Origin of the Phenomena

[Trajanus]

That is possible. It is also possible that its like David Adair's story; the government may have something but can't make heads or tails of it. I could see where something like that might serve as an inspiration but the likelihood of actually back-engineering it seems remote.

Sure they may not have backengineered it. But available material would at least permit a definitive resolution of the UFO enigma--in this case, that it is real, physical, technological and ET.

---------- Post added at 07:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------

They couldn't cover up the fact that a president received oral sex in the oval office, nor could they hide that there turned out to be no WMD's in Iraq, and they had strong incentive for those.

The problem is that lewinski and saddam, respectively, could contradict the official version; so could UK and other researchers. In contrast, the aliens, for whatever reasons, don't "pull the rug out from underneath" government deniers/debunkers.

My thinking is that if something as profound as an ET crash occurred, that the gov't would have done an even worse job of covering it up, and there would be more concrete physical evidence.

No I don't think so. Witnesses recall how every bit of stuff was taken, and they were threatened.

Or, alternatively, that alien pilots would be more adept at flying their highly advanced craft.

Our own progress hasn't ended accidents.

If they're abducting people on a large scale in collusion with the government agencies, then they're either doing a really bad job of covering this up (in that there are so many cases that we can talk about) or a really good job (in that the physical evidence is specious at best). Guess it depends on perspective. I'm glad that you brought up Ultra because I think that's the paradigm that's been grafted onto the UFO phenomenon in our thinking, especially is you believe in the abduction phenomenon. Even then, government incompetency in destroying/hiding evidence was a big part of the reason that Ultra was fully revealed.

It wasn't revealed until '75, or 30 years after any real reason for keeping it secret had ended which IMO attests to their ability to hide stuff if they really want to.

 

[RJHark00]

In contrast, the aliens, for whatever reasons, don't "pull the rug out from underneath" government deniers/debunkers.

I'm interested in this...How do you mean?

No I don't think so. Witnesses recall how every bit of stuff was taken, and they were threatened.

And this is where I run into issues with some ufologists. I would not impugn very many witnesses and because I believe most people are generally honest, but we must accept that when we invoke witnesses in the absence of any physical proof that it essentially becomes a faith statement. We believe what these people say because they seem to speak with conviction and because what they say makes sense, not because they give us physical proof of their claims. This is different from what we *know*

Once many years ago, a group of people believed that something supernatural had happened to a poor Jewish woodworker because people who were allegedly witnesses to the event told them that it happened, and they had faith in their testimony. So at least thirty years after this event, they began recording these accounts in sometimes contradictory and always partial versions about what happened, and they were persecuted because their worldview was considered seditious and they offered no other substantial proof. It happened 2000+ years ago so, for some people, the antiquity of the tradition is partial proof of their claims, but this does not change the fact that it is still essentially a faith statement. Witnesses are only a piece of the puzzle, no matter how many of them there are.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, my point was only to distinguish faith from empirical fact. Both are okay, let's just not conflate the two. As for physical evidence of all these crashes, I can allow that it may be hidden somewhere (the warehouse in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?"). I don't know anything for sure, but it strains reason.

Our own progress hasn't ended accidents.

No, and it never will. But there has to be something more going on here with these crash reports and soil samples; there seem to have been a lot of them in the West, and the U.S. particularly, in the past 100+ years.

 

[bbridges]

.And why in the hell is it that we as a species appear to be subservient to the agenda of the damnable unconscious?

That may be the most profound and important question/conundrum of our sentient existence. Freud and Jung were brought to their knees exploring the possibilities. Is it possible to 'map' the territory of the subconscious (Freud)? Or decipher its language(Jung)? Eastern religions have focussed inward and produced symbolic maps of inner 'places' or states' individually encountered but common to all inner 'travelers'. The impetus for it all is the same damnable question you posed.

 

[Trajanus]

I'm interested in this...How do you mean?

I meant that the government is lucky that aliens don't land on the white house lawn i.e. for whatever reasons of their own, they don't undermine government secrecy--in contrast to people who contradict the government's version with regard to WMD etc.

And this is where I run into issues with some ufologists. I would not impugn very many witnesses and because I believe most people are generally honest, but we must accept that when we invoke witnesses in the absence of any physical proof that it essentially becomes a faith statement. We believe what these people say because they seem to speak with conviction and because what they say makes sense, not because they give us physical proof of their claims. This is different from what we *know*

Well, testimony does count for something in a court of law.

Once many years ago, a group of people believed that something supernatural had happened to a poor Jewish woodworker because people who were allegedly witnesses to the event told them that it happened, and they had faith in their testimony. So at least thirty years after this event,

I think Paul wrote about it 25 years later, in the fifties of the first century.

they began recording these accounts in sometimes contradictory and always partial versions about what happened, and they were persecuted because their worldview was considered seditious and they offered no other substantial proof. It happened 2000+ years ago so, for some people, the antiquity of the tradition is partial proof of their claims, but this does not change the fact that it is still essentially a faith statement. Witnesses are only a piece of the puzzle, no matter how many of them there are.

OK but you can't compare the testimony of uneducated galileans with that of e.g. a base intelligence officer. Also, whereas we have at best second or third hand testimony for the resurrection, marcel's is first hand.

No, and it never will. But there has to be something more going on here with these crash reports and soil samples; there seem to have been a lot of them in the West, and the U.S. particularly, in the past 100+ years.

I wouldn't say a lot of actual ones as opposed to claims or reports.

 

[RJHark00]

Well, testimony does count for something in a court of law.

Under certain circumstances and in a legal context, first-hand testimony does count, but second- and third-hand testimony is considered hearsay. Under those standards almost all Roswell testimony would be inadmissible. You refer to Marcel's 1978 interview, which we can count as first had testimony of something, but let's not take it too far and suggest that it validates second- and third-hand testimony.

I think Paul wrote about it 25 years later, in the fifties of the first century.

Was speaking of the various gospels, none of which are attributed to Paul and none of which scholars believe predates 60 CE.

OK but you can't compare the testimony of uneducated galileans with that of e.g. a base intelligence officer. Also, whereas we have at best second or third hand testimony for the resurrection, marcel's is first hand.

Hey, why not? The claims are very different but from the perspective of attestation, testimony, and a nascent belief system, the paradigm is really not that different: a core narrative developed from various and sometimes conflicting sources, a group of believers who believe in the stories of unimpeachable witnesses to the scorn of the masses, and the development of several versions of "the truth" as decided by different groups of believers. It may have happened a long time ago to a lot of people with little or no formal schooling, but that in and of itself does not mean it did not happen like they say.

I'm not saying that nothing happened at Roswell, just that it's important to be critical of sources and their memories when that's all we have. Anyone who cannot admit that a lot of what's claimed about Roswell reflects post-facto embellishment and commercialization is just toe-ing the party line of the guys who get onto the History Channel. I want to believe too.

I meant that the government is lucky that aliens don't land on the white house lawn i.e. for whatever reasons of their own, they don't undermine government secrecy

Some would say that religion debunkers are lucky that God doesn't appear from the clouds and announce that the people who laugh at them are toast. Alas, for whatever reasons of God's own that we cannot begin to understand, this hasn't happened so the other people keep holding us down. It just seems like circular-reasoning. Not trying to be a jerk, just wondering how to separate signal from noise.

 

[Ivette]

Trainedobserver, tkyou, I will read it. I am surprised to hear its all a myth (yes I meant the brain, excuse my English).

---------- Post added 03-06-2011 at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-05-2011 at 11:44 PM ----------

I am not pessimistic, for I am the one here that has had many UFO experiences. In other words, we will come up with many conclusions. And one of them is a Divine Power, all you scientists can not think of how can there be and omnipresent being. How? Think of It as a C.E.O. of a very large Company. What does He needs: Assistances. I commented to Traindobserver that I had seen a blue floating orb. So I have been looking and reading many different stories about this other phenomena, and I was surprised to find out how common it is. I am just being very open minded here. Scientists for one, do have many paradigms. I Don/t feel embarressed to mention it. Analize it like any other conclusion.

 

[Trajanus]

Under certain circumstances and in a legal context, first-hand testimony does count, but second- and third-hand testimony is considered hearsay. Under those standards almost all Roswell testimony would be inadmissible. You refer to Marcel's 1978 interview, which we can count as first had testimony of something, but let's not take it too far and suggest that it validates second- and third-hand testimony.

It wasn't the only first hand testimony, of something very strange.

Was speaking of the various gospels, none of which are attributed to Paul and none of which scholars believe predates 60 CE.

But Paul did mention the resurrection.

Hey, why not? The claims are very different but from the perspective of attestation, testimony, and a nascent belief system, the paradigm is really not that different: a core narrative developed from various and sometimes conflicting sources, a group of believers who believe in the stories of unimpeachable witnesses to the scorn of the masses, and the development of several versions of "the truth" as decided by different groups of believers. It may have happened a long time ago to a lot of people with little or no formal schooling, but that in and of itself does not mean it did not happen like they say.

IMO a base intelligence officer is far more credible than a dozen uneducated people living in a prescientific age. There's no first hand testimony at all.

I'm not saying that nothing happened at Roswell, just that it's important to be critical of sources and their memories when that's all we have. Anyone who cannot admit that a lot of what's claimed about Roswell reflects post-facto embellishment and commercialization is just toe-ing the party line of the guys who get onto the History Channel. I want to believe too.

Sure it's obvious that some of the testimony is no good; Kaufmann for example lost credibility. KDR has no problem rejecting some sources and stories but noted that a solid core of credible testimony remains.

Some would say that religion debunkers are lucky that God doesn't appear from the clouds and announce that the people who laugh at them are toast. Alas, for whatever reasons of God's own that we cannot begin to understand, this hasn't happened so the other people keep holding us down. It just seems like circular-reasoning. Not trying to be a jerk, just wondering how to separate signal from noise.

Unlike "god" the UFO phenomenon is very empirical. There's all kinds of evidence; it's just that there's no definitive proof, as far as laymen know.

 

[tyder001]

RJHark00 you make good points. It's always amazed me how some folks can ridcule religion (No, I'm not a fundi and I also don't hate religion) but yet parrot hearsay as if it's the "gospel" (pun intended) when it suits the purpose of mork from ork or whatever they "think" these so called aliens are.

 

[RJHark00]

I am just being very open minded here

You have to be when thinking about this stuff!

It wasn't the only first hand testimony, of something very strange.

How does "something strange" make ETH, Randle's stuff, Friedman's stuff, massive government cover-up, etc. all "true" to the exclusion of other possibilities unless you take all of the testimony and "evidence" as a matter of faith? It's ok to believe whatever you're convinced by, just recognize the limitations of your source material. For such a massive event as Roswell was, these are substantial limitations.

But Paul did mention the resurrection.

Yes, but my point was to show how multiple, parallel sources in a historicized genre (gospels) may describe the same event (e.g. the last words of Jesus, or the nativity of Jesus) in contradictory terms, yet all make it into the accepted core narrative.

There's no first hand testimony at all.

Several sources purport to be first hand accounts. They probably aren't, but I'm not trying to defend the historical validity of their claims - I'm trying to reinforce the idea that testimony, by itself and without physical corroboration, is a sticky issue. This is no different for religious systems than it is for UFO's.

Unlike "god" the UFO phenomenon is very empirical.

Not even sure what to do with this one; I guess I'll let it be.

There's all kinds of evidence; it's just that there's no definitive proof, as far as laymen know.

The circular reasoning built in again. We need new ideas about what UFO's may be and where they come from or it just goes round and round and round.

 

[Trajanus]

How does "something strange" make ETH, Randle's stuff, Friedman's stuff, massive government cover-up, etc. all "true" to the exclusion of other possibilities unless you take all of the testimony and "evidence" as a matter of faith?

It's not just reports of highly exotic material from a number of witnesses, and a press release from the military; all "other possibilities" have been investigated and just don't fit. Even mogul lacks documentation which places it at the Foster ranch at the relevant time.

Yes, but my point was to show how multiple, parallel sources in a historicized genre (gospels) may describe the same event (e.g. the last words of Jesus, or the nativity of Jesus) in contradictory terms, yet all make it into the accepted core narrative.

I don't think that's true of Roswell. There may be uncertainties regarding dates and so forth, but (once the phonies are excluded) not outright contradictions.

Several sources purport to be first hand accounts. They probably aren't, but I'm not trying to defend the historical validity of their claims - I'm trying to reinforce the idea that testimony, by itself and without physical corroboration, is a sticky issue. This is no different for religious systems than it is for UFO's.

We can be pretty sure that whoever wrote the "gospel of john" was not among the original 12. The gospels can't be taken seriously as witness testimony. But nobody doubts that Marcel sr and jr were there, along with a host of others.

The circular reasoning built in again. We need new ideas about what UFO's may be and where they come from or it just goes round and round and round.

I don't think we need new ideas, just recognition that the phenomenon can be deceptive. I notice that the lack of conclusive proof is often used as an argument against the ETH i.e. while all hypotheses are unproven, the ETH is singled out. Where is the physical proof of some goblin or demon, or extradimensional being?

 

[tyder001]

I don't think we need new ideas, just recognition that the phenomenon can be deceptive. I notice that the lack of conclusive proof is often used as an argument against the ETH i.e. while all hypotheses are unproven, the ETH is singled out. Where is the physical proof of some goblin or demon, or extradimensional being?

As one who doesn't "believe" in goblins I feel no need to provide proof. There is every bit as much "proof" for goblins and demons and extradimensional beings as for ETH. There is also just as little. I am so sorry there are so many glaring holes in your "hope" of ET but at the same time you have a right to your "hope." Good luck with that.

Nanoo, nanoo.
Beam me up Scotty.
Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a Klingon.

There may truly be spacemen visiting the earth. I just highly and sincerely don't believe so. I would lean toward the military black ops (actually I kinda do for the most part.) But, the fact that even prehisoric man saw something that our current knowledge says should not be there keeps me still looking up at the night sky. Ya never know. I think either it is a so called "extra dimensional" expereince or a more Jungian explanation might suffice. But, I admit that I honestly don't know for sure.

 

[RJHark00]

It's not just reports of highly exotic material from a number of witnesses, and a press release from the military; all "other possibilities" have been investigated and just don't fit. Even mogul lacks documentation which places it at the Foster ranch at the relevant time.

I don't think that's true of Roswell. There may be uncertainties regarding dates and so forth, but (once the phonies are excluded) not outright contradictions.

We can be pretty sure that whoever wrote the "gospel of john" was not among the original 12. The gospels can't be taken seriously as witness testimony. But nobody doubts that Marcel sr and jr were there, along with a host of others.

We obviously have different standards of proof for what we find convincing and reasonable, and we aren't going to convince one another. That's cool. This issue has been turned about a lot already by people who have done more research than either of us. I don't doubt that something strange happened with Roswell but when we exclude all the "phonies" (not sure who qualifies as a phony; Kaufmann? Haut? Dennis?) and second-hand sources then we're left with very little, IMO a folk narrative that was embellished over the years to include bodies and multiple crash-sites.

I don't think we need new ideas, just recognition that the phenomenon can be deceptive. I notice that the lack of conclusive proof is often used as an argument against the ETH i.e. while all hypotheses are unproven, the ETH is singled out. Where is the physical proof of some goblin or demon, or extradimensional being?

I would not single out ETH for lack of physical proof any more than goblins (love that word, btw), demons, poltergeists, or anything else. In fact, because of my professional background, I had a huge laugh at the expense of the guy who was on the show who said that UFO's contain soul-snatching demons but they're easily repelled when you say "Yeshua" - doubtful that anyone is offering physical proof for any of these things. I think people scrutinize ETH moreso than in years past for a few reasons: 1) it was the dominant paradigm for so many years as we began to explore and think about space. Now that our space exploration has waned, we're thinking about other causes for the phenomenon 2) we have looked and looked and gone round and round with ETH and (I'd argue) not found ourselves any closer to explaining what people experience, 3) ETH has been (probably unfairly) associated with charlatanism from very early on. I'm thinking about Adamski, Rael, and the list goes on... People are just looking at other possibilities, and most people believe that those possibilities have not been exhausted or that ETH is a panacea for high strangeness.

 

[Trajanus]

We obviously have different standards of proof for what we find convincing and reasonable, and we aren't going to convince one another. That's cool. This issue has been turned about a lot already by people who have done more research than either of us. I don't doubt that something strange happened with Roswell but when we exclude all the "phonies" (not sure who qualifies as a phony; Kaufmann? Haut? Dennis?)

Anderson and Kaufmann definitely; not sure about Ragsdale.

and second-hand sources then we're left with very little, IMO a folk narrative that was embellished over the years to include bodies and multiple crash-sites.

I don't think we should dismiss second hand sources, especially if two or more indicate the same thing.

I would not single out ETH for lack of physical proof any more than goblins (love that word, btw), demons, poltergeists, or anything else.

Great but others do.

In fact, because of my professional background, I had a huge laugh at the expense of the guy who was on the show who said that UFO's contain soul-snatching demons but they're easily repelled when you say "Yeshua" - doubtful that anyone is offering physical proof for any of these things. I think people scrutinize ETH moreso than in years past for a few reasons: 1) it was the dominant paradigm for so many years as we began to explore and think about space. Now that our space exploration has waned, we're thinking about other causes for the phenomenon 2) we have looked and looked and gone round and round with ETH and (I'd argue) not found ourselves any closer to explaining what people experience, 3) ETH has been (probably unfairly) associated with charlatanism from very early on. I'm thinking about Adamski, Rael, and the list goes on... People are just looking at other possibilities, and most people believe that those possibilities have not been exhausted or that ETH is a panacea for high strangeness.

IMO "high strangeness" is a problem for all hypotheses, inasmuch as the phenomenon definitely represents something more advanced. Regardless of whether the entities are ET, ED or whatever, they presumably wouldn't have gotten where they are now by being crazy so if they act strangely, they must be putting us on, for whatever reasons.