October 28, 2012 — Gene and Chris Talk Shop

[Randall]

I understand. What I mean (my understanding) is that say for instance Chris had been suspecting ETH (UFOs) as being maybe responsible for cattle mutilations - well then after the weird second yellow chopper incident, it became more reasonable to suspect something even weirder than UFOs might be behind 'it all'.
The chopper was first seen right above where a mutilation took place. Initially someone could maybe think it was the strange government involvement suspected, so the mutilation could have been carried out by a UFO and then investigated by some agency using an old chopper (strange choice of chopper). So at that point 13 years before Chris saw it, there wasn't anything really to go by to really think this or that explanation might fit in the case of that mutilation. But when the incident happened 13 years later, same yellow vintage chopper, just when he was thinking about that very case - well I think his eyes were opened in some kind of epiphany and it was more a case of, he had no firm explanation initially and after the second chopper event, the UFO explanation seemed less likely than some other stranger event?

It's hard to convey my reasoning here. And of course I am supposing on behalf of someone else, but maybe his response to why he backed off the ETH was not actually solely due to this event and his answer has muddled his own thoughts a little but it makes sense to me (maybe I'm mad).

Ok, try this one. Forget yellow choppers and mutilations. An investigator into UFOs who believes the ETH is the most likely explanation for UFOs is carrying out an investigation into a UFO sighting 10 years ago, which has a very notable high strangeness aspect to it. This high strangeness aspect is so unique as to be something you would totally notice, should it ever occur again. While thinking about that case from ten years ago, a second incident occurs to the investigator that mirrors the one he is investigation. So now there have been two times when this extremely unique and strange aspect occurs. It is so synchronistic and weird that it causes the investigator to now not put as much faith in the ETH but start to look elsewhere for other explanations that could be far, far weirder than the UFO explanation.

So yes epiphany, but bad direct answer to the question of why back off from ETH?

Does that makes sense? I mean, the chopper is irrelevant really. It could have been any unique event that occurred only a second time when someone is investigation the first event, leading the investigator to think there must be some trickster element to the whole thing.

You're reaching pretty hard there Goggs. I don't deal with what people might mean if we maybe interpret it a certain way that fits our scenario. I deal with what was actually said. Chris' answer simply doesn't provide any meaningful rationale for stepping back from the ETH. And please don't get me wrong here. Like I said in my last post to Chris, we're not adversaries, so let's hash it out and arrive at a common understanding. We all stand to gain something from that I think.

 

[Apocalypto]

Chris, you tend to change your avatar a lot, and they're always very cool. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.

 

[Randall]

Couldn't have stated it better! Of course, almost 20 years later, I wonder if all this time, effort, energy and treasure expenditure I've spent trying to figure (at least some of it) out has been worth it.... hmmm maybe yes, but still kicking that can around...

Keep on kicking Chris because whether or not it's worth it or not is no longer relevant. It's too late to barf up the red pill. You can't get agent Smith to reinsert you back into the Matrix.

OK now ... speaking of "kicking the can along" ...

Or they were just old helicopters ... either way the ETH remains unaffected ( See this post ).

Whatever... you don't get that I get that...oh well...

If you get that then why did you link your helicopter sighting to the ETH?

Still waiting ... We're not adversaries here ... Let's hash it out and come to some common understanding on this issue.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

The chopper incident could have due to:
—An antique whirlybird that shows up coincidentally 13 years apart
—ETs monitoring the ranch and subsequently me
—The government monitoring the ranch and me
—Some other paranormal-esque causal factor, i.e., a trickster mechanism
—Some kind of hallucination shared by five other people

If I had to pick one of those, ETs would be at the bottom of the list, therefore the event seemed to push me away from the ETH.
Simple, direct and to the point enough for you? I'm not in the mood to argue w/ you over this. It happened, and I had my gut reaction to it. Simple... I'm not saying I'm right but that's how it impacted my thinking...Something else was/is going on. Could it be all these craft and other unexplained phenomena be ETs? Sure... Could it be due to something else, sure...

 

[Double Nought Spy]

 

[nameless]

Chris, you tend to change your avatar a lot, and they're always very cool. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.

yeah chris digging the Alex Grey

 

[Randall]

The chopper incident could have due to:
—An antique whirlybird that shows up coincidentally 13 years apart
—ETs monitoring the ranch and subsequently me
—The government monitoring the ranch and me
—Some other paranormal-esque causal factor, i.e., a trickster mechanism
—Some kind of hallucination shared by five other people

If I had to pick one of those, ETs would be at the bottom of the list, therefore the event seemed to push me away from the ETH.
Simple, direct and to the point enough for you? I'm not in the mood to argue w/ you over this. It happened, and I had my gut reaction to it. Simple... I'm not saying I'm right but that's how it impacted my thinking...Something else was/is going on. Could it be all these craft and other unexplained phenomena be ETs? Sure... Could it be due to something else, sure...

Thank you for responding Chris. Like I said before, we're not adversaries here. This is a friendly discussion that involves clarifying the issue and weighing the reasons for and against a given hypothesis. I'm sure you can appreciate that. What I'm seeing from your answer above is a disconnect between the context of the issue and your specific example. So this may be as simple as a communication / interpretation issue. Let's start there:

1. Are you saying that your answer to why you stepped back from the ETH was only in the context of cattle mutilations, e.g. "I don't think UFOs fully explain cattle mutilations and therefore the cattle mutilation phenomenon is "infinitely more complex that the ETH." ? If so then apart from a bit of exaggeration, I can see where you are coming from and we can write this off as a communication issue because of the way the context of the question came across on the show. If not then we've still got a problem because:

• The ETH ( Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ) originated as a theory for the origin of UFOs and has remained so since the beginning of the Modern Era in Ufology.
• UFOs are objects usually seen in the sky that don't conform to any known manmade or natural phenomenon including aircraft, and commonly meant to convey the idea of an alien craft.
• Helicopters are manmade aircraft, therefore they are not UFOs, therefore the ETH has nothing to do with them, and therefore your helicopter example isn't relevant to the question.

If my logic above fails, please identify where you think we're having the problem.

 

[mike]

I think helicopters can be part of the UFO description under certain circumstances

I once had a balck helicopter no markings circle my house 3 times at roof top height so close i could see the rivets on the body, the pilot was dressed in black wearing one of those black bug eyed helmet/visor things, and not one looked at me, just straight ahead.
My property is quite long but only 26 meters wide, as are the blocks either side of me, this craft didnt stray outside the blocks either side, so it was a tight circle of 30 odd meters or so

It just came up out the valley in front, buzzed the house and left

 

[Double Nought Spy]

I've had my own helicopter encounters, though not so dramatic as that. They were persistent pests, though, during the time I was exploring the paranormal by "pushing back" a bit. One of them seemed awfully interested in the house of a distant relative during that time, while I was visiting there. The relative had been employed by a giant military contractor for decades, and seemed to think the helicopter circling his house at close range was a very strange event. I was actually starting to get used to the noise, but pretended to be as surprised as my host. Not long after that, my helicopter "sightings" stopped as abruptly as they had started.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...please identify where you think we're having the problem.

The fact that the visit to the ranch hit by a mutilation case involved an antique whirlybird appearing 13 years apart may be clouding your view of my thinking. It doesn't make sense at all (that's an understatement) that a salt-of-the-earth ranching family in the San Luis Valley witnessed a mundane, but albeit, an unusual aerial object and then a similar craft craft flew over my house 13 years later. That's all I'm saying. The mute is peripheral to the chopper IMO. Go ahead, explain it w/ the ETH or ANY other possible theory/explanation! The whole thing is right out of a Twilight Zone episode, and I admit: it has immeasurably impacted my thinking about UFOs, the paranormal and knee-jerk definitions that fail to explain the inexplicability of synchronistic events...

 

[Randall]

I think helicopters can be part of the UFO description under certain circumstances

I once had a balck helicopter no markings circle my house 3 times at roof top height so close i could see the rivets on the body, the pilot was dressed in black wearing one of those black bug eyed helmet/visor things, and not one looked at me, just straight ahead.
My property is quite long but only 26 meters wide, as are the blocks either side of me, this craft didnt stray outside the blocks either side, so it was a tight circle of 30 odd meters or so

It just came up out the valley in front, buzzed the house and left

I've had strange helicopter sightings as well. Fairly recently too. But helicopters aren't UFOs, we do not report helicopters as UFOs, and the ETH is a theory for the origin of UFOs, not helicopters. A possible exception would be if the helicopter observed exhibited some behavior that would provide you with sufficient reason to think it was an alien craft and not just a helicopter e.g. if you watched it morph into flying saucer and instantly streak away. Then we could propose that it had been a UFO all along and was using some sort of camouflage to make it appear to be a helicopter. That being said, some helicopters might be operated by some agency connected with the investigation of UFOs or the monitoring of UFO interest groups. Every once in a while I get one hovering nearby. Recently I had an odd Bell unit with some kind of surveillance dome under it hovering near my house. I got out my binoculars and had a real close look. No markings, two human pilots, and within a minute of me training the binoculars on them they turned away and flew off in the opposite direction. Weird? Yes. Does it have anything to do with the ETH? No.

 

[Randall]

The fact that the visit to the ranch hit by a mutilation case involved an antique whirlybird appearing 13 years apart may be clouding your view of my thinking. It doesn't make sense at all (that's an understatement) that a salt-of-the-earth ranching family in the San Luis Valley witnessed a mundane, but albeit, an unusual aerial object and then a similar craft craft flew over my house 13 years later. That's all I'm saying. The mute is peripheral to the chopper IMO. Go ahead, explain it w/ the ETH or ANY other possible theory/explanation! The whole thing is right out of a Twilight Zone episode, and I admit: it has immeasurably impacted my thinking about UFOs, the paranormal and knee-jerk definitions that fail to explain the inexplicability of synchronistic events...

Thanks again Chris. I think that perhaps I may see where the problem is. If true, it's a very interesting example of how context makes all the difference. The context of the overall question was not specific:

Chris, even as someone who seems to have had an interest in the paranormal long before becoming a paranormal investigator, how has your view on the world around you changed since you started investgating cases?

Because the context of the bigger question was not specific it allowed for the possibility of two separate contexts:

1. Discussion of the ETH in the context of the origin of UFOs ( the usual context ).
2. Discussion of the ETH in the context of ufology ( the field as a whole ) and/or the paranormal in general.

If you were answering the question about the ETH from the perspective of ufology as a whole or even the paranormal in general, rather than specifically the origin of UFOs, then everything you are saying makes perfect sense. It's not normal to use it in this context, but this is one of those interesting exceptions where your continued participation, and the comments of others in the discussion leads me to believe that this second context is where you're coming from. To be more specific, I completely agree that the topic of ufology and/or the paranormal in general is far more complex than the classic ETH can explain. It involves many interlocking elements including the kind of strange experiences you and many other people have had ( weird helicopters and more ). However when we consider the ETH in its usual context, and the one I'm used to dealing with in ufology, then everything I've been saying also makes perfect sense.

If the above is what's been going on here, then I suggest that when we find ourselves discussions ( with whomever ) about the ETH, that we preface it by identifying which context the discussion is in ( the paranormal at large or where UFOs come from ). In this example we are discussing cattle mutilations, and that is certainly a topic in ufology studies and the paranormal at large. Is the ETH the best explanation for all cattle mutilation cases? I don't think we can draw that conclusion with any certainty, and your helicopter sighting makes it even weirder. Does that example have anything to do with where UFOs come from? No. But isn't that what the ETH is about? Yes. See where it diverges? To put this into a single sentence:

As a paranormal researcher you were once focused heavily on UFOs and the ETH made sense, but over time, after looking at the bigger picture, you've taken a step back and the ETH has become only one facet of one aspect of a larger tapestry.

Is the above a fair statement?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

As a paranormal researcher you were once focused heavily on UFOs and the ETH made sense, but over time, after looking at the bigger picture, you've taken a step back and the ETH has become only one facet of one aspect of a larger tapestry. Is the above a fair statement?

No. I was like most people and assumed that ETs must be behind most UFOs, cattle mutes, abductions and possibly other so-called unexplained, even paranormal events. After two weeks of basic journalistic research into historical reports and documentation of unexplained events in the San Luis Valley— topped off w/ the yellow chopper incident—I became firmly convinced that there is something far more complicated and bewildering behind many (if not most) of these reports.

 

[Randall]

No. I was like most people and assumed that ETs must be behind most UFOs, cattle mutes, abductions and possibly other so-called unexplained, even paranormal events. After two weeks of basic journalistic research into historical reports and documentation of unexplained events in the San Luis Valley— topped off w/ the yellow chopper incident—I became firmly convinced that there is something far more complicated and bewildering behind many (if not most) of these reports.

( Updated & Reposted )

Now we're saying essentially the same thing, only in slightly different ways, and your position has become quite clear. By applying the ETH, ( a ufology term ), to the bigger picture, including, "cattle mutes, abductions and possibly other so-called unexplained, even paranormal events", you've concluded that the ETH is insufficient to explain all facets of the various phenomena. On that we agree. Where we have the problem is in the context of usage. The "ETH", is a ufological reference with an origin that can be traced all the way back to the 1950s, even earlier if we want to use other terms besides "UFOs". But whatever you choose, it is a theory to explain the origin of UFOs, not other paranormal phenomena. So the question becomes one of whether or not your example constitutes appropriate usage.

It could be claimed that you've co-opted the term "ETH" for use in "paranormal research". However because you've kindly taken the time to explain your position, it's afforded me the opportunity to examine and reflect on your position in some detail, and I believe that the term can be applied to paranormal research in general provided that it's prefaced by making that context. clear, e.g. "Speaking as a paranormal researcher, and not with respect to UFOs in particular, I think the ETH is woefully inadequate. For example I once saw an antique yellow helicopter ...". Failing to clarify your context to those who aren't familiar with your work will only invite further confusion and criticism from ufologists who use the term the way it was meant to be used in the first place.

Now I'm sure there are those out there who may question my evaluation, and ask what gives me the right to decide what's appropriate and what's not. To this I'll respond that anyone has the right to make their case, and not all cases are as good as others. Quite simply, mine is better supported. Why? This isn't a case of mere opinion or appropriateness based on the popular vote. The objective evidence in the literature and historical records is that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ( ETH ) is a well established ufological term used to identify a particular theory for the origin of UFOs. Co-opting it for usage in whatever other manner one wants cannot be rationally supported. Therefore applying it to paranormal research in general without providing context is simply not appropriate. If you believe that my evaluation is in error, then I invite you to provide objective and rational reasons. Until then, adopting the approach of providing proper context when it is used outside ufology will help to assure the quality of future presentations.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Carl Sagan on Unidentified Flying Objects ( 1963 )

"The principal interest in these objects stems from
the speculation that some of them are of intelligent
extraterrestrial origin, and from the psychological
insights into contemporary human problems which
this interpretation provides."

Source: NARA Archives.

Hermann Oberth - Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World ( 1954 )

"It is my thesis that flying saucers are real and that they are space ships
from another solar system."

Source: Milwaukee Sentinel October 24, 1954

The Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis - Condon Report ( 1968 )

"The idea that some UFOs may be spacecraft sent to Earth from another
civilization, residing on another planet of the solar system, or on a planet
associated with a more distant star than the Sun, is called the
Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH)."

Source: Scientific Study Of Unidentified Flying Objects - University of Colorado, 1968

 

[Polterwurst]

Black Forest lights

Turns out that Chris was right about the Black Forest being at least an area of interest.

I'm not talking about the alleged UFO crash of 1936, though. That all seems to be a matter of one writer happily rehashing another writer's story without bothering to look into the claims first. You get author names like the german „Jan van Helsing“ (pseudonym), a known charlatan and right-wing esoteric who tries to sell the crash and the subsequent preoccupation of the nazis with flying saucers and aliens as THE TRUTH, and you instantly should be sceptic.

But more prolific writers like Timothy Good also don't seem to shy away from mere speculation once or twice (which this whole nazi saucer stuff is IMO). The more sober (but not debunker) sites seem to agree that the Black Forest UFO crash story was originally a hoax by a french ufology author who planted it deliberately to see how many other authors would look into the story before using it in their own books and presenting it as credible. Seems to me he made a point there. From there, the hoax went on to become part of the nazi saucer myth (probably in connection with some actual plans the nazis had to build a streamlined disc-shaped plane to gain air superiority - but which had nothing at all to do with crashed aliens).

Problem is, you get all sorts of right-wing extremist esoteric crap when you start digging there. And if I'd start asking questions – say in Black Forest related forums - I'd be labeled an esoteric at best and a neonazi at worst. So I'm not going there.

What I personally find much more interesting, though, is that the southern part of the Black Forest seems to have it's own mystery lights. Here are some fotos (which can be enlarged by clicking on them): Forum Grenzwissenschaften und Kornkreise » Saier

...and a rough translation of a short part of the accompanying text:

Since the early 1970s, Manfred Saier of Waldkirch has been documenting light phenomena over the southern Black Forest area. Some of these fotos are more than 30 years old. The phenomena can be observed to this day and nowadays he is recording them on digital foto and video equipment. The objects have been described by him and several other witnesses as balls of light, appearing abruptly, changing shape and often their trajectory from one moment to the other before disappearing again just as suddenly.

...which seems a bit of an understatement, because some of these lights seem to perform real light shows (as is mentioned in the text earlier, for example, the fotos in which there seem to be two lights flying around are not an optical illusion or reflection but really two separate light objects connected by a thin veil of light that seemed to maneuver simultaneusly).

Unfortunately, I couldn't find much of the digital footage mentioned, only this rather bad video of, well, something glowing (I wish he'd zoom out once or twice so that the horizon or some trees or something around the object could be seen, but unfortunately, he doesn't seem to think of it).

Well, not too much, I know, but I guess a vacation in the Black Forest is much more affordable for me than a trip to Hessdalen (or Knittelfeld in Austria, where similar phenomena seem to take place), although I'd really like to go there, too, (not to mention the American mystery lights places). At least we do have our own mystery lights, so that's something I could look into.

So, thanks again, paracast.