Refuting the ETH: Angels/Aliens/Archetypes

[conor]

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.

Very good point! We really shouldn't be arguing about the origin of all this. maybe it doesn't even matter in the end. Perhaps their existence is one which is a fluid motion which we cannot even comprehend, one which ocilates through different levels of meaning. Sounds nuts, I know, but perhaps we really are dealing with such a super being - one which defies any explanation we can come up with. And, in that case, it really wouldn't matter where they came from really. And perhaps that is how they view it as well. But it is fun to debate it all, from different view points, with open minds.

 

[Trajanus]

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.

Even in recent years there have been many reports of physical craft landing--and leaving traces--and entities getting out, often with tools or instruments. Sure, many reports are downright bizarre. But on the whole, the phenomenon gives the impression of visitors from another planet or planets. Often, humanoids are reported to have told people they come from this or that star system. Generally, whenever people hear the word UFO, they automatically think: aliens! Granted, some kind of supernatural force, or mysterious earthly lifeform, might cause unusual sightings. But why the general impression of alien visitors? Why not just glowing blobs?

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.

One thing seems clear to me. The phenomenon represents an intelligence. The Universe may have certain features we don't understand but where or how does intelligence appear if not on a planetary surface? And why or how does a "supenatural" intelligence give the impression of being technological?

I don't think so. I think, once again, history will repeat itself and we are on the verge of something entirely different.

For a different take, see C. W. Atkins, Creation Revisited. He thinks full understanding is almost at hand.

 

[Kieran]

Sightings from outside our atmosphere are so rare. We have a few videos and reports, which do not prove much, only that maybe these craft can fly outside our atmosphere. Now we have human made craft that can fly outside our atmosphere, but they can not fly to distant worlds far beyond our solar system. The ETH theory is there mainly due to the beings description, stories, the performance and size, and to certain people, this means that these craft are arriving from other planets outside our solar system or maybe they are closer then we think?

Nobody has ever seen a craft come from a different planet, everything we see and observe is happening right now here on this planet. Now of course we can not discount the possibility they are space travelers, but how can we be sure that the craft are even capable of space flight, they far beyond anything we have as humans, so naturally we assume these craft have that ability to fly outside in space they must come from somewhere, and i can see why people find it so hard to believe that these craft are from here, and also i see the difficulty with the theory that these beings are not actual beings from other planets, but maybe they are something which has always been here. Could they be underground, in the oceans, seem foolish to believe it, but who knows.

 

[Trajanus]

Sightings from outside our atmosphere are so rare. We have a few videos and reports, which do not prove much, only that maybe these craft can fly outside our atmosphere. Now we have human made craft that can fly outside our atmosphere, but they can not fly to distant worlds far beyond our solar system.

ETs may do better.

The ETH theory is there mainly due to the beings description, stories, the performance and size, and to certain people, this means that these craft are arriving from other planets outside our solar system or maybe they are closer then we think?

Almost certainly outside, based on the apparent sterility of other worlds around old sol, although they may have bases witin our solar system or on earth, maybe under the sea--which may have fostered the idea of an Earthly origin.

Nobody has ever seen a craft come from a different planet, everything we see and observe, is happening right now here on this planet.

There have been sightings of glowing objects near Aristarchus on the moon. But of course nobody can see them come from an extrasolar planet, since we don't yet have the means to detect, let alone scrutinize, earthsized extrasolar planets.

Now of course we can not discount the possibility they are space travelers, but how can we be sure that the craft seen are even capable of space flight

Inasmuch as their technology seems far ahead of ours...not a bad asumption.

they far beyond anything we have as humans seemly, so naturally we assume these craft, have that ability to fly outside in space, since they must come from somewhere, and i can see why people, find it so hard to believe that these craft are from here, from just what i said above, and also i see the difficulty with the theory that these beings are not actual beings from other planets, but maybe they are something, which has always been here. Could they be underground, in the oceans, seem foolish to believe it, but who knows.

Honestly, had some other intelligence evolved here, there would be some indication of it in the fossil record. Moreover any more advanced earthly intelligence probably would've taken over the planet for itself, long ago.

 

[Schuyler]

One thing seems clear to me. The phenomenon represents an intelligence. The Universe may have certain features we don't understand but where or how does intelligence appear if not on a planetary surface? And why or how does a "supenatural" intelligence give the impression of being technological?

Because we won't see them otherwise. It's a variation of the anthropic principle. WE are the ones laying 'technological' on them. It's our interpretation.

For a different take, see C. W. Atkins, Creation Revisited. He thinks full understanding is almost at hand.

Thank you for that. That's exactly the kind of citation that shows the issue of the hubris of science. For a response to Atkins, see: "God, Chance & Necessity" by Oxford professor Keith Ward.

 

[Trajanus]

WE are the ones laying 'technological' on them. It's our interpretation.

There have been many cases where witnesses saw control panels with levers and dials. Many UFOs not only look like technology, they leave behind physical traces further indicative of it. They've showed up on radar. They needn't represent nuts and bolts in all cases; many could be holographic projections. But on the whole, a technological interpretation is the most parsimonious and reasonable.

 

[Schuyler]

There have been many cases where witnesses saw control panels with levers and dials. Many UFOs not only look like technology, they leave behind physical traces further indicative of it. They've showed up on radar. They needn't represent nuts and bolts in all cases; many could be holographic projections. But on the whole, a technological interpretation is the most parsimonious and reasonable.

It isn't, for reasons stated above, including the sheer volume of sightings, the vast numbers of claimed abductions. I don't know that I believe all of them as factual, but unless you believe Earth is in the middle of an Interstate-5 galactic highway, it doesn't make sense.

If you would care to start a thread entitled: "Why the ETH is the most reasonable explanation for UFOs" why don't you go and do that? I'm sure you would get a lot of traffic.

Please look again at the title of this thread and allow us to discuss theories OTHER than the ETH. You are killing this thread by continually arguing the same thing over and over. We know all about the ETH. Really.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Please look again at the title of this thread and allow us to discuss theories OTHER than the ETH. You are killing this thread by continually arguing the same thing over and over. We know all about the ETH. Really.

Thank you again!

IMO, until we are able to unequivocally factor out all extra-mundane, close-system Occum's straight razor scenarios, the ETH is anthropomorphic wishful thinking and (again IMO) a red-herring. When the culture suggested I "keep my eyes to the skies" back in 1993 (when I first ventured out into "the field"), my knee-jerk reaction was to keep my ear to the ground. I smile when I listen to all the armchair experts—many of whom have never investigated a single UFO report in their lives—bleeting that the ETH is the ONLY obvious answer to the conundrum. Oh, if it were only that conveniently simple and cut&dried. My advise to all these adherents to the programmed view: GET OUT OF YOUR LAZYBOY & INTO THE FIELD; look the witnesses of reality shaking events in their eyes and ascertain the full extent of the experiences that have made a major impact in the lives—not to mention shaking their reality view, and then come to the table with your informed theories and opinions—not the usual, tired re-treaded tires that fell off that ETH jalopy decades ago.

 

[Trajanus]

It isn't, for reasons stated above, including the sheer volume of sightings, the vast numbers of claimed abductions. I don't know that I believe all of them as factual, but unless you believe Earth is in the middle of an Interstate-5 galactic highway, it doesn't make sense.

It's possible that we've become especially interesting during this critical phase when our progress has reached the "takeoff' point. But the multitude of sightings and abductions doesn't mean everything in the galaxy is being thrown at us. Again, many sightings could be just holograms, repeated many times; if ETs have secret bases they could launch many sorties using the same craft, at short intervals.

Please look again at the title of this thread and allow us to discuss theories OTHER than the ETH.

Fine, what I'd like to know is, exactly what does the phenomenon represent, if not ET, and how does this alternative view account for physical traces such as landing marks?

 

[TerraX]

How do you define 'The Trickster?' Or approximate it for that matter.

Please forgive me for jumping in but I just started reading this thread and I'm still mentally digesting it. From what I've read the ETH is more or less discarded but to me it seems to take on a more metaphysical approach. UFOs are manifestations of some consciousness. Emersing yourself in metaphysics without a base, or starting point in reality and/or science, will in the end make you completely lost and adrift in a sea of incoherent thoughts. I think what I'm trying to say is; define that consciousness. . . , the Trickster.

Look, I'm still at odds about the ETH or other theories but if a UFO is spotted by observers, tracked on radar, seen making a landing on the ground leaving marks, then you have a physical manifestation based in a 'reality' (for arguments sake). Is it ET? No, not at this point. For that conclusion other criteria have to be met.
On the other hand other elements of the UFO phenomena are so bizarre that a based in reality observation can not be made and could very well point to metaphysics and altered states of consciousness.

But what if it's both? I'm just speculating here. What if we had physical entities that travel here from other planets or dimensions who also have the ability to mess with our thoughts? From my perspective one theory, such as the ETH, doesn't necessarily has to exclude other theories such as the Trickster, and vice versa. Maybe they can both exist at the same time.

Ok, that's enough. Think I'll go have a drink.

 

[Trajanus]

From what I've read the ETH is more or less discarded

Not according to Friedman or Randle.

but to me it seems to take on a more metaphysical approach. UFOs are manifestations of some consciousness.

How does it cause landing marks and implants?

Look, I'm still at odds about the ETH or other theories but if a UFO is spotted by observers, tracked on radar, seen making a landing on the ground leaving marks, then you have a physical manifestation based in a 'reality' (for arguments sake). Is it ET? No, not at this point. For that conclusion other criteria have to be met.

Like reports of nonhuman occupants? There are plenty of those.

But what if it's both? I'm just speculating here. What if we had physical entities that travel here from other planets or dimensions who also have the ability to mess with our thoughts? From my perspective one theory, such as the ETH, doesn't necessarily has to exclude other theories such as the Trickster, and vice versa. Maybe they can both exist at the same time.

Maybe, but if the phenomenon consists of two or more unrelated things, how do you explain the simultaneous intensification of both after WWII? And if ETs can mess with our thoughts, is it necessary to invoke some unknown, independent "trickster"?

 

[TerraX]

Not according to Friedman or Randle. How does it cause landing marks and implants?

Hi Trajanus. My comments were more directed at those folks refuting the ETH. Personally, I'm not about to go 'double down' on the Trickster just yet.

Like reports of nonhuman occupants? There are plenty of those.

Yes, I stopped short of possible ET observations. That doesn't mean I reject such observations. Please understand that in a discussion you can build up arguments or halt them, waiting for counter-arguments and then use them.
Shoot. I've seen (possible) UFO occupants myself and they looked very physical and real. One encounter was in broad daylight, in a public place and interaction with other folks. Such an experience, for me, totally steers me in another direction than the Trickster.

Maybe, but if the phenomenon consists of two or more unrelated things, how do you explain the simultaneous intensification of both after WWII? And if ETs can mess with our thoughts, is it necessary to invoke some unknown, independent "trickster"?

The "Trickster" might be a method of ETs to keep us away from finding out the truth. I don't know. The "Trickster" might be some form of consciousness acting out. I don't know. At this moment I don't exclude either possibility or if they are connected somehow. Why did it intensify after WW2? Well, I could list some factors but maybe the right answer is that we as a species on the planet Earth also intensified, in a materialistic- and spiritual sense. Action - reaction.

 

[Trajanus]

Shoot. I've seen (possible) UFO occupants myself and they looked very physical and real. One encounter was in broad daylight, in a public place and interaction with other folks. Such an experience, for me, totally steers me in another direction than the Trickster.

Very interesting TerraX. You sure aren't alone in seeing entities in public places.

The "Trickster" might be a method of ETs to keep us away from finding out the truth.

Or slow down the process of realizing it.

Why did it intensify after WW2? Well, I could list some factors but maybe the right answer is that we as a species on the planet Earth also intensified, in a materialistic- and spiritual sense.

Definitely in a materialistic sense, and that could've attracted the attention of ETs. But if spiritual intensification can cause some consciousness to manifest itself more, it's odd that this happened after WWII. It seems as we've become more materialistic we've become less spiritual.

 

[Kieran]

ETs may do better.




Almost certainly outside, based on the apparent sterility of other worlds around old sol, although they may have bases witin our solar system or on earth, maybe under the sea--which may have fostered the idea of an Earthly origin.



There have been sightings of glowing objects near Aristarchus on the moon. But of course nobody can see them come from an extrasolar planet, since we don't yet have the means to detect, let alone scrutinize, earthsized extrasolar planets.




Inasmuch as their technology seems far ahead of ours...not a bad asumption.



Honestly, had some other intelligence evolved here, there would be some indication of it in the fossil record. Moreover any more advanced earthly intelligence probably would've taken over the planet for itself, long ago.

There is absolutely no evidence they come from different planets near us or further away. We can go on claiming they are from outer space all we want, but the fact is they are seen mostly here on this planet. This is our starting point. Now we do not know, what UFOs are, who are the pilots? and we have no clue to where these UFOs are coming from zero evidence.

It not a bad assumption like you said... why do you always, say ETH?... We have zero evidence of space flight, other then we see strange craft in the sky, which to the onlooker and observe means oh my god we have nothing like that in technology. That to me does not mean the origins must be ETH.

These Craft could be from anywhere so one theory is not better than another, but like i said the craft are observed now, here only, so maybe their true origins are here on this planet? It hard to believe i agree since we have no evidence for a race of beings like the ones in UFO lore.

If we had not found fossils from dinosaurs would we believed such creatures living on this planet, was even possible or believable?

As for evidence left, we have myths and legends of ancient societies in the past destroyed by some event. If we look at the earths history, Asteroid hits from above... Many ice ages.. Climate events in the past, which have changed the outlook of the earth over and over again. Any advanced race would have serious problems dealing with unseen events.

If they where living above ground the impact on their society from these events would be severe even wipe out. Where would you go, to avoid most of these type of events.. in my opinion, the sea, underground, somewhere else space?, if you are advanced enough that is.... Very little would remain of a society in a extinction type event.

Modern human history in the written form is less than thousand of years, so anything before 6,000 years or a little later is open to debate. If it is ETH.. we must ask...How long are they here, when did they arrive? every theory must ask these questions really. If they are here since the dawn of time, you have to assume, they might have lived on the planet long ago before the dawning of Man in it's earliest form.

 

[Drew UK]

But in the majority of cases, they either come down and/or go up.
Thats a y=x^2 or y=x^n trajectory or partial/whole quadratic (usually at sharp gradients), entrance and exit is on the y plane (i.e. up/above the earthly sphere).

As y approaches 100KM and beyond, the entity moves away from your visibility into ET territory?

Symmetry eludes to aerodynamic properties - it just feels the most intuitative position to hold.


If there was occurences, or reputable cases appearing up through the ground, or appearing in the town hall, street or in the football stadium along any other x,-x,z,or-z plane I could be more convinced into the other explanations.

 

[Rudolf Steiner]

There is absolutely no evidence they come from different planets near us or further away. We can go on claiming they are from outer space all we want, but the fact is they are seen mostly here on this planet. This is our starting point. Now we do not know, what UFOs are, who are the pilots? and we have no clue to where these UFOs are coming from zero evidence.

It not a bad assumption like you said... why do you always, say ETH?... We have zero evidence of space flight, other then we see strange craft in the sky, which to the onlooker and observe means oh my god we have nothing like that in technology. That to me does not mean the origins must be ETH.

These Craft could be from anywhere so one theory is not better than another, but like i said the craft are observed now, here only, so maybe their true origins are here on this planet? It hard to believe i agree since we have no evidence for a race of beings like the ones in UFO lore.

If we had not found fossils from dinosaurs would we believed such creatures living on this planet, was even possible or believable?

As for evidence left, we have myths and legends of ancient societies in the past destroyed by some event. If we look at the earths history, Asteroid hits from above... Many ice ages.. Climate events in the past, which have changed the outlook of the earth over and over again. Any advanced race would have serious problems dealing with unseen events.

If they where living above ground the impact on their society from these events would be severe even wipe out. Where would you go, to avoid most of these type of events.. in my opinion, the sea, underground, somewhere else space?, if you are advanced enough that is.... Very little would remain of a society in a extinction type event.

Modern human history in the written form is less than thousand of years, so anything before 6,000 years or a little later is open to debate. If it is ETH.. we must ask...How long are they here, when did they arrive? every theory must ask these questions really. If they are here since the dawn of time, you have to assume, they might have lived on the planet long ago before the dawning of Man in it's earliest form.

But if they were so advance, why they didn't cotroled over the elements, avoiding their destruction?

 

[Trajanus]

But if they were so advance, why they didn't cotroled over the elements, avoiding their destruction?

I think you're alluding to the lightning strike version of the Roswell crash. It could be true but we can't be sure. At least one book, Revealed! The Greatest UFO Secrets rejects that version.

 

[Trajanus]

There is absolutely no evidence they come from different planets near us or further away. We can go on claiming they are from outer space all we want, but the fact is they are seen mostly here on this planet. This is our starting point. Now we do not know, what UFOs are, who are the pilots? and we have no clue to where these UFOs are coming from zero evidence.

I wouldn't put it that strongly. The Hill case is just one of many in which the entities themselves gave clear indication of ET origin.

As for evidence left, we have myths and legends of ancient societies in the past destroyed by some event. If we look at the earths history, Asteroid hits from above... Many ice ages.. Climate events in the past, which have changed the outlook of the earth over and over again. Any advanced race would have serious problems dealing with unseen events.

If they where living above ground the impact on their society from these events would be severe even wipe out. Where would you go, to avoid most of these type of events.. in my opinion, the sea, underground, somewhere else space?, if you are advanced enough that is.... Very little would remain of a society in a extinction type event.

But if they survived, and were the most advanced life form on this planet, there would be no need to hide once the disaster was over. Did Lystrosaurus stay below ground in hibernation--IF that is how it survived-- after the great Permian-Triassic mass extinction? Absolutely not; once the crisis was past, it took over everywhere.

If they are here since the dawn of time, you have to assume, they might have lived on the planet long ago before the dawning of Man in it's earliest form.

But in that case we should expect at least some indication, in the fossil record, of some evolving nonhuman intelligence that long predated us. Look at all the known precursors to Man, from proconsul to Homo habilis. There's absolutely nothing like that in the Mesozoic or early Cenozoic.

 

[Kieran]

I wouldn't put it that strongly. The Hill case is just one of many in which the entities themselves gave clear indication of ET origin.




But if they survived, and were the most advanced life form on this planet, there would be no need to hide once the disaster was over. Did Lystrosaurus stay below ground in hibernation--IF that is how it survived-- after the great Permian-Triassic mass extinction? Absolutely not; once the crisis was past, it took over everywhere.



But in that case we should expect at least some indication, in the fossil record, of some evolving nonhuman intelligence that long predated us. Look at all the known precursors to Man, from proconsul to Homo habilis. There's absolutely nothing like that in the Mesozoic or early Cenozoic.

The Hill case is a story of deception and you will find little hints of that within the story if you look closely. Now i am going to be bold and do not usually say this... but i think if you really look closely at most cases in ufology.. parts are either left out or not put in, which enables a researcher to claim, yes' the ETH Is the one that fits the argument that the visitors are space travelers.

I see either we have a human looking beings or a created hybrid working with a small being, and they come from a other space or another place. Or maybe the human looking being is a being we are not aware of and has always lived on the planet, and is simply living underground or is living in the sea.

That is why i say, if it was destroyed long ago( Atlantis myth) and they decided to live underground, they made a home there, so why would they come up again. They knew the dangers of living up above. Maybe that could explain there interest in helping the planet and helping us stay away from the dangers of nuclear weapons it effects them too. Maybe they not from the planet, maybe indeed they are human beings from another place, who long ago settled on the planet, but something happened, a disaster and they decided to leave or go underground or into the seas to survive. It all science fiction, but like i said , we can not look beyond what we see, they are here, This our starting point for finding out there origins.

Now if the human element was not seen in ufology. I too would be doubtful of an origin on this planet.

 

[Trajanus]

I see either we have a human looking beings

Broadly human-looking but obviously different e.g. grays, suggestive of convergent evolution elsewhere.

That is why i say, if it was destroyed long ago( Atlantis myth) and they decided to live underground, they made a home there, so why would they come up again.

I very much doubt that any beings or any civilization which originated on the surface could survive underground. How do crops grow without photosynthesis? And how odd that an underground or undersea community could be so adept at building aerial craft. IMO it's just not plausible.

They knew the dangers of living up above.

Better than the impossibility of living below.

Maybe they not from the planet, maybe indeed they are human beings from another place, who long ago settled on the planet, but something happened, a disaster and they decided to leave or go underground or into the seas to survive.

If that were true, there should be evidence of previous ET surface habitation. And what specific disaster would've driven them underground? At various times, hominids and humans have experienced eruptions, impacts etc, but stayed on the surface--there's no choice. We aren't worms.

It all science fiction, but like i said , we can not look beyond what we see, they are here

Sure they are here, but not on a continuing basis. They appear and then go away, in advanced flying craft.

Now if the human element was not seen in ufology. I too would be doubtful of an origin on this planet.

But there's little evidence of a human element. For the most pat, there's a humanoid one.