Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
Strange, I would have pegged your favorite as "UFOs--The Modern Myth" by Donald Menzel.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
New Show Topic: Calling all Skeptics & Part-Time Skeptics
- Thread starter Burnt State
- Start date
Free episodes:
Strange, I would have pegged your favorite as "UFOs--The Modern Myth" by Donald Menzel.
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
Two other noteworthy articles in the same:
Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports - J. Allen Hynek
Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations - James E. McDonald
Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports - J. Allen Hynek
Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations - James E. McDonald
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
Michael, bear in mind that I used to be big-time into this stuff in my younger days. I was probably somewhere between where you stand and where Jeff Davis seems to stand. Any reasonably popular book published before 1997 on the subject of the paranormal and/or UFOs I've probably read (at least large parts of). I've read tons and tons of stuff about cases, experiences, sightings and debunkings. I've personally spoken with people who have had experiences and sightings. I've participated in forums and discussion boards (as they existed back in the day) on the combined subject for years. This isn't my first picnic.
It is precisely because of all of that, in conjunction with my love and appreciation for science, that I've arrived where I am now.
Granted, since 1997, I'm now doing catch up. However, what I'm noticing is that mostly everything newer than that date is reiteration and further sensationalization of already famous cases. The newer cases don't seem to be a whole lot different than the old in terms of data collection, empirical reliability or general coherence.
Don't get me wrong -- I love this stuff. I don't think you could put me in quite the same boat folks like Lance seem to be sailing, whose appreciation for perceived truth develops a disdain for all things nonscientific. I certainly was in that boat, but I decided it wasn't very fun, nor was it honest in regards to my feelings for the aesthetics of the field. I appreciate it as a form of performance mythology (mythology being a very appreopriate word for me to use, and I thank Ufies for it), often wondering if it is a sociological necessity.
I don't come here to debunk or skepti-cate all over people's good time. This particular thread is centered on skepticism, so I participated in such a way. Though, occasionally, I point out instances where I think the lack of scientific approach in a particular case or area of focus represents the main problem the scientific community has with the field and why they don't care enough about it to actively participate (a common complaint in these types of forums).
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
I think the main point is that the alternative hypotheses fail the plausibility test
(note: these are not all mutually exclusive)
- Beings from another dimension
- Beings from our planet who've lived underground
- Beings from another time
- Hoaxes
- Mass Hysteria or Delusion
- All UFOs are really future IFOs that have nothing to do with ET or anything else weird that doesn't fit within our conceptual or scientific framework
- Birth of a new mythology
- Same old human myths cast in modern form
- Some alternate reality created by psyche--i.e. the collective unconscious
- Some alternate reality created by ______________
- Humans live in a computer simulation and some trickster god likes to play with us.
- Why not alien tricksters?
Visitors from another star system nearby (about 15000 systems within 100 light-years distance) wins for the time being--IMO.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
I am a bit of a Sagan mark. Besides, I somewhat organically arrived at his same conclusions as time went on. I feel that article is a good representation of how I feel about it all, not just UFOs.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Oh ya ... you gotta love Sagan. I remember reserving my time on the TV so as not to miss an episode of Cosmos. That spacey music, visual effects and Sagan's voice all combined to form a hypnotic adventure into the mysteries of science from which one could not help but emerge a true believer. By the end of the show he could tell you that the Universe evolved from billions and billions of spores released by the explosion of a great celestial mushroom and you would be involuntarily nodding in utter amazement. Did you know that before he was essentially coerced to tow the party line, Sagan was very interested in UFOs and would actually go out trying to spot them? Yup, Sagan is a much more interesting character in ufology than most people realize.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
Sagan was interested in UFO's, especially early on; what he wasn't into was the idea that they had anything to do with extraterrestrials. He would occasionally engage in thought experiments concerning the issue, but was pretty convinced that UFO's and extraterrestrials were separate subjects.
I am interested in UFO's, though less than i once was, and I occasionally go outside and try to look for strange things in the sky. I believe that people see things related to UFO's that they can't identify within their experience or knowledge. I believe that there are times when these things my be wholly unknown phenomena. I don't believe in alien invaders.
The more I read about UFO experiences -- recently adding to what I had already read thanks to Wikipedia -- the more the differences between instances lead me to believe that UFO sightings fall into three categories:
The first and most common category being simple misidentifications of otherwise known phenomena. Reasons for this could range between an experiencer simply not knowing of the existence of the phenomena in question (as is the case with many rare cloud types and uncommonly seen conventional aircraft exercises) and an experiencer viewing something they would otherwise recognize, but through some atmospheric interference.
The second category being the sighting of unconventional aircraft unknown to the experiencer and/or the general public. These could range from experimental personal aircraft designed and flown by aeronautic inventors to rarely seen and/or classified military test vehicles. Also falling into this category, but not to be confused with anything that falls within the range of the other examples, are experiencers who are witnessing a hoax without knowledge (this includes instances where the hoax is exposed and cases where it is not).
The third category, and the least common/likely in any given case, being the sighting of a natural phenomenon, probably of a localized nature, unknown to science (but not in defiance of known natural laws). I don't put a ton of stock into this idea, but there are some exceptional cases, with localized witnesses reporting essentially the same thing without reasonable likelihood of cross communication, where all other inquiries into the event have failed to yield answers. This doesn't include any instances where a phenomena was seen during a limited scope of time -- it only includes instances where a phenomena is regularly and consistently reported over generations. In the former case, I think experimental personal aircraft and/or hoax work is the most likely culprit. This does include instances where the mind or senses cause hallucinations in ways previously unstudied or unknown in particular environments/situations.
I am interested in UFO's, though less than i once was, and I occasionally go outside and try to look for strange things in the sky. I believe that people see things related to UFO's that they can't identify within their experience or knowledge. I believe that there are times when these things my be wholly unknown phenomena. I don't believe in alien invaders.
The more I read about UFO experiences -- recently adding to what I had already read thanks to Wikipedia -- the more the differences between instances lead me to believe that UFO sightings fall into three categories:
The first and most common category being simple misidentifications of otherwise known phenomena. Reasons for this could range between an experiencer simply not knowing of the existence of the phenomena in question (as is the case with many rare cloud types and uncommonly seen conventional aircraft exercises) and an experiencer viewing something they would otherwise recognize, but through some atmospheric interference.
The second category being the sighting of unconventional aircraft unknown to the experiencer and/or the general public. These could range from experimental personal aircraft designed and flown by aeronautic inventors to rarely seen and/or classified military test vehicles. Also falling into this category, but not to be confused with anything that falls within the range of the other examples, are experiencers who are witnessing a hoax without knowledge (this includes instances where the hoax is exposed and cases where it is not).
The third category, and the least common/likely in any given case, being the sighting of a natural phenomenon, probably of a localized nature, unknown to science (but not in defiance of known natural laws). I don't put a ton of stock into this idea, but there are some exceptional cases, with localized witnesses reporting essentially the same thing without reasonable likelihood of cross communication, where all other inquiries into the event have failed to yield answers. This doesn't include any instances where a phenomena was seen during a limited scope of time -- it only includes instances where a phenomena is regularly and consistently reported over generations. In the former case, I think experimental personal aircraft and/or hoax work is the most likely culprit. This does include instances where the mind or senses cause hallucinations in ways previously unstudied or unknown in particular environments/situations.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Actually, when UFOs first hit the scene and Sagan was going to school, he was very interested in UFOs and the possibility that they represented alien technology. He even wrote a letter to to Dean Acheson, who was Secretary of State at the time, however he was warned off by the scientific establishment, among them Edward Condon who threated to ban Sagan from the Cosmos Club, a prestigious club for his scientific peers. Sagan chose to preserve his scientific career and pursue the matter as an astronomer & exobiologist and became very active in SETI and ... I'm sure you're familiar with the rest ... or are you? He was also among those on the first scientific review panels of the USAF investigations.
Like I said ... a very interesting figure in ufology ...
Last edited:
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
Most people consider those things to be thought experiments early in his career. Though, I am aware from my experiences in unrelated forums, during a discussion revolving around the mythological "deathbed confessions" invented by opposing sides of some arguments, that many UFO buffs run a conspiracy theory that Sagan was a closet UFO/ET believer. Sagan believed that people saw things they couldn't explained, and may see things that science couldn't explain, but, in his adult life, he never had an honest belief that UFO's were the product of extraterrestrial visitation. Engaging others in "what if. . ." scenarios isn't an indicator of belief. Every thinking person does it -- it's interesting. He had the power and access to do it with people of academic and political clout.
The first two paragraphs of the paper I linked to is the explanation that these things are fun, interesting and psychologically satisfying.
The first two paragraphs of the paper I linked to is the explanation that these things are fun, interesting and psychologically satisfying.
dyingsun
Paranormal Adept
Or all of the above.
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
I think that notion is already contained in "these are not mutually exclusive" -- I know a dry and tedious reply, but I had to do it
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
In 1954 Sagan was hardly immature. He was a highly intelligent 20 year old adult who had graduated from the University of Chicago, and he had believed in UFOs enough to personally defend his position to the University, which resulted in his first encounters with anti-ufology elements in the scientific establishment. Consequently Sagan backed off to preserve his career and play the game from the inside. Evidence of this is his later involvement with the Air Force UFO studies where he remained an advocate for scientific study. Although Sagan learned to carefully choose his words, Edward Condon ( of the infamous Condon Report ) still threatened to blacklist Sagan for being to soft on the topic of UFOs.
So when one bothers to do the digging beyond the facade, the evidence is that Sagan's popular skeptical views on UFOs were not the result of his maturity or his "adult life" but a necessary requisite for maintaining his reputation and professional career, which he used as a vehicle to further his interest in alien life under the banners of exobiology and astronomy. More evidence of this can be found in the focus of his scientific work. From Venusian atmospheres ( claimed by contactees to harbor alien life ) to SETI, to the Voyager probes with the gold plaques carrying messages for would be aliens, his entire scientific career and a healthy portion of his creative career was themed around contact with alien life.
The majority of skeptics I've exchanged views on about Sagan had no idea that he had once openly defended the ETH. Nor were they aware of his Top Secret Security clearance with the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. The evidence clearly suggests that Sagan was a fine person and an excellent scientist who made the choice to work the UFO problem from inside the establishment. Learn how to read between the lines and we find Sagan is far from the one dimensional skeptic he's typically promoted as.
Last edited:
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
Well, it would be instructive to look into the differences between the handling of this dilemma--i.e. between J. Allen Hynek and Carl Sagan.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
Like I said, I'm aware of the ins and outs of the Sagan conspiracy. There's no legitimate evidence to suggest that Sagan believed that UFO's were the product of alien visitation beyond word of mouth and the examination of correspondence he had had with certain figures and colleagues that avoids the application of everything he's ever said, ever. Digging just leads one to UFOlogy sites that quote word of mouth and, again, examine correspondence in the way described.
Sagan believed in UFO's, though as he got older -- and we certainly disagree on the intellectual maturity of a 20 year old, regardless of intelligence -- he moved further and further from understanding them as something unknown to accepting the probability that they were almost always likely misidentifications of known phenomena. On the list of possibilities in the "unknown" category were extraterrestrial visitors. Because of that possibility, they were often invited to the "fun to think about" parties he enjoyed having, as explained in the first couple paragraphs in the article I linked to.
The understanding that Sagan was a closet alien-lover requires a tremendous amount of speculation, fact avoidance, and blank filling (reading between the lines, if you will). It requires intentionally misreading the intended meaning and tone of correspondence (some of which you can't read). It requires making up a huge story, for which there is no proof, that lead Sagan to make a completely character-contrary decision. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and not a single UFOlogist who floats this extremely disrespectful rumor around has ever provided any -- "this guy talked to this guy who worked with Sagan and he said this," isn't proof, it's not even evidence, it's TMZ.
Sagan believed in UFO's, though as he got older -- and we certainly disagree on the intellectual maturity of a 20 year old, regardless of intelligence -- he moved further and further from understanding them as something unknown to accepting the probability that they were almost always likely misidentifications of known phenomena. On the list of possibilities in the "unknown" category were extraterrestrial visitors. Because of that possibility, they were often invited to the "fun to think about" parties he enjoyed having, as explained in the first couple paragraphs in the article I linked to.
The understanding that Sagan was a closet alien-lover requires a tremendous amount of speculation, fact avoidance, and blank filling (reading between the lines, if you will). It requires intentionally misreading the intended meaning and tone of correspondence (some of which you can't read). It requires making up a huge story, for which there is no proof, that lead Sagan to make a completely character-contrary decision. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and not a single UFOlogist who floats this extremely disrespectful rumor around has ever provided any -- "this guy talked to this guy who worked with Sagan and he said this," isn't proof, it's not even evidence, it's TMZ.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
The "deathbed confession" is an ugly weapon often used in these types of "wars," and this is just one version of it. Some use them because they believe them, others concoct them because they have very few other weapons in their arsenal. If you can get the otherwise indifferent to believe that Charles Darwin recanted his life's work the day he died, with some language that seems era appropriate, you score some points for your side -- you know those kinds of people can't tell the difference between evidence and word of mouth, and you know they don't really care if they already lean a certain direction.
There's a reason these types of confessionals are never heard from the folks who turn out to be secretly on the more "mainstream" side of these types of arguments. The mainstream side often has the facts, the science and the general truth as their weapons. That's some seriously difficult firepower to overcome. There's no need for underhanded, guerrilla strategy. There's no need to attempt to discredit their opponents with lies, because they've already been dismantling them with facts for decades.
There's a reason these types of confessionals are never heard from the folks who turn out to be secretly on the more "mainstream" side of these types of arguments. The mainstream side often has the facts, the science and the general truth as their weapons. That's some seriously difficult firepower to overcome. There's no need for underhanded, guerrilla strategy. There's no need to attempt to discredit their opponents with lies, because they've already been dismantling them with facts for decades.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
If you think of religion as a sociological necessity, and the ongoing examples of performance mythology we can trace from early scatchings on the cave walls to our modern era of God for Ca$h, self-flagellation, mutation, harems, door to door Jehovah peddling, alien death cults and Scientology, then UFO belief systems cerainly seem play similar roles in our society.
To clarify for Ufologys sake, I would also say that the witness reports are like gospels and Jerome Clark is this field's living gospel writer. Just as much as you enjoy the fun part, the aesthetics of the field are as involved as being a scholar of the Koran or the Torah. Some for example, are only old testament Hynek students. When the collective begins to believe in that which is inexplicable, there are a range of organizing consequences, the way that skeptics have skeptical conferences and no one comes out to challenge their need for dry explanations.
The "experience" carries its own fervor, like watching magic without the aid of curtains. It seems to happen "right before your eyes" and you are stoned dumb in awe and wonder. I think that feeling comes close to the sensation of spiritual passions, and it wouldn't surprise me to know that feeling your god's ecstasy was the same as watching a spaceship dematerialize right in front of you. Different beliefs conjure up different realities for everyone, even when we are looking at the same thing. You say hallucination, and I say tomat-o.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
Mostly, I meant biological response to things like infrasound, which cause experiencers to see, feel and hear things that aren't there -- including emotional output.
A paper covering a scientist's experience
I should clarify that this paper is not in a scientific journal. But, it does reference an original paper, which I am looking for.
Edit: My bad, that actually is a peer-reviewed journal. I am still looking for a couple related papers I know of. There are several "societies" by that name, and I didn't realize that this was the "good" one.
Michael Allen
Paranormal Adept
I wonder if any infrasound measurements were taken at the infamous Skinwalker Ranch.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Hmmm...I was looking for something more meaty. This article suggests things like smearing of vision and possible shadowy shapes. When you consider that fear can induce such experiences it seems like a very plausible explanation for that whole world of ghosts, seeing "shadow people" and similar, suspcious ephemera frequently glanced in dark bedrooms following nightmares.
I wonder if other ecstatic, emotionalbexperiences would also produce smeared spirit imagery for characters like Joan of Arc?
However, what I'm more interested in are the full blown hallucinations, contrasting visual reports, where reality alters for participants of more visually exciting experiences such as alien creatures manifesting out of humming stones, miniature leprechauns dancing in a line through a wall etc. - you know, things that remind me of the time when as a feverish child I saw a fiery, neon, dancing Chinese dragon in my parents' bedroom while they stared jaws agape at a blank wall.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
I've had two, possibly three depending on how you classify these things, experiences that I understand to have been hallucinations. One, or two, are remembered by my mom, independently of me. These involve visions of alien creatures, though one was most likely a misidentified baby bird. The other involves the pulsating wall of a pueblo church during a summer trip to my Grandparents' in New Mexico. The later I've never asked about, so I kind of think this one may have been a dream i had immediately following the trip to a reservation on said trip, possibly even in the car on the way home, and my stupid five or six year old brain translated it as part of the reality of the trip.
One of these was caused by fear.
I posted it in the experiences section: Childhood Hallucination | The Paracast Community Forums
One of these was caused by fear.
I posted it in the experiences section: Childhood Hallucination | The Paracast Community Forums