July 19, 2015 — Greg Bishop and Walter Bosley

[spacebrother]

Maybe the word "alien" will be used correctly when the public becomes more familiar with our own adventures in space. The Far Horizons craft flew over the surface of Pluto -- over 3 billion miles away -- making us aliens from outer space!

NASA releases mind-blowing flyover video of Pluto

The word "alien" is far too semantically loaded for me at this point.

 

[jonathan]

I loved this show. If i had the $$$ iwould become an after the Paracast subscriber jut to hear more.
The idea of a "shared subjective" experience is similar , if not equal to, religious experoence. The longing for the "extrordinary" is what draws us together. For some it is the fear of the extraordinary, that draws them together ( either debunking skeptics on one end or zealous believers on the other end) ,for others the motivation is a fearless desire to touch the extraordinary. These are the skeptical beleivers. They understand that either with or without God there is faith in ones subjective experience.
Once we give up the notion that a belief in "radical objectivism" is self delusional, then we can begin to be open to the extraordinary. I love when minds like these come together (of course this includes Gene and Chris and the folks at the forum) . The risk is always that, like a moth to a flame, we all get too close to the extraordinary and become blind. I guess the reason i listen and participate is because i have faith that the rewards are worth the risk. So ET, asteroids, Nazis, social engineers, iluminato, and break away societies be damed. We got the Paracast.

 

[jonathan]

By the way: thanks Chris for your comments on "selfie sticks" . I live in Thailand and the"stck" is unfortunately a fixture here i have the same shared subjective experience of wanting to beat people with their own selfie sticks.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I don't know that I would equate a shared subjective with a religious experience.

Shared subjective is merely two people experiencing the same event. Faith or dogma have nothing to do with that basic experience. A religious experience to me involves dogma and emotional presumption. If two people experience the same flying saucer from Mars, piloted by two humanoid Martians, the only religious-like or emotional connotations would be those that might be applied later by one or both i.e. they say or agree 'that was God, etc'. Neither is it really a faith experience. The shared subjective experience we were discussing is not something they agree on without having experienced the experience. Faith comes in when they assume it's something other than what can be stated as literally experienced.

The shared subjective experience, based on what we were saying on the show, is the experience that two or more people shared that cannot be recorded accurately because the source does not want to be viewed in the cold two-dimensional, it wants to be experienced -- or its makers (if earthly machine) don't want it identified. I don't see an automatic and direct bridge to the religious experience analogy in that. Also, just because something isn't experienced the way scientists require in a lab for proper (and legitimate) scientific purposes doesn't relegate it to the 'religious' within the current context (generally meaning questionable in a derogatory manner).

 

[Constance]

To make a half-serious point: In some ways Greg undermines his argument for a rebooting of "ufology" as he always manages to instigate or participate in interesting, thought-provoking conversations using what we currently have as a basis...

This online article by Micah Hanks points to the significance and weight of the basis that exists in the written records of the early years of the modern ufo phenomenon and strongly suggests that we not dismiss it or, indeed, fail to read it. Here are some extracts to that point. Hanks's foregrounding of the ufos that appeared over the Hanford atomic site in 1945 are a good place to begin.


"... what are arguably some of the more compelling cases in the ongoing catalogue of UFO reports collected over the years stem from the early days of ufology, at a time where information and individuals seemed to operate with a degree of transparency we don’t see as much today. . . .

"At its simplest, the UFO enigma seems to represent a form of technological phenomena, observed most often in the skies above us, which exceeds the capabilities of technologies that are known to exist today. This sort of information would indeed be tantalizing for someone today, since the apparent technologies in use that are of known earthly origin are already capable of fascinating things. We have achieved spaceflight, and have probed the depths of the ocean as well as the frontiers of beyond our own atmosphere. Anything that exceeds our best and most formidable technologies would have to employ an impressive amount of technological mastery, and behind it, an intelligence that challenge our very limits of thought and imagination.

During and shortly after World War II, the proverbial floodgates seemed to open on the UFO problem. Although the skies may have been riddled with extraordinary objects for much longer, most UFO historians will acknowledge that this period beginning in the middle 1940s was the time during which not only the UFO presence became most apparent, but we also began to utilize technologies capable of observing them better.

The reports which began to emanate from the middle 1940s, as with the case discussed above, not only document credible witness testimony regarding the observation of highly advanced objects seen in flight, but they also tend to be among the better documented cases in general. To an extent, this becomes nearly paradoxical: with the prevalence of UFO sightings occurring at the time, we are treated both to a wide variety of credible reports, as well as to a kind of openness and transparency by the officials and pilot witnesses, as well as military organizations involved in the cases, that we don’t seem to have today.

I often wonder whether we simply don’t have the kind of UFO sightings that were hot topics between the late 40s and early 50s, or if those kinds of sightings might indeed still be commonplace, but are kept quiet for security reasons that were less obvious in the early days of modern UFO encounters. Whatever the case, these early reports often detail incredible aspects of the phenomenon, reported by reputable witnesses which, today, we don’t seem to have the same regular access to."

Early Incidents: A 1945 Nuclear Plant UFO Encounter | Mysterious Universe

 

[jonathan]

Dogma should not be confused with faith. We can have faith or belief without creating a canonization of the experience. There are parallels with religion and belief in the paranormal or extraordinary. Both those who believe in only the ET and those who believe only that none of this "paranormal stuff" is real have taken a leap of subjective faith to the dogmatic exclusion of all other theories, possibilities, or beleifs. I realize that many people fear the word faith or when in fact they have a faith in their own subjective experience. As a theologian I also know that without doubt there is no faith. (It is kinda ridiculous to assert that there are Angels without Demons.) I am a skeptic that believes in God. The religious call me agnostic at best and a heretic at worst. Whether one is an atheist or theist, one has taken a leap of faith. The dogmatist codifies and solidifies that belief into radical religion on the theistic side or its mirror radical anti-religious fervor bent on exposing all belief as falacy. These are extremes but they do exist. What is disturbing to me is that the possibility of secret "social engineers" are in either of these groups.

 

[Constance]

Antonio Huneeus has a three-part article on "UFOs and atomic/nuclear plants," published under a pseudonym in the 1980s and with updates

UFOs and atomic/nuclear plants -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net


NICAP provides a list of 193 ufo/nuclear events from Larry Hatch's UFOCAT database, going up to 1993 at the following link. Beyond that we have, of course, Hastings's continuing research.

Nuclear Sites & UFOs - Hatch


.

 

[Constance]

. . . I don't see an automatic and direct bridge to the religious experience analogy in that. Also, just because something isn't experienced the way scientists require in a lab for proper (and legitimate) scientific purposes doesn't relegate it to the 'religious' within the current context (generally meaning questionable in a derogatory manner).

I agree. Such uses of the term 'religious' have become mere propaganda devices. In our time, 'religion' and 'religious experience' are convenient slurs employed on the cheap to discredit others and their viewpoints on ufos and other complex subjects.

 

[Constance]

ps, I don't know anyone pursuing ufo research that claims the ETH is capable of accounting for all ufo phenomena.

 

[DaveM]

Two quotes from Zen Buddhism seem to guide my thinking these days. I found them in the last few months. The first is from the Japanese master Dogen:

"You must not cling to the words of the old sages either; they, too, may not be right. Even if you believe them, you should be alert so that , in the event that something superior comes along, you may follow that."

The other is from the Chinese Zen philosopher Chung-Feng Ming Pen:

"It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason. It is like . . . a great fire that consumes all who come near it."[/QUOTE

Greg, as you mention these Zen quotes, I will pass along a story from ' The Empty Mirror ' by Janwillem Van De Wettering.

There was a Zen master at a monastery on one of the northern Japanese islands. This abbot went directly to the monastery as a young boy and never learned to read or write. One day he heard some young monks talking about Christianity. He knew nothing about this religion. He asked one of the monks if he could get a holy book of this religion.

The young monk went to a local village and brought back the Bible. The abbot said that this was a thick book, could the young monk pick out a passage to read to him. The monk open the book to The Sermon on the Mount. After the monk read this the old master got into the lotus position. The young monk joined him and they meditated for some minutes.

When the old master stirred, he told the young monk this: ' I don't know who write this but he was a great master or bodhisattva, what he spoke of is the essence of all I have been trying to teach you here in the monastery.'

 

[dmanister]

Dogma should not be confused with faith. We can have faith or belief without creating a canonization of the experience. There are parallels with religion and belief in the paranormal or extraordinary. Both those who believe in only the ET and those who believe only that none of this "paranormal stuff" is real have taken a leap of subjective faith to the dogmatic exclusion of all other theories, possibilities, or beleifs. I realize that many people fear the word faith or when in fact they have a faith in their own subjective experience. As a theologian I also know that without doubt there is no faith. (It is kinda ridiculous to assert that there are Angels without Demons.) I am a skeptic that believes in God. The religious call me agnostic at best and a heretic at worst. Whether one is an atheist or theist, one has taken a leap of faith. The dogmatist codifies and solidifies that belief into radical religion on the theistic side or its mirror radical anti-religious fervor bent on exposing all belief as falacy. These are extremes but they do exist. What is disturbing to me is that the possibility of secret "social engineers" are in either of these groups.

Jonathan, religion, as I'm sure you know, takes different forms in different eras. Joseph Campbell wrote a book about it called "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" in which he showed how the same gods appear in different guises throughout history.

Carl Jung's book on flying saucers views UFOs as a modern form of the ancient human mythology of transcendent selfhood of the individual.

It's important not to dismiss the existential reality of unidentified phenomena while acknowledging how easily they can acquire religious significance for many people. In some ways it's "that old-time religion" for the 21st Century.

 

[spacebrother]

When the old master stirred, he told the young monk this: ' I don't know who write this but he was a great master or bodhisattva, what he spoke of is the essence of all I have been trying to teach you here in the monastery.'

Two reactions to this. 1) The esoteric roots of many religions come to the same conclusions (i.e. treat others with compassion and kindness, etc.) and 2) What does this have to do with my point that the Zen quotes I cited apply well to UFO study (which is what I was trying to imply)? Sorry if that was not clear.

 

[spacebrother]

To make a half-serious point: In some ways Greg undermines his argument for a rebooting of "ufology" as he always manages to instigate or participate in interesting, thought-provoking conversations using what we currently have as a basis...

I don't think there should be a "reboot." If I ever said that I will revise it to say we need more "apps," not a complete reboot, and I'm interested in helping to develop or at least suggest new ones. I'm just not as interested anymore in anyone who talks about alien visitations, disclosure, or run-of-the-mill UFO porno.

I have said that getting rid of large UFO groups would be nice. Maybe that looks like "reboot" to some people. Maybe I'd just rather they didn't drag everyone's attention around.

And thanks for the compliment!

 

[DaveM]

Two reactions to this. 1) The esoteric roots of many religions come to the same conclusions (i.e. treat others with compassion and kindness, etc.) and 2) What does this have to do with my point that the Zen quotes I cited apply well to UFO study (which is what I was trying to imply)? Sorry if that was not clear.

This was just a Zen story I always liked and decided to throw out there. Dave

 

[jonathan]

I don't particularly like the words religious or religion either (even though i am a Theologian by training) for exactly that reason. The modern use of the terms have become derogatory with most because they have been mistakenly equated with magical thinking and dogmatism. So, i understand the fear of the terms. It"s sort of like the argument ad hominum terms, Nazi , ignorant, uneducated, etc.

 

[dmanister]

I don't particularly like the words religious or religion either (even though i am a Theologian by training) for exactly that reason. The modern use of the terms have become derogatory with most because they have been mistakenly equated with magical thinking and dogmatism. So, i understand the fear of the terms. It"s sort of like the argument ad hominum terms, Nazi , ignorant, uneducated, etc.

Well Jonathan would you disagree with my suggestion that sightings of unidentifiable phenomena very often give rise to belief systems that are essentially religious?

Beliefs about inexplicable phenomena that are shared by groups fall into the category of organized religion.

It seems to me what Greg Bishop suggests as a reboot is simply a return to what we know about the phenomena, and the careful development of patterns that emerge from reliable data, avoiding the religious wars among factions whose speculations about the phenomena differ from each other.

 

[DaveM]

Two reactions to this. 1) The esoteric roots of many religions come to the same conclusions (i.e. treat others with compassion and kindness, etc.) and 2) What does this have to do with my point that the Zen quotes I cited apply well to UFO study (which is what I was trying to imply)? Sorry if that was not clear.

By the way, the author van Wettering was one of the first European residences in Japan after World War II. It make for a stranger in a strange land sort of story.

 

[jonathan]

Exactly! My ancestors tried the same thing when they decentralized the church. It didn't go so well. But i understand and applaud the effort.

 

[DissectionStalker]

I started out to reply intelligently but there are distractions in the house presently thus I'm going to return to this later.

Don't forget... bump.

 

[jonathan]

Well Jonathan would you disagree with my suggestion that sightings of unidentifiable phenomena very often give rise to belief systems that are essentially religious?

Beliefs about inexplicable phenomena that are shared by groups fall into the category of organized religion.

It seems to me what Greg Bishop suggests as a reboot is simply a return to what we know about the phenomena, and the careful development of patterns that emerge from reliable data, avoiding the religious wars among factions whose speculations about the phenomena differ from each other.

I would agree whole-heartedly.
Rather than ignore the parallels, we should learn from them.
Protestant church history had many similar "reboot" movements.
I think people assume since I am a Theologian I am apposed to the scientific method or I am against any research into the extraordinary that excludes a "It was God" explination.
I am comfortable with my subjective experiences with the extraordinary and with God as i understand them. But this includes (not excludes) new information and new hypothesis.