Refuting the ETH: Angels/Aliens/Archetypes

[conor]

Sometimes it should be; it depends on evidence. Some people say UFOs are supernatural or from the center of the earth or our future. Such notions fly in the face of science and rationality; the ETH doesn't. Where do UFOs usually appear to go after a sighting? Up, which says something.

Yes, but the high strangeness factor involved in UFO sightings seem to suggest that they are half way between the subjective and the objective, physical manifestations of some description (which may even be Extraterrestrial in origin) which both play on our deep expectations of the unknown, while subverting them at the same time. It seems that when they are flying in the sky, they are unidentified flying objects which defy many known laws of physics. But, when one of these things land, well that's when things get really weird, perhaps suggesting some sort of wildly different type of intelligence, trying perhaps to find a middle ground. Or, perhaps they are an intelligence native of the earth. I wouldn't say that the ETH is completely out the window by any stretch - just that it is infinitly more complex than the very basic ETH scenario.

What makes me a little bit weary of the ETH (just to play Devil's advocate) is that, in the middle of the nineteenth century, we became aware of the possibility of space travel, and of life on other worlds. This was the myth for a secular age, and as a myth it had everything - utopian hope, dystopian fear, and it harkened to the future, to scientific progress. And people began to see strange things in the sky. Now, it could be argued that people have always seen such things. And perhaps the phenonemon has always been the same strange thing. But here's my point. We have this myth, and it seems to fit the facts on a surface level. But when you go a little below the surface, at some of the other things people have reported, the whole picture rather than the particular, it seems something much more bizzarre and subjective is going on. And this is one of the reasons science cannot yet cope with the topic - because it confounds and distorts at every turn. And this may be in the nature of the phenonemon.

People have reported fairies in the past, and all sorts of demons. The native americans talk of the trickster, which both plays the fool and also is one of the wisest of them all. Think of the jester in a Shakespeare play - always the one who can see what is really going on. Think of Loki, who at times seems to be one with Odin, the highest god in the Norse pantheon. These beings are never purely malice, though they do produce fear in us - a fear of a thing which subverts the natural order. Carl Jung says that the thing we most fear about the archetype of the trickster is that it is unconscious and unknown, lying beyond the thing which we call conscious perception. For Jung, when such things pertrude upon reality it is called synchronicity. Jung felt that they were manifestations of the mind, but minds in interaction (unconsciously) with every other mind, and perhaps even with every other form of consciousness on some level. This is a quite controversial theory, but, again, who knows.

I personally think that people have been seeing such strange things from time immemorial, and it may be something inexplicably and intimately linked with intelligence. In a sense, they may be the gods of old, the ones who dared us to take the bite from the apple, or tempted pandora to look in that box. Pure symbol, essentially, a symbol of the fringe, the unknown, of the boundaries of knowledge, and a teaser of what's to come.

Besides all of that, many have pointed to the initiation of the shaman and the abduction experience as having similar themes running through them. A lot of these rituals, after which shamans were reported to have been able to do amazing things, and they were using drugs to enter into these states, to communicate with the earth and their gods - symbols for this or that.

These symbols could be more like a framework for something deeper that is going on, like a type of wisdom being imparted. And perhaps the UFO phenonemon is modern version of this.

I am brought back to that quote, not sure by who (I heard someone use it on the show), "UFOs are here to make us think."

If you are sceptical about just how weird these things can get, check this out http://www.scribd.com/doc/4452389/Dimensions-A-Casebook-of-Alien-Contact

Jacques Vallee, IMO, is the authority on this subject.

 

[dorkbot]

I am brought back to that quote, not sure by who (I heard someone use it on the show), "UFOs are here to make us think."

If I recall correctly, I believe that was Allen Greenfield quoting from Gray Barker's book The Silver Bridge.

 

[Rudolf Steiner]

So, the Aliens may be in contact with us, but we don't understand them? Or are they playing with us? Or are they trying some sort of complex communication How can we be sure about what they are saying?

 

[CapnG]

The results were astounding (especially to people like the capnG's of the world) but to anyone that has used these compounds as a tool, this is old news.

It's old news to me too. You're stretching the point I'm making in my other posts, Chris. I'm talking about these drugs singularly and exclusively within the context of the UFO/ET riddle not in the broader range of general neuroscience and psychopharmacology. That stuff is certainly interesting but it's not the subject at hand.

What is it about consciousness that requires physicality?

The fact that it's in your brain. Even if you come from the school that claims conciousness is eternal and the body merely a vessel, that conciousness still requiers an interface.

If on the otherhand you're like me, then conciousness seems to be more of a side effect of having a bifercated brain as opposed to the reason for actually needing one in the first place.

 

[Trajanus]

Well, you could also say that the ETH assumes faster than light travel,

Not necessarily. For many years there has been talk of interstellar craft doing long missions at only .1c. In addition, travel via wormholes makes virtually instantaneous travel theorectically acceptable.

Of course UFOs go 'up.' If they went 'down' they'd crash. All that says is that they prefer not to crash. It says nothing about where they come from.

I meant straight up. Aircraft go parallel to the ground.

 

[Trajanus]

Or, perhaps they are an intelligence native of the earth.

But there is no evidence for the evolution here of any kind of intelligence other than ours.

What makes me a little bit weary of the ETH (just to play Devil's advocate) is that, in the middle of the nineteenth century, we became aware of the possibility of space travel

That early? I don't think it became plausible until mid 20th century.

We have this myth, and it seems to fit the facts on a surface level. But when you go a little below the surface, at some of the other things people have reported, the whole picture rather than the particular, it seems something much more bizzarre and subjective is going on. And this is one of the reasons science cannot yet cope with the topic - because it confounds and distorts at every turn. And this may be in the nature of the phenonemon.

It still may be reconcilable with the ETH. Aliens may wish to confuse us to some extent, for some reason.

People have reported fairies in the past, and all sorts of demons. The native americans talk of the trickster, which both plays the fool and also is one of the wisest of them all. Think of the jester in a Shakespeare play - always the one who can see what is really going on. Think of Loki, who at times seems to be one with Odin, the highest god in.... This is a quite controversial theory, but, again, who knows.

Personally I don't buy a link between purely imaginary stuff and a modern empirical phenomenon.

 

[Trajanus]

Yeah but, what about the hundreds—if not thousands—of sightings of UFOs disappearing into bodies of water, dissolving into nothingness, simply blinking out, morphing into clouds, descending into the ground or flying directly into mountains?

Doesn't necessarily imply a supernatural element; ETs may often project holograms. Or enter wormholes.

 

[conor]

That early? I don't think it became plausible until mid 20th century.

The war of the worlds by HG Wells, the famous canals of mars. i think it was becoming more and more plausible. Remember, people were seeing airships around towards the end of the nineteenth century, and flight was what people saw as the next break through.

It is around this time that, I believe, our folk tales were replaced with mythology based upon progress, like the myth of the American frontier, building towards a goal. The scientific method, and it's successes, had a great deal to do with this shift in emphasis of our general mythology.

Where people once saw faeries, nymphs, and such creatures which their folklore spoke of, then people were seeing things which could have been from their own future. I think this has been a mythology for a secular age, without spirits, but with a certain expectation that inventions of the future will be progressional. So, in the early nineteenth century people were seeing
airships, and some were seeing robots even.

Then came the expectation of space, just after WWII, and all that it would bring. I find it fascinating that many of the contactees of the fifties talk of space brothers, peaceful beings who look somewhat like greek gods, and came from venus.

Then, as the cold war took hold, and people genuinely feared the nuclear bomb, films about alien invasions were regular. So the alien distorted itself to ugly little grey things, and took on the cold demeanor of a scientist with his clip board, treating us like we were rats in a cage. He also no longer came from venus, as scientific research put rest to such hopes. Incidentally, the aliens became hostile or at least indifferent as we began to realise that space was an inhospitable, hostile place.

So, there it is, the myth of the alien. I am in no way discounting that these things are not real. But I think that there is a very real reason for asking just what the word 'real' means. I also think that if nothing else it illustrates how subjective and of-their-own-time sightings and close encounters with the OTHER kind really are.

In other words, I have no idea what is actually going on

 

[Trajanus]

The war of the worlds by HG Wells, the famous canals of mars.

That wasn't until the late 19th century; before you wrote mid.

i think it was becoming more and more plausible. Remember, people were seeing airships around towards the end of the nineteenth century, and flight was what people saw as the next break through.

Lowel's canal theory was increasingly ridiculed. One well known 1896 TX crash airship case has been dismissed as a hoax. Flight may have been anticipated back then but not interplanetary flight.

It is around this time that, I believe, our folk tales were replaced with mythology based upon progress, like the myth of the American frontier, building towards a goal. The scientific method, and it's successes, had a great deal to do with this shift in emphasis of our general mythology.

But there hadn't really been much mythology since the end of the middle ages or enlightenment--except of courxe christianity.

I think this has been a mythology for a secular age

Seems oxymoronic.

Then came the expectation of space, just after WWII, and all that it would bring. I find it fascinating that many of the contactees of the fifties talk of space brothers, peaceful beings who look somewhat like greek gods, and came from venus....Then, as the cold war took hold, and people genuinely feared the nuclear bomb, films about alien invasions were regular.

But the onset of nuclear weapons actually predated the "venusian space brothers" period...The 1950s were the height of the cold war or at least the start of it.

So the alien distorted itself to ugly little grey things, and took on the cold demeanor of a scientist

But again, the cold war, the supposed basis for this, began before the '50s.

Incidentally, the aliens became hostile or at least indifferent as we began to realise that space was an inhospitable, hostile place.

This was known or surmised for at least a century. Scientists like Wallace disagreed with Lowell based on how cold and thin-aired Mars was really likely to be.

So, there it is, the myth of the alien. I am in no way discounting that these things are not real. But I think that there is a very real reason for asking just what the word 'real' means. I also think that if nothing else it illustrates how subjective and of-their-own-time sightings and close encounters with the OTHER kind really are.

As I see it, the plethora of physical evidence indicates the phenomenon is objectively real.

In other words, I have no idea what is actually going on

No offense but I concurr.

 

[Schuyler]

Not necessarily. For many years there has been talk of interstellar craft doing long missions at only .1c. In addition, travel via wormholes makes virtually instantaneous travel theorectically acceptable.

I meant straight up. Aircraft go parallel to the ground.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. On the one hand you seem to reject any explanations that aren't purely physical. For example, you don't think consciousness can exist without a physical mechanism. You think the ETH is the only answer.

Yet in defending the ETH you seem to be suggesting that crafts going extremely slowly (.1c) across interstellar space explain the phenomena--or wormholes. Wormholes? Or UFOs going 'Up.'

That's pure speculation. It's not even a good theory, and it certainly isn't proof, though it is a good plot device for Star Trek. And where did this airplane stuff come from? Nobody mentioned airplanes nor does anyone here need to be told how airplanes function. It's a non sequitur. Are you seriously suggesting that because 'UFOs go up' that this proves they are from interstellar space?

I just feel like we're dealing with the Groundhog Syndrome here.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Yeah but, what about the hundreds—if not thousands—of sightings of UFOs disappearing into bodies of water, dissolving into nothingness, simply blinking out, morphing into clouds [or other objects], descending into the ground or flying directly into mountains?

UFOs go up so they must be aliens? You must be kidding! Nobody has addressed these questions from my earlier post.
Comments?

 

[TClaeys]

The blinking/morphing thing may represent a technology. It seems that David thought the craft he saw was somehow malfunctioning. So, ... maybe it was and in due time it cloaked itself again. If something physical was here it may want to stay here and perhaps hide. And what better place to hide than the vastness of the oceans or other bodies of water??

Some sightings of course are so strange that I don't know that they would neccessarily fit into any good category of origin. I don't have a beef one way or another. It could be ET. I don't know how we would know one way or another. How would we know what they could accomplish?? We don't even know what we can accomplish in the future (even the near future). Extrapolate that out just a hundred years and try and guess what we'll be doing. I don't think it can even be done considering the serendipity of discovery.

I just don't think you can shut the door on any one theory just because you don't like it or agree. My best guess is that there are several things going on, several origins. Maybe a speciation thing or maybe it's Kaku's wet dream. Whose to say??

 

[conor]

But there is no evidence for the evolution here of any kind of intelligence other than ours.

Is there any solid evidence for extraterrestrial life. Not saying that it is definitely a phenonemon that originates from this planet, but whose to say it is extraterrestrial. And, going by evidence, if you bring up the drake equation, it is not evidence, just a well thought out equation, but still that nonetheless.

That early? I don't think it became plausible until mid 20th century..

plausability and cultural expectations are different things.

It still may be reconcilable with the ETH. Aliens may wish to confuse us to some extent, for some reason...

Good point. Not ruling that one out at all.

Personally I don't buy a link between purely imaginary stuff and a modern empirical phenomenon.

My feeling is that it is neither purely imaginary nor is it a modern empirical phenonemon

 

[conor]

That wasn't until the late 19th century; before you wrote mid.

Yes, but it obviously had a precidence. It wasn't just dreamed up. It was more like an expression of the feeling at the time. Usually, that is how fiction, even science fiction, works. Ahead of it's time, yes, but still adressing a feeling of the time. Still, not mid nineteenth century. I accept that. But it still doesn't put a dent in my argument.

Lowel's canal theory was increasingly ridiculed. One well known 1896 TX crash airship case has been dismissed as a hoax. Flight may have been anticipated back then but not interplanetary flight..

Again, something that has more do to with cultural perception than the actual validity of the statement. I am in no way saying that there are canals on mars. Just that it was something that put forward the possibity of life on other planets.

But there hadn't really been much mythology since the end of the middle ages or enlightenment--except of courxe christianity. ..

Now there's a myth! Christianity was something which permeated everyones life, but not in the way you may think. Christianity was something which was the main kind of belief, and people went to mass, and believed in Jesus, and all those sorts of things. But the old beliefs, perhaps not in gods as such, but in faeries, and supernatural creatures, and in sacred places, and in devining, the list goes on. It actually wasn't until the enlightenment that things got really strict. Before that priests could marry, and the church was seen as a political institution, with the basic ideology being a christian one, but all sorts of beliefs being lumped on top of that. Don't believe me? Watched the Da Vinci code too many times? I live in Ireland, and I can tell you that the old beliefs and Christianity have survived along side one another right up until this day. Bridget is the other main saint over here (why isn't there an international St. Bridget day?). She is basically an old celtic god incorporated into christianity.

Christianity only became so crazy and strict since the enlightenment, paradoxically. It was then, in reaction to Lutherism (nothing wrong with that!) that it decided to reform itself, get rid of corruption and also reinforce it's doctrine, which it saw as becoming lax. So, all those religious wars, all those witch hunts, they all come from that time.

I think that it is important not to have a simplistic views on such things.

But the onset of nuclear weapons actually predated the "venusian space brothers" period...The 1950s were the height of the cold war or at least the start of it.
..

Yes, but when did it really come to a head, when did it really seem real to people who were not necessarily reading every report on Russian-US relations? The Cuban misile crisis. Now I am not saying that people didn't realise that a conflict with Russia wasn't a threat - just that it entered into the mythology of the age at around that time. I could be wrong on that one.... but again, who knows.

This was known or surmised for at least a century. Scientists like Wallace disagreed with Lowell based on how cold and thin-aired Mars was really likely to be...

Again, it only really entered into the general consciousness when people were focused on all the trials and tribulations of the early space race.

As I see it, the plethora of physical evidence indicates the phenomenon is objectively real....

Perhaps, but it isn't as simple as that, as you admit

No offense but I concurr.

I'm glad we agree on something

 

[Trajanus]

I'm not sure where you're coming from. On the one hand you seem to reject any explanations that aren't purely physical. For example, you don't think consciousness can exist without a physical mechanism. You think the ETH is the only answer.

Yet in defending the ETH you seem to be suggesting that crafts going extremely slowly (.1c) across interstellar space explain the phenomena--or wormholes. Wormholes?

No, you misunderstood. I just alluded to suggested means of interstellar travel, based on current understanding, to indicate that the ETH is at least scientifically/rationally acceptable, whereas supernatural notions aren't.

Are you seriously suggesting that because 'UFOs go up' that this proves they are from interstellar space?

Of course not. But it is suggestive, and argues against an origin from the center of the earth.

 

[Schuyler]

No, you misunderstood. I just alluded to suggested means of interstellar travel, based on current understanding, to indicate that the ETH is at least scientifically/rationally acceptable, whereas supernatural notions aren't.

My issue here is that if you are going to insist on rigorous scientific proof for something you do not espouse, then it is only fair that you provide the same level of rigor for something you do espouse. Suggesting that a very slow interstellar craft is possible does not in any way explain the UFO phenomena as seen on Earth. The idea of 'wormholes' is pure speculation at the level of mathematical theory and, I think, a clear misunderstanding. Wormholes as speculated are tiny, as are the 'dimensions' of string theory. You can't drive a truck through them.

Of course not. But it is suggestive, and argues against an origin from the center of the earth.

It actually doesn't argue 'against' anything. You could say the same thing about helicopters. I'm sorry, but the idea that UFOs go 'up' being suggestive of the ETH has got to be the most ludicrous 'proof' I have ever heard. I think it best to pretend you're joking here--nothing wrong with that.

Moving on now, I'm reading Dolan's new book and as it happens, I came across Jacques Vallee's "Five Arguments Against the ETH."

1. There are too many close encounters to explain them as a physical survey of the Earth.

2. the humanoid body structure of the 'aliens' is unlikely to have originated elsewhere and is not biologically suited for space travel.

3. The behavior as described in so many abduction reports contradicts the idea that advanced aliens are conducting genetic or scientific experiments.

4. The phenomena seem to have been recorded throughout human history.

5. the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests different and richer alternatives to mere extraterrestrials.

This is all from the Journal of Scientific Exploration, V.4 N.1, 1990. He, of course, elaborates on these ideas in Passport to Magonia; from folklore to flying saucers. Of course, you can disagree with Vallee if you want, but I think he's proven his mettle and I'd just as soon defer to him for the time being.

Having said all that maybe the ETH IS true. I'm not actually suggesting it isn't, just that we ought to be open to other possibilities given the data we have which, as Vallee says, suggests otherwise. The ETH was popular in the fifties, with people like Bethurum and Adamski saying Space Brothers were from Venus or Clarion. Given what has happened in the intervening half century, the ETH seems rather simplistic and naive, if not quaint.

 

[Trajanus]

My issue here is that if you are going to insist on rigorous scientific proof for something you do not espouse, then it is only fair that you provide the same level of rigor for something you do espouse. Suggesting that a very slow interstellar craft is possible does not in any way explain the UFO phenomena as seen on Earth. The idea of 'wormholes' is pure speculation at the level of mathematical theory and, I think, a clear misunderstanding. Wormholes as speculated are tiny, as are the 'dimensions' of string theory. You can't drive a truck through them.

I wasn't insisting on "rigorous scientific proof" of nonET views. I just meant that the ETH is at least scientifically and rationally acceptable. We laymen may not have proof that ETs really exist but basically all the idea requires is that essentially what has happened on Earth occurred elsewhere, albeit earlier. In contrast, supernatural or center of the earth explanations don't even get to first base, so to spreak, because scientists do not, AFAIK, even buy the basic notions.

It actually doesn't argue 'against' anything. You could say the same thing about helicopters. I'm sorry, but the idea that UFOs go 'up' being suggestive of the ETH has got to be the most ludicrous 'proof'

I didn't say it was proof, just suggestive.

1. There are too many close encounters to explain them as a physical survey of the Earth.

Agreed. But there could be much more going on.

2. the humanoid body structure of the 'aliens' is unlikely to have originated elsewhere and is not biologically suited for space travel.

So he thinks evolution is unlikely ever to have similar outcomes. See Conway Morris for a different take. Even on Earth, there has been a multitude of instances of convergent evolution. As for suitability for space travel, there's apparent life support systems reported; maybe most humanoids don't need them though--which doesn't sound far fetched if only similar environments can nurture life.

3. The behavior as described in so many abduction reports contradicts the idea that advanced aliens are conducting genetic or scientific experiments.

But it often seems that way. Of course the ETs could be just deceptive.

4. The phenomena seem to have been recorded throughout human history.

Which suggests an explanation other than misidentified aircraft or MOGUL balloons.

5. the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests different and richer alternatives to mere extraterrestrials.

Or technological means we just don't yet understand--like TV to a cave man.

Having said all that maybe the ETH IS true. I'm not actually suggesting it isn't, just that we ought to be open to other possibilities given the data we have which, as Vallee says, suggests otherwise.The ETH was popular in the fifties, with people like Bethurum and Adamski saying Space Brothers were from Venus or Clarion. Given what has happened in the intervening half century, the ETH seems rather simplistic and naive, if not quaint.

IMO it isn't something as straitforward as a scientific survey, but still ET. Generally that's what it looks like and there's no really good competing hypothesis.

 

[Schuyler]

I thought you might try to take on Vallee. Good luck with that.

This thread was started with a view to discussing hypotheses OTHER than the ETH. Yet you insist 'nuts & bolts' is the only viable answer because you can't conceive of anything else being possible. I think that's a pretty narrow point of view, but OK, if that's the tried and true path you want to follow, go for it, but at least have the courtesy to let us discuss other possibilities. This 'my way or the highway' approach to every other idea out there isn't furthering the discussion; it's limiting it. Rather than being a discussion of other ideas, this thread has become a discussion about your refutation of every other idea or even meanings of words. It's become pedantic.

My feeling is that the ETH doesn't even come close to explaining the data we think we have. It is, of course, a difficult field to establish ANY data since EVERYTHING is subject to refutation, but at some point I think we have to leave those folks behind, else we may as well fold up our tent and go home. I agree and acknowledge that there is such a thing as the ETH. In fact, I would even be so bold as to claim to be knowledgeable on the subject, but to me it is a throwback to the fifties and represents a very simplistic view of the phenomena. It's a Buck Rogers view of the Universe. I've been reading and hearing about the ETH for fifty years. It worked for me when I was a kid; it doesn't work for me now.

My suspicion (and I use the word on purpose) is that there is an inter-dimensional aspect to the phenomena, one that we do not yet understand. That does not mean we need to abandon science or the scientific method or that we need to invoke gods and the supernatural to get there. It only means that science has not yet grasped some fundamental aspects of the structure of the Universe.

Science, as a whole, thinks very highly of itself. Scientists figure they've 'got it down' in terms of how to look at the Universe (with the scientific method) and what the Universe is made up of. At least they did at the close of the 19th century when scientists openly acknowledged that they thought they had this thing just about wrapped up. Only a few details needed to be taken care of to prove the Newtonian model of reality was solid.

Then along came relativity and (worse) quantum mechanics, two diametrically opposed points of view about reality. Today you see the same sort of attitude that was prevalent in 1900. You have scientists who will openly say they've just about got this wrapped up. Only a few little glitches to solve and we'll have a General Systems Theory for the structure of reality.

I don't think so. I think, once again, history will repeat itself and we are on the verge of something entirely different. I think these potential new breakthroughs will be perfectly well accommodated by science. Indeed, I guarantee you the scientists will say they were the first to see through to this new view of reality and will claim to have lead the way.

I actually believe that the religions of the world have a better grasp on reality than science does. Unfortunately they have perverted it to their own ends, made it an emotional and moral issue designed to control people's behavior, and added so much mythology into the mix as to effectively hide any small glimmer of truth they might pretend to understand. Almost by definition it couldn't be any other way, but a study of some of the issues using a kind of "scientific theology" might be useful.

I also believe there IS an 'after-life' that supports consciousness without corporality. This has NOTHING to do with God, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or even angels--those are perversions or at least don't tell the whole story. BUT this 'other dimension,' likely one of several, is easily traversed by those who know how to do it and traversed in scientific ways. In other words, there is no real dividing line between being scientific and understanding what we call the 'spiritual world.' At one level, they are the same. Until we are willing to look at this scenario seriously, we are not going to get anywhere. But I think we can use technology to do it.

Of course your garden variety rationalists have a hard time with this. At this point I can't prove it. When we are both dead I can say, "I told you so," but by then the point will be moot and the self-same rationalists will be saying, "I knew it all along." You can't win with huge egos because they are always right by definition.

I also think this system sucks, by the way. I'd like to wring the neck of whoever thought this up. But I gotta buy groceries, so I'm outta here for awhile.

 

[Kieran]

UFOs go up so they must be aliens? You must be kidding! Nobody has addressed these questions from my earlier post.
Comments?

Alien to me, means something different, different to myself, many things on the this planet could be alien to my understanding and knowledge, But when i hear Alien in terms of UFOs, i assume that aliens are equal or higher in intelligence to us humans.

UFO technology, i consider alien, in my mind any technology not made on the Earth is alien. It is not something, i view everyday, see everyday or have any experience with in normal day to day viewing, so for that reason alone i call it Alien technology.

Aliens is just a term everybody understands, it just easier to say alien, because nobody knows for sure, what they are, and who they are.

Have they got names or even an identity?... We have of course as we all know, given them cute little names like the Greys or the Nordics, just based on a few descriptions of their appearance.

What you say is correct, they have been seen around water, and have been seen in and around mountains. That is of course if, you believe every case that has been reported is genuine. People see things in the sky everyday, what they are seeing, of course does not mean Alien spacecraft.

Some people are more believable than others, and we have to have look at reports with a critical eye. People who have seen things, have a tendency to believe everything and others do not, i am in the second camp, i try to put my thinking cap on and all times. This is how i judge a UFO case...

Do these cases reported seem logical or rational. Have this people motivation for telling lies, and are this people emotionally and mentally stable. This is how i judge a person, on what he is saying.I never dismiss any theory and never dismiss what the person claims, 'He or She said they saw by following this three rules.

 

[TClaeys]

It worked for me when I was a kid; it doesn't work for me now.

My suspicion (and I use the word on purpose) is that there is an inter-dimensional aspect to the phenomena, one that we do not yet understand. That does not mean we need to abandon science or the scientific method or that we need to invoke gods and the supernatural to get there. It only means that science has not yet grasped some fundamental aspects of the structure of the Universe.

.

Well, the thread asked what the opinions of McKenna's views were. And some sort of agreed and some didn't, and like many threads here it took a life of it's own.

Anyway, I wonder how different this interdimensional thing is from the ETH. Does it really matter or can we just expand the current thought to "it's coming from beyond our planet". My guess is that other dimensions probably were never even concieved of at the time we were thinking about other planets and life. Now we have some major work being done to test and see if there is something other than our universe. ETH, I guess IMO, just means it comes from somewhere else, whether that be another planet in our universe (which at least is plausible- we know there are other planets) or out of another universe (which we don't know). Either way is it Extra-Terrestrial (unless it comes from here). Seems to me that the ETH definition (if there is one) may just need some revising.

How important is sourcing anyway?? Sure it is of interest, but probably beyond what we could feasibly and realistically find out (unless some government is holding the keys to it). It's probably more important to study the effects of the thing objectively and subjectively. Both parts appear to be important. And it seems more important to understand the "why" they are here rather than where they come from, at least at this point. Not that discovering "why" is any easier, but at least UFO's do leave some lasting effects which can be studied. Trying to guess where they come from is most likely futile.