve in intergalactic dust clouds, which swing by our planet from time to time to get a nice refreshing gulp of ozone. Perhaps there are beings in the universe that have some kind of holographic projection technology that permits them to explore the cosmos without leaving the comfort of their regeneration pods. Or maybe there are intelligent phosphorescent creatures that evolved deep in the oceans that enjoy buzzing our submarines for kicks. I mean, the possibilities are endless.

I just don’t focus on such things because they don’t fall into the class of events that really interests me, and they could be so rare that we have no hope of understanding them.

It's sad, but (IMO) it would seem critical thinking and objectivism have been sadly lacking in the "UFO" subculture since the great unwashed masses began to believe in the media's take on the subject.

I think that’s a rotten take on recent developments. The testimony of Cmdrs. Fravor and Slaight has lent a new level of credibility to this entire field of inquiry. That’s a good thing. Complaining that it doesn’t support your personal interpretation of the phenomenon (whatever that may be…frankly I’m unsure if you hold one specific interpretation, and I’ve admired that sense of conceptual largesse when you’ve expressed it), just reads as sour grapes. We’d all be better off if we built a big tent and welcomed the arrival of all new credible data, whether it favors our own personal views or not. Because as you have pointed out - many things could be going on. So evidence that establishes any one of them is an asset to all of us collectively.

There are some folks who've concluded it can't be anything but ETH.

What do you mean by “it?” I’m not being facetious, I’m just pointing out that everyone here defines “it” in a uniquely personal way. For some people, “it” means “all paranormal phenomena” – and I’m not exaggerating about that; I’ve actually run across that view here. For others, “it” might mean “ufo sightings and cattle mutilations and abductions.” My focus is very narrow, because I’m not at all confident that the various classes of incidents are related, so for me “it” only refers to "physical aerial devices that evidently don’t belong to the inventory of any terrestrial nation." That class of phenomenon is, by definition, alien. And I have yet to hear a single cogent alternative hypothesis that can explain it. But if anyone can present one, then I’m all ears.

Ya'think Mr. Bosley? Could it be that there are too many intellectually lazy people inhabiting the theoretical side of ufool-ogy?

It’s odd that you should put it that way – haven’t surveys proven that the level of education is proportional to the view that alien craft have visited the Earth? So the facts seem to be directly opposed to your statement.

It’s not “intellectually lazy” to be keenly aware of the status of pertinent scientific knowledge; to see the high prevalence of potentially inhabited worlds in this cosmos (roughly 22% of all stars are orbited by at least one planet in the habitable zone), and to know about the ubiquity of water and organic molecules throughout the universe, and to understand that evolution leads from lower life forms to higher life forms across geological timescales, and to see that sentient life forms like ourselves will stab out as far into space as their technology will permit – and many of them have probably surpassed our own level of technological advancement eons ago so they might be dropping by the Earth as casually we go out to pick up a carton of milk.

That’s not laziness, that’s the judicious and informed application of abductive reasoning to reach a logically sound conclusion. And we have yet to hear a single alternative explanatory hypothesis that can provide anything even vaguely resembling that level of clarity and conformity to known scientific reality.

Sure – there are plenty of con artist wingnuts who take it too far and pontificate for hours in front of credulous marks about the motivations of alien beings visiting the Earth and secret underground bases where reptilian aliens work alongside our scientists to teach them how to make ray guns and teleportation devices for weekend parties on Mars - all that kind of totally factless and squish-headed drivel. But all of that stuff goes way beyond the ETH, and has no bearing on the credibility of the ETH itself, which simply states “alien civilizations have deployed technological devices that operate in our airspace and waters from time to time, for reasons entirely unknown to us.”

There are zero reasons to consider that an unlikely explanation. or even a less likely explanation than anything else that’s been forwarded.

 

[Walter Bosley]

When I said 'it', I was referring to UFOs, as was Chris in his reference to UFOs.

 

[pigfarmer]

Good God.

I just watched the latest episode of the X-Files reboot. January 24 2018

Everything has been explained.

Let’s all find a more productive use for our time.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

When I said 'it', I was referring to UFOs, as was Chris in his reference to UFOs.

Fair enough. But we all have different and personalized definitions of "UFO" also. Taken literally, it means anything that's unidentified in the sky, and we know that at least 80-90% of those reports have mundane explanations. For other people, "UFO" means "all of the events that defy mundane explanation," which likely includes everything from ball lighting to experimental military craft to alien technology to "everything else that the cosmos might throw at us." I usually use the term to mean "solid aerial devices that are almost certainly not products of earthly human civilization," and I think a Lot of people mean it that way when they use it.

So when lots of people assert that they think the ETH is the only viable explanation for that narrow definition of the term, they may not be considering all of the other weird inexplicable stuff that's seen in the sky from time to time. With a little probing discussion (sorry I couldn't resist), you might find that such people aren't closed-minded to other possibilities - they're simply focused on the most tangible and technological class of "UFO" reports.

Good God.

I just watched the latest episode of the X-Files reboot. January 24 2018

Everything has been explained.

Let’s all find a more productive use for our time.

Okay I'm conflicted about this now - I'm intrigued that they've explained everything, but your closing remark sounds like you were disgusted with it? So which is it; thumbs up or thumbs down?

 

[pigfarmer]

[QUOTE="Okay I'm conflicted about this now - I'm intrigued that they've explained everything, but your closing remark sounds like you were disgusted with it? So which is it; thumbs up or thumbs down?[/QUOTE]

Thumbs up. Watch it. I laughed my ass off