July 19, 2015 — Greg Bishop and Walter Bosley

[Burnt State]

i agree that the rock is a rock, and so too is a light in the sky. even if the light in the sky does really interesting and unusual things, it's still just a light in the sky. where consciousness appears to play a role in the experience of the UAP or UFO, whatever cup of tea you drink from, is that the closer the UAP is to the observer the more that the information that is coming through appears to be quite fuzzy, even distorted or hallucinatory. we simply can not accept or rely on exactly what it is that the witness says. in fact as recently seen at the CAIPAN conference one workshop series theme focussed on the necessity of creating a better approach to recording witness data to make it scientifically useful using such things as a common taxonomy of descriptions for the UAP witness along with more cognitive interview techniques. there is a problem of trying to get an actual accurate estimation of exactly what was seen. problems of language, time lag between reporting events, degrees of excitement, fear and stress play roles, as does whatever that stimulus was and its proximity to the witness.

a simple way to think about the role of consciousness in reports from different witnesses is looking at how the nature of the objects change and reflect cultural norms, science fiction media of the era as well as the technological constructions of the time - all play roles in creating different "skins" as it were for the UAP to present itself in, or perhaps more accurate is to say how they are perceived. is it an airship? is it a honeycombed collection of spider webs? is it a triangle with a glowing orb in the centre? is it a football field sized mothership? is it a flying saucer? in this way the information of the UAP is obviously shifting or, the final witnessed statement and perception appears to be more of a co-creation between the observer and stimulus, and this is especially evident the closer the person is to the object. even more curious is when multiple people are looking at the same object but are seeing different things or in some cases some people might be seeing nothing at all. so then a rock is not simply a rock, when the UAP is very close and appears to be dramatically affecting the way we perceive. the way's and how's of it all may also be much more tied to who the witness is - their own previous experiences, the things that led up to this particular sighting, previous perceptions of the content of the stimulus they believe to be seeing - all of this is now becoming a part of the vision or visual experience.

why is it that these objects at a distance appear to have not that much of a startling or long lasting effect on the observer, whereas the closer the object the more profound the experience and more long-lasting and even life-altering the event may prove to be. when it is up close and personal the UAP appears to be more interactive than just looking at a rock.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Walter ,
Agree with the negative energy / feelings which can effect everyone differently and no explanation when they encounter unknown force.

We are talking about a geophysical thing, right? It wasn't a 'feelings' thing.

 

[dmanister]

Burnt State wrote:

"...the final witnessed statement and perception appears to be more of a co-creation between the observer and stimulus, and this is especially evident the closer the person is to the object. even more curious is when multiple people are looking at the same object but are seeing different things or in some cases some people might be seeing nothing at all."

Consciousness cannot be treated as if it were separate from the brains that are receiving information from the outside world.

Dean Radin compared individual minds to television and radio receivers. We may all be partaking of the information in the field mind, but the condition of each receiver is not identical to every other.

Television sets set to the same channel receive the same information, but some sets are HD, some not, their mother boards may be better or worse, a cable box may not be working. You can't determine what is being sent without knowing what the particular tv set can pick up, and whether it is distorting the signal due to some mechanical problem.

Likewise, anyone investigating reports of anomalous phenomena must make some effort to determine the actual physical condition of the instrument that perceived the event. In other words, is the brain in proper working order?

Has the experiencer of an unusual event taken painkillers, sleeping pills, other drugs that can dramatically alter perception? Are they fasting or been on a diet?

The study of claims of alien abductions and sightings will never be taken seriously until persons making the claims are tested under reliable clinical conditions -- given electroencephalograms, blood tests, urinalysis, perception tests, and examined for mental disorders. Few people will submit to such testing, but those that do will help build a base of hard data.

Philosophical musings about co-creations of phenomena and consciousness open new approaches for research, but are too general to be practically useful.

Creative people love anecdotes about alien encounters, but more than creative imaginings are required. To nail down information that might build a sturdy foundation for further research, robust data must be developed about the mental and physical condition of those reporting experience with anomalous phenomena. After all, the anomalies might be their individual brains or nervous systems!

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Yeah and not new wave type of stuff.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I think there is altogether too much awe over consciousness. My position is that we're conscious beings, get over it, learn to use it, it's not necessary to dissect its every molecule to grasp its utility. Not meaning to be provocative, just stating a position. I've sincerely never been amazed by nor particularly interested in the consciousness discussion.

Personally, my experiences point me in directions using natural phenomena, nature itself, synchronicity of facts, details, history, personal events; or other stuff. Because they are intended for me, I've taken them off the table of my public discourse (interviews, books, etc -- Yes I did write/talk about the quarry episode, and the Disneyland stuff from 30+ years ago, but you'll notice I haven't shared anything else but that for about five years). That's because you get more when you say less -- and personal experiences are boring as hell for anyone not close to the relative situation/circumstance.

 

[Burnt State]

Philosophical musings about co-creations of phenomena and consciousness open new approaches for research, but are too general to be practically useful.

Creative people love anecdotes about alien encounters, but more than creative imaginings are required. To nail down information that might build a sturdy foundation for further research, robust data must be developed about the mental and physical condition of those reporting experience with anomalous phenomena. After all, the anomalies might be their individual brains or nervous systems!

In musing further on this point of the value pf co-creation I have to disagree. The After The Paracast commentary from July 26 reminded me of how most of reality is a group created collaborative effort and more than general discussion, we can actually be quite specific about why people see what they see. From one of the many strains of discussion on the Consciousness and Paranormal thread there was a look at a group of people who had no word for the color blue. If I remember correctly blue was just another shade of green for them and so language as a determinant of reality can be quite precise, can be researched, and must be considered as part of what must be an interdisciplinary discussion about the nature of reality. While robust data can be catalogued, keep in mind that for the last 60 odd years or more there has been nothing but robust collections of data and not very much has come of it.

If we look at what current leaders in the field are arguing for, it is about an interdisciplinary approach that is a blending of many fields of study that include language, culture, witness features etc. along with better ways to bring analysis to existing data and more detailed observational practices. In looking at the last two books (anticipating a Wonders in the Sky part ii) by Vallée there is an emphasis on history & culture, an almost anthropological examination of what is being seen as it interacts with time and place, or epoch as he would say. This always returns me to the facts of the UFO sighting as a co-creative experience as we see so particularly from the shifts in what is seen up against the era of the airship wave onwards.

So data can not be enough, as it has proven to date. But perhaps a much more detailed and complex approach to understanding how the very many disciplines that are involved with issues of seeing and knowing collaborate in very precise ways in the social milieu of our times to produce the thing we call the UFO. These are not general preoccupations at all, but are in fact the essence of what shapes our reality. I think we take much for granted when it comes to how these highly complex processes interact with each other. Consider how elaborately detailed the work is of the psychological criminal profiler and the many areas that work touches. These are all critical pieces that participate in what we see, how we see and what we believe we know we saw.

 

[dmanister]

In musing further on this point of the value pf co-creation I have to disagree. The After The Paracast commentary from July 26 reminded me of how most of reality is a group created collaborative effort and more than general discussion, we can actually be quite specific about why people see what they see. From one of the many strains of discussion on the Consciousness and Paranormal thread there was a look at a group of people who had no word for the color blue. If I remember correctly blue was just another shade of green for them and so language as a determinant of reality can be quite precise, can be researched, and must be considered as part of what must be an interdisciplinary discussion about the nature of reality. While robust data can be catalogued, keep in mind that for the last 60 odd years or more there has been nothing but robust collections of data and not very much has come of it.

If we look at what current leaders in the field are arguing for, it is about an interdisciplinary approach that is a blending of many fields of study that include language, culture, witness features etc. along with better ways to bring analysis to existing data and more detailed observational practices. In looking at the last two books (anticipating a Wonders in the Sky part ii) by Vallée there is an emphasis on history & culture, an almost anthropological examination of what is being seen as it interacts with time and place, or epoch as he would say. This always returns me to the facts of the UFO sighting as a co-creative experience as we see so particularly from the shifts in what is seen up against the era of the airship wave onwards.

So data can not be enough, as it has proven to date. But perhaps a much more detailed and complex approach to understanding how the very many disciplines that are involved with issues of seeing and knowing collaborate in very precise ways in the social milieu of our times to produce the thing we call the UFO. These are not general preoccupations at all, but are in fact the essence of what shapes our reality. I think we take much for granted when it comes to how these highly complex processes interact with each other. Consider how elaborately detailed the work is of the psychological criminal profiler and the many areas that work touches. These are all critical pieces that participate in what we see, how we see and what we believe we know we saw.

Robert, so many people have stated the obvious that it seems superfluous to repeat it: the so-called evidence of sightings and abductions are mostly anecdotal.

Apparently many intelligent people investigating anomalous phenomena still consider first-hand reports to be "robust data." They are not.

Anger and resentment because Ufology is not taken seriously by science or government is completely unjustified when the sources of those reports are never examined in such a manner that delusional states are not established, and dismissed. Only evidence that passes this kind of scrutiny can be called data.

Medical personnel and certified psychologists must be involved in examining the physical and mental conditions of people reporting sightings and abductions. Up till now only lay persons have recorded anecdotes. That won't get it done.

You write:

"So data can not be enough, as it has proven to date."

What data? Anecdotes? Recordings of people under hypnosis?

Nobody knows how many of these reports were given by people who were hallucinating due to lack of sleep, being on extended fasting diets, suffering from organic disorders of the visual cortex, or even afflicted by schizoid mental states.

If reports were screened for these and other conditions, the ones that remain would be much more reliable than the anecdotes we have now.

Calling for medical and psychological evidence about people reporting experiences, developed by qualified professionals in clinical settings, is a very unpopular position. It's not as colorful or imaginative as flying into the wild blue yonder of fantasy and speculation.

But so far there is little "hard data" in this field. Seeing may be believing, but only if one is naive.

 

[Burnt State]

Robert, so many people have stated the obvious that it seems superfluous to repeat it: the so-called evidence of sightings and abductions are mostly anecdotal.

Apparently many intelligent people investigating anomalous phenomena still consider first-hand reports to be "robust data." They are not.

Anger and resentment because Ufology is not taken seriously by science or government is completely unjustified when the sources of those reports are never examined in such a manner that delusional states are not established, and dismissed. Only evidence that passes this kind of scrutiny can be called data.

Medical personnel and certified psychologists must be involved in examining the physical and mental conditions of people reporting sightings and abductions. Up till now only lay persons have recorded anecdotes. That won't get it done.

You write:

"So data can not be enough, as it has proven to date."

What data? Anecdotes? Recordings of people under hypnosis?

Nobody knows how many of these reports were given by people who were hallucinating due to lack of sleep, being on extended fasting diets, suffering from organic disorders of the visual cortex, or even afflicted by schizoid mental states.

If reports were screened for these and other conditions, the ones that remain would be much more reliable than the anecdotes we have now.

Calling for medical and psychological evidence about people reporting experiences, developed by qualified professionals in clinical settings, is a very unpopular position. It's not as colorful or imaginative as flying into the wild blue yonder of fantasy and speculation.

But so far there is little "hard data" in this field. Seeing may be believing, but only if one is naive.

I think the issue that separates our discussion is that you are speaking specifically to abductions whereas I was talking about ufo data collection in general which is highly prolific. Not all of it is reducible to mere anecdote as many agencies have taken time to investigate and quantify - they just haven't done much with it. Regarding hard evidence and detailed, rigorous work I think the Canadian ufo annual report by Rutkowski et. al. is quite exceptional and demonstrates the kind of scientific legitimacy that you are looking for. Rutkowski regularly uses those medical professionals you are calling for in his own abduction research. Gotlib, a medical professional from Toronto, did some very interesting work in the 90's though his bulletin only lasted five years. Still, his writing you might find interesting. Isaac Koi recently posted a thread that links to the whole of his research, musings, sardonica and investigations. The kind of general institutional legitimacy you are looking for hasn't been seen since McDonald and look where that got him. I doubt that such work will become universal anytime soon but it you have not looked through the materials from the 2014 GEIPAN conference then you might be missing out on where the current level of studies are at with those seriously invested in the problem.

 

[dmanister]

I think the issue that separates our discussion is that you are speaking specifically to abductions whereas I was talking about ufo data collection in general which is highly prolific. Not all of it is reducible to mere anecdote as many agencies have taken time to investigate and quantify - they just haven't done much with it. Regarding hard evidence and detailed, rigorous work I think the Canadian ufo annual report by Rutkowski et. al. is quite exceptional and demonstrates the kind of scientific legitimacy that you are looking for. Rutkowski regularly uses those medical professionals you are calling for in his own abduction research. Gotlib, a medical professional from Toronto, did some very interesting work in the 90's though his bulletin only lasted five years. Still, his writing you might find interesting. Isaac Koi recently posted a thread that links to the whole of his research, musings, sardonica and investigations. The kind of general institutional legitimacy you are looking for hasn't been seen since McDonald and look where that got him. I doubt that such work will become universal anytime soon but it you have not looked through the materials from the 2014 GEIPAN conference then you might be missing out on where the current level of studies are at with those seriously invested in the problem.

 

[dmanister]

Burnt State wrote:

"I think the issue that separates our discussion is that you are speaking specifically to abductions whereas I was talking about ufo data collection in general which is highly prolific."

However, what I said was:

"Robert, so many people have stated the obvious that it seems superfluous to repeat it: the so-called evidence of sightings and abductions are mostly anecdotal."

Note I included sightings. While a few studies of sightings may contain more rigorous investigation than the usual collection of testimony from witnesses, most depend heavily on reports from witnesses, which are no more reliable than the so-called memories of hypnosis subjects.

If Ufology wants to be taken seriously, it has to get serious with its investigations and stop taking witness accounts as gospel. Neurologists tell us that people frequently believe that experiences they have only heard or read about actually happened to them. And people under hypnosis have been known to cluck when a hypnotist tells them they are a chicken.

 

[dmanister]

Neurologist Dr Oliver Sacks:

"It is startling to realize that some of our most cherished memories may never have happened — or may have happened to someone else. I suspect that many of my enthusiasms and impulses, which seem entirely my own, have arisen from others’ suggestions, which have powerfully influenced me, consciously or unconsciously, and then been forgotten."

Neurologist Oliver Sacks on Memory, Plagiarism, and the Necessary Forgettings of Creativity | Brain Pickings

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt State wrote:

"I think the issue that separates our discussion is that you are speaking specifically to abductions whereas I was talking about ufo data collection in general which is highly prolific."

However, what I said was:

"Robert, so many people have stated the obvious that it seems superfluous to repeat it: the so-called evidence of sightings and abductions are mostly anecdotal."

Note I included sightings. While a few studies of sightings may contain more rigorous investigation than the usual collection of testimony from witnesses, most depend heavily on reports from witnesses, which are no more reliable than the so-called memories of hypnosis subjects.

If Ufology wants to be taken seriously, it has to get serious with its investigations and stop taking witness accounts as gospel. Neurologists tell us that people frequently believe that experiences they have only heard or read about actually happened to them. And people under hypnosis have been known to cluck when a hypnotist tells them they are a chicken.

Forgive me here if this is getting repetitive, but i like clarity. So out of curiosity, as you appear to be even further along the spectrum than myself in critiquing the gap between UFO perception vs. reality, are there any specific cases you would identify that could be excluded from the witness gospel of Ufology that we could use as a measuring tool for future investigation?

And would you also be saying that because all "witness only" experiences (not radar confirmation events) are basically internal and not of much use at all? And then, you would be suggesting, I take it, that the only real cases to be used for study and inquiry would have to be those with multiple points of data confirmation?

This more severe approach is also another interesting thought experiment as you would be left with a small fraction of cases alone with which to study by excluding all witness gospel pieces, as they form the majority of the catalogue. Even Papa Jacques would be dismayed at this approach, no? What we would have left is a psycho-social definition of Ufology basically.

 

[Constance]

The psychosocial hypothesis concerning unidentified aerial phenomena has a long history which is well summarized, with numerous historical citations, in this wikipedia article:

Psychosocial hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of the development of this hypothesis has been accomplished by French and British researchers, the French works no doubt read by Vallee and leading to his proposal of a paranormal 'control system'.

 

[dmanister]

Look, I'm only stating the obvious: there is very little incontrovertible evidence for the presence of visitors from other civilizations. There is a lot of witness testimony that has not been screened for subjective distortion. Invoking the hallowed name of Jacques Vallee will not alter that fact.

I myself had a sighting, so I am not a debunker. Something unexplained occurs. My suggestion that witness testimony be subjected to rigorous scrutiny can only contribute to the credibility of claims of sightings and abductions.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Look, I'm only stating the obvious: there is very little incontrovertible evidence for the presence of visitors from other civilizations. There is a lot of witness testimony that has not been screened for subjective distortion. Invoking the hallowed name of Jacques Vallee will not alter that fact.

I myself had a sighting, so I am not a debunker. Something unexplained occurs. My suggestion that witness testimony be subjected to rigorous scrutiny can only contribute to the credibility of claims of sightings and abductions.

I wish you would consider the MIC and political UFO mythology initiated during the 1947 UFO Wave, and how it affects and effects our thinking and beliefs with Trillions in funding for the MIC and Entertainment Matrix. I say follow the money to understand "the mystery".

Read my recent posts to get a handle on what I'm thinking, and I'm curious what you think about my concerns. I'm very interested in your opinions about my thinking. Please comment. Here's an example:

Most Solid UFO Videos | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

Thanks!

 

[Constance]

Look, I'm only stating the obvious: there is very little incontrovertible evidence for the presence of visitors from other civilizations. There is a lot of witness testimony that has not been screened for subjective distortion. Invoking the hallowed name of Jacques Vallee will not alter that fact.

I myself had a sighting, so I am not a debunker. Something unexplained occurs. My suggestion that witness testimony be subjected to rigorous scrutiny can only contribute to the credibility of claims of sightings and abductions.

I'm not sure you were responding to me there, but I'll go ahead and respond anyway. I see that your approach differs from the standard psychosocial approach in the history of ufo research and also from Vallee's 'control system' theory. I'm not terribly impressed by what I've seen concerning Vallee's theory, and I think it stimulates some bizarre and unfounded speculations about the nature and intentions of the interdimensional beings presumed to constitute the 'control system'. If I'm reading you correctly, your hypothesis is that the perceptive abilities of vast numbers of human beings are drastically unreliable, compromised by one or more of a variety of mental afflictions or psychological conditions, and thus unable to provide accurate descriptions of unidentified aerial phenomena. Moreover, you seem to think that our species chronically fantasizes experiences that they haven't actually had. And it seems you conclude from the above that nearly all witness testimony concerning 'ufos' should be disregarded. Is that correct?

 

[spacebrother]

Where do we put the accounts of people in the military who claimed to have witnessed bodies and crash retrievals? I think that is in a different category than sightings and abductions, since if these things happened as claimed, the witnesses would be more in control of the situation. Do we believe them more or less than the general public's sighting and encounter reports? I really don't know.

 

[Constance]

I wish you would consider the MIC and political UFO mythology initiated during the 1947 UFO Wave, and how it affects and effects our thinking and beliefs with Trillions in funding for the MIC and Entertainment Matrix. I say follow the money to understand "the mystery".

In some situations and subject matters it's good advice to 'follow the money', but you have to do more than that if you want to persuade others that the MIC and the military/governmental PTB were behind the ufo waves of 1947 and 1952 (and earlier WWII sightings including the ufos observed over the Hanford atomic energy plant in 1945). What you're evidently unaware of is the chaos, panic, and indecision into which the military and intelligence leaderships were thrown in 1947 and the general clusterfuck that ensued in their responses to the mass of sightings of unknown aerial phenomena. If you haven't read Keyhoe's, Ruppelt's, and others' reports of what ensued in the Air Force hierarchy, the Pentagon, and the 'intelligence' services in the first five years following 1947, you can get a quick overview by following the links to several of Michael Swords's blogs conveniently assembled in the opening post at this ATS thread:

"Military and Intelligence Sponsored UFO Research: Was Science on the Agenda?", page 1

The first of those links is not specifically informative [it sets the context for the lectures he presented at the 2013 SSE symposium], but the next five summarize the information he provided in those lectures. It's information you need to be aware of in order to see the weakness of the theoretical basis of your hypothesis.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Where do we put the accounts of people in the military who claimed to have witnessed bodies and crash retrievals?

The Aviary, Berliz, Moore, Doty, Freidman, etc. were ALL being used by Master Control aka Air Force OSI manipulation. Memories 30+ years later with the interviewers having a definite agenda to expose ET, and their puppet masters having manipulative unknown motives and reasons that are strictly need to know do NOT add-up to The Truth. IMO, ALL of the witnesses were NEVER in "the need to know" loop. These "follow orders" military witnesses were part of the 1947 PSYOPS left outside the inner sanctum of need to know. AND, many of these people 30+ years later may have become victim to their ego and fame created in their local community of Roswell and/or the military brotherhood that gave them the attention and recognition and money to "play the ET game". Witnesses can be paid off too or warned to play the ET game 30+ years later for patriotic or national security reasons too! That does NOT mean they are telling the truth! The operation was Need to Know in 1978 Roswell Mythology too!

Gabe Valdez saw through the Human ET mist. Humans used ET-UFO's to accomplish their Nuke probes, their cattle dissections, and to create some Alien Fear God Mythology that spun-out of control probably well beyond their wildest UFO dreams in 1947 and 1978+. The MIC and PTB KNOW this is a very powerful psychological weapon just as it has always been throughout history with the Ancient ET Alien Gods. It's all been updated and translated and mythologized into the Trillion dollar MIC and Entertainment Matrix now too. The movie 2001 has to be the grand ET-UFO entrance to this window on our universe. What incredible power it has had on us to this very day! It is mind blowing!

The ET-UFO is real, whether it really is or not. It is the Matrix. The PTB have won beyond their wildest dreams, imo, though it may be a case of be careful what you wish for too!

Does it really matter now what really is "the truth" about this? The truth no longer controls our reality, though I'm sure we never knew the truth to begin with anyway. It's all a matter of belief. The Storytellers rule our lives more than the Ancient Alien ET-UFO Gods do. I must admit I've gotten tremendous SyFy entertainment value from these Mythologies, but there is certainly an MIC and political agenda dark side that cuts very deep into our ET-UFO reality matrix too.

 

[dmanister]

I'm not sure you were responding to me there, but I'll go ahead and respond anyway. I see that your approach differs from the standard psychosocial approach in the history of ufo research and also from Vallee's 'control system' theory. I'm not terribly impressed by what I've seen concerning Vallee's theory, and I think it stimulates some bizarre and unfounded speculations about the nature and intentions of the interdimensional beings presumed to constitute the 'control system'. If I'm reading you correctly, your hypothesis is that the perceptive abilities of vast numbers of human beings are drastically unreliable, compromised by one or more of a variety of mental afflictions or psychological conditions, and thus unable to provide accurate descriptions of unidentified aerial phenomena. Moreover, you seem to think that our species chronically fantasizes experiences that they haven't actually had. And it seems you conclude from the above that nearly all witness testimony concerning 'ufos' should be disregarded. Is that correct?