I just listened to this episode - what a fun conversation. One point that didn’t come up on the main show that I wish we had mentioned is that none of us are suggesting that the ETH explains
all other kinds of reported anomalies – just the highly exotic aerial devices that are so widely reported.
And again you are converging different phenomena under a single umbrella that needs categorization. If we lump it all together and then look for parsimony then much of the data imho has to get shaved or discarded in order to meet the ETH. I'd rather separate distinct phenomena and the patterns of data that come with them before we link lights in the sky to radar or to CE cases or to abduction experiences. It is a complex phenomenon and I find trying to lump it all together into the same basket both confuses and erodes the potential discussion.
What are you talking about: when have I ever “lumped it all together?” Honestly I feel like I’ve clearly stated until I’m blue in the face that the ETH cannot possibly explain the entire range of anomalous experiences reported - when we venture beyond sightings of physical craft and their occupants, into the realm of dog men and black-eyed children and ghosts and other bizarre forms of paranormal experience, then we’re probably (but not certainly) dealing with a wide variety of exotic and distinct phenomena totally unrelated to the ETH.
I feel that a natural trajectory of the phenomenon is an invitation to explore transit in the sky and to ask more questions of what is possible in physics. I feel this is something we are being led to.
I agree, but I think we’re being led by
the facts, not by some kind of paranormal agent as a deliberate ploy to spur us onward.
A paranormal entity didn’t lead us to believe that organic molecules permeate space – they’re actually there. A paranormal agent didn’t lead us to believe that ~22% of all stars in the universe are orbited by a warm Earth-like planet – that’s been proven by empirical astronomical research. And some inscrutable paranormal entity didn’t prove that warp field propulsion is consistent with the general theory of relativity – that was established mathematically. So frankly I think it’s crazy to think that what appear to be advanced metallic devices hovering in our skies and performing extreme aerobatic maneuvers, are not exactly what they seem to be – actual physical devices. Because it all fits together like the pieces of a puzzle, and the image that puzzle illustrates indicates that advanced technology from exosolar civilizations can, and probably does, enter our airspace from time to time. It bewilders me that this isn’t obvious to everyone who thinks about it for five minutes.
I see it as a departure from talking about bigger issues.
I don’t see how anyone can see the tangible prospect of other very sophisticated forms of intelligent life exploring our planet as anything less than an enormous and deeply compelling issue. How would they see the cosmos through their lens of a true interstellar civilization? How would they see us in relation to themselves and to other sentient beings? What are their perspectives on consciousness and paranormal phenomena of all kinds? What questions are they asking, and how many of our questions have they already answered? These are all enormous issues, and the prospect of actually plumbing them one day by communicating with such entities is a thrilling notion that touches on the nature of self and the meaning of life.
And I also feel it starts from a position of making specific assumptions of what kind of technology we are seeing in the skies.
I disagree. It all starts with the sightings of unexplained craft in our skies. The nature of the technology is an entirely secondary consideration, but one which I find to be of unique import to the human future.
Time is not sequential. Einstein reminds us it's all connected and it's all happening at once and yet us mere mortals insist on linearity.
You’ve misunderstood Einstein – causality is preserved in both of his theories: time is sequential. The only reference frame where everything happens at once is the photon reference frame, which matter is explicitly prohibited from experiencing because doing so would require infinite energy.
But the conversation about lights in the sky and radar returns is a very different one from CE cases. I think it's a grave misstep to combine what is a highly complex and distinct set of phenomena.
On the show you defined “close encounter cases” as “sightings within 500ft.” I don’t see why that class of sighting should be any different than sightings at 1000ft or 10,000ft – it’s an arbitrary demarcation point. And at 5,000ft+ a relatively small reflective or illuminated craft would only appear as a light in the sky, so it’s perfectly rational to conclude that a light in the sky that moves like a technological device, is probably a technological device. In contrast the Hessdalen lights, which you mentioned in the ETH thread, appear to meander slowly and in an organic manner, and they’re almost certainly a natural plasma phenomenon (probably related to the Marfa lights); so they’re the exception that proves the rule.
And I don't see how talking propulsion teases out any new info about the phenomenon.
Our best model for explaining the radical performance characteristics of the anomalous aerial devices that are reported, is a metric propulsion principle – which also just so happens to make the ETH vastly more likely because it reduces interstellar transit times to arbitrarily brief intervals. Apparently that’s why you hate talking about it so much – it opposes your favorite pet theories like the co-creation hypothesis and other New Agey mumbo jumbo.
