Spirituality, UFOs, and the Heaven's Gate Cult

[Randall]

If you only want to study Flying Objects that have Identified as "Alien Crafts" then I have to wonder just how many you have to "study" and why you would insist on calling them "Unidentified" if you have Identified them as alien? <----rhetorical question.

There is plenty of mystery left in the word "alien" to investigate and study. <----rhetorical answer.

 

[Jeff Davis]

It would seem to be so. While possibly native to the earth they are as Randell would rightly point out "alien" to the general human population. Given the history of UFO reports it certainly seems that some may be coming from somewhere "other than" any known human civilization on the planet. Beyond that ...

I think our perceptional resource limitations could irrevocably mask a great deal of activity, beings, and things that could be coexisting with us on the planet.

Absolutely! And no, we cannot just assume that is the case, that we share this environment with intelligent beings that pilot UFOs, but because of so much of our own environment being "not available" due to our own physiological limitations, they could be right here the whole time as there are so many places that are either yet fully explored, (the oceans) as well as those that you point to that are beyond our senses.

I wonder sometimes if the UFO/human experience might represent a segment of our own evolution. In the same precise way that all origins of life seem to be traceable to the oceans and seas, is our present Terra Firma orientation temporary according to this same basic progressive reasoning? Might we be in the process of transitioning in a natural manner wherein the result would be our species merger/access with and into this extra environmental consideration?

 

[Randall]

Frankly, and absolutely amazingly, we are in perfect agreement. Prior to this post, I honestly thought that you were a staunch ETH kind of Ufologist. I don't deny that UFOs may represent a specific technology that ET utilizes to routinely, in vast and tremendously varying numbers, coming here to have a look see. Although quite honestly, after taking in everything that I have over roughly the last 40 years, I find the notion of as much totally absurd.

IMO (strictly/honestly), I absolutely have adopted the belief that there is an intelligence other than the observer involved. I don't know that. It's not a "truth" by any means, but it is what I believe. Subsequently, I believe that we are dealing with just one singular intelligence in any case. Whether that equates to an all us scenario, or a scenario that includes them and us, I don't know, but I truthfully suspect that there are two distinctly different parties involved in the UFO mystery and not just an aberration in the mind of the observer. Even if those two separate parties are both human in nature.

I have been reading the excellent post/thread that @exo_doc provided dealing with the Holographic Universe. IMO, maybe I am wrong, but in a way it seems as though the idea of computerized mathematical simulations depicting the cosmological make up of our universe are a very precise continuation of what is phenomenalism. This has always seemed extremely logical to me.

Why? Because continuously I listen/read, and understandably accept people's thoughts like yourself and trainedobserver referring to our perception of reality as being very limited. What we take in via the information that we personally process concerning what is going on all around us is nothing like what is actually taking place that we are unaware of as a whole. There is simply so much information within our universe that we by, and due to, our naturally adaptive orientations within nature, have no means to process apart from the computational processing that these super computers afford us. Again this seems very much akin to what is phenomenalism due to the fact that we are imaging something (the cosmos) that is based on what is purely informational input beyond the construct of what human awareness affords us. Does this seem reasonable to you?

I don't think that phenomenalism is an accurate model because at its base level, it assumes that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena. That is simply an unreasonable position to take, even if our observable universe is a generated construct, because the things we define as physical objects still exist within the context of that construct independently of our individual perceptual awareness of them. However remove phenomenalism from the equation and everything you're saying makes pretty good sense.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I don't think that phenomenalism is an accurate model because at its base level, it assumes that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena. That is simply an unreasonable position to take, even if our observable universe is a generated construct, because the things we define as physical objects still exist within the context of that construct independently of our individual perceptual awareness of them. However remove phenomenalism from the equation and everything you're saying makes pretty good sense.

Yes, you're right. If the computer was an artificial form of human intelligence, it might work out because we would be inputting "sense-data" rather than mathematical equations if such a thing is even possible. I have always struggled with phenomenalism because I want it to be the study of appearances according to perception, but I keep forgetting that it assumes there is nothing there to begin with apart from information. Still in yet, how could our universe be a projection that we interact with according to our senses if what we are interacting with is a projection? According to the Holographic Universe theory, what does this projection consist of if not solely information? Is it projecting matter, light, ???? Mind boggling.

 

[trainedobserver]

Not only do I disagree, it's not reasonable for you to post your opinion and at the same time shut down discussion about it. So if you don't want to discuss how the word UFO is best defined, then you shouldn't bring it up. As always, if you have some specific objection to the facts or reasoning in my article on what UFOs are, then by all means quote the parts you don't think are accurate or don't make sense and we'll discuss them. Make a good enough case and I'll change my views.

I'm not shutting down anything. How can I do that? I just think your repeated argument that all UFOs must first be identified as "Alien Craft" to be tiresome and it's already been done Ad nauseam. I don't care to try to change your views Randall. Why would I?

The simple fact is you are the only person I know of who insists that something called a Unidentified Flying Object must first be Identified as an "alien craft" before it can be dubbed a "U.F.O." I don't know that a more specific argument is needed beyond that. It's absolutely nonsensical to me and a total waste of time to carry on about.

Out of curiosity. How many alien crafts have you studied at this point in your career as a "Ufologist?"

 

[Randall]

The simple fact is you are the only person I know of who insists that something called a Unidentified Flying Object must first be Identified as an "alien craft" before it can be dubbed a "U.F.O." I don't know that a more specific argument is needed beyond that. It's absolutely nonsensical to me and a total waste of time to carry on about. Out of curiosity. How many alien crafts have you studied at this point in your career as a "Ufologist?"

What you're claiming I'm saying isn't what I'm actually saying. You're putting words in my mouth to substantiate an implied assumption based on your personal experience, in order to support your position, and it's far from nonsensical to clarify this situation. What I'm actually saying is in the article here: http://ufopages.com/Content/Reference/UFO-01a.htm

In more brief terms, the fact is, when we hear the word UFO, it's perfectly normal and reasonable for the first thing to come to mind to be some kind of alien craft. That particular usage is backed by decades of history, millions of examples in books, films, and imagery, as well as the historical intent behind the official usage. In fact it's so obvious as to be self evident, and most people wouldn't even bother to debate the point. So despite your attempt to marginalize this view, I'm hardly alone in it. Unfortunately however, the word UFO is still surrounded by some confusion.

This confusion has been brought about by those who incorrectly assume ( or insist ) that the word UFO ( or ufo ) means the same thing as the words that form the acronym itself. In other words they think that the word ufo means U.F.O. when it doesn't. The fact is, when it comes to acronyms, there is no universal agreement on the precise definition of various names. ( Wikipedia ). When it comes to the meaning of acronyms, better dictionaries include the individual words that form them as part of the word origin, rather than their meaning. An acronym's Interpretation and meaning is therefore based on the way the word is used in general and/or interpreted by the area of specialty associated with it.

For example it would be incorrect to assume that radio detection and ranging ( RADAR or radar ), means going out and detecting and ranging radios; or that SST should be interpreted to mean Super ( excellent ) Sonic ( sound ) Transport ( vehicle ). In fact the "S" in SST is all one word ( supersonic ). But if we're to insist on being literal with the interpretation, we would obviously be wrong. There are many more acronyms out there in technical language that would be just plain wrong to interpret literally, and to insist that we should do so, despite the evidence to the contrary, is simply unreasonable and unsupportable.

So for the word UFO, we already have a well established meaning through general usage that is supported by overwhelming evidence as being a reference to alien craft. Regarding official usage, we also have a significant amount of historical evidence that strongly suggests that the official usage referred to alien craft. Plus in the context of ufology studies, the core subject matter is a focus on alien visitation, not vague lights off in the distance that could be anything including Santa'a reindeer. So in all contexts, the meaning of the word UFO ( or ufo ) boils down to "alien craft" and not merely a literal U.F.O.

All that being said, I would like to address the one point you seem to be making that I think is valid, and that is that we shouldn't assume that a U.F.O. ( literal unidentified flying object ) is a UFO ( alien craft ). To help minimize this problem all we need to do is start using the word correctly. For example we shouldn't say, "Look! A UFO !" unless we have substantial reason for believing we're looking at an alien craft. Similarly, we shouldn't assume that the object described in every UFO report is a UFO. So for usage, we would say, "The object in this UFO report is unidentified." rather than saying, "The UFO in this report is unidentified." I realize that getting used to the terminology may take some time and study, but it's no different than getting used to the terms used in other specialized areas of study.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What you're claiming I'm saying isn't what I'm actually saying. You're putting words in my mouth to substantiate an implied assumption based on your personal experience, in order to support your position, and it's far from nonsensical to clarify this situation. What I'm actually saying is in the article here: http://ufopages.com/Content/Reference/UFO-01a.htm

In more brief terms, the fact is, when we hear the word UFO, it's perfectly normal and reasonable for the first thing to come to mind to be some kind of alien craft. That particular usage is backed by decades of history, millions of examples in books, films, and imagery, as well as the historical intent behind the official usage. In fact it's so obvious as to be self evident, and most people wouldn't even bother to debate the point. So despite your attempt to marginalize this view, I'm hardly alone in it. Unfortunately however, the word UFO is still surrounded by some confusion.

This confusion has been brought about by those who incorrectly assume ( or insist ) that the word UFO ( or ufo ) means the same thing as the words that form the acronym itself. In other words they think that the word ufo means U.F.O. when it doesn't. The fact is, when it comes to acronyms, there is no universal agreement on the precise definition of various names. ( Wikipedia ). When it comes to the meaning of acronyms, better dictionaries include the individual words that form them as part of the word origin, rather than their meaning. An acronym's Interpretation and meaning is therefore based on the way the word is used in general and/or interpreted by the area of specialty associated with it.

For example it would be incorrect to assume that radio detection and ranging ( RADAR or radar ), means going out and detecting and ranging radios; or that SST should be interpreted to mean Super ( excellent ) Sonic ( sound ) Transport ( vehicle ). In fact the "S" in SST is all one word ( supersonic ). But if we're to insist on being literal with the interpretation, we would obviously be wrong. There are many more acronyms out there in technical language that would be just plain wrong to interpret literally, and to insist that we should do so, despite the evidence to the contrary, is simply unreasonable and unsupportable.

So for the word UFO, we already have a well established meaning through general usage that is supported by overwhelming evidence as being a reference to alien craft. Regarding official usage, we also have a significant amount of historical evidence that strongly suggests that the official usage referred to alien craft. Plus in the context of ufology studies, the core subject matter is a focus on alien visitation, not vague lights off in the distance that could be anything including Santa'a reindeer. So in all contexts, the meaning of the word UFO ( or ufo ) boils down to "alien craft" and not merely a literal U.F.O.

All that being said, I would like to address the one point you seem to be making that I think is valid, and that is that we shouldn't assume that a U.F.O. ( literal unidentified flying object ) is a UFO ( alien craft ). To help minimize this problem all we need to do is start using the word correctly. For example we shouldn't say, "Look! A UFO !" unless we have substantial reason for believing we're looking at an alien craft. Similarly, we shouldn't assume that the object described in every UFO report is a UFO. So for usage, we would say, "The object in this UFO report is unidentified." rather than saying, "The UFO in this report is unidentified." I realize that getting used to the terminology may take some time and study, but it's no different than getting used to the terms used in other specialized areas of study.

Slightly amazing. I do "get" where your coming from here now, and I will admit, I didn't prior because I figured incorrectly that you, and I, were both referring to U.F.O.s. We are not, and this is where the confusion comes from. I agree with you in what you are stating here, but it's asking an awful lot from researchers and lay hobbyist like myself (prior to understanding your perspective here) to honestly have a clue where you are coming from. You're not wrong in the least, however, I think you might be approaching the issue incorrectly in terms of expressing your point, and that's it.

It's the wordage itself that gets multiple paranormal enthusiasts (like myself & trainedobserver) convoluted in what is actually, an oversimplification process. It seems relatively obvious that UFO refers to an unidentified flying object, but that is well outside the context of your perspective. What if, in an effort to keep things as expressively efficient as is possible, we refer to alien craft (or my own accepted phrase which is non-human technology) UFOs as Ufos, or ufos, and we refer to the acronym itself as UFOs? This is an extremely common occurrence in the English language if you think about it. The same word in one context is an adjective, and in another, a noun. Relativity, actually, and yes, I have your back and concede that I previously had failed to perceive your perspective via the aforementioned oversimplification complication.

 

[Randall]

... What if, in an effort to keep things as expressively efficient as is possible, we refer to alien craft (or my own accepted phrase which is non-human technology) UFOs as Ufos, or ufos, and we refer to the acronym itself as UFOs?

According to the generally accepted rules, a literal unidentified flying object would be U.F.O. ( with the full stops ), while the word UFO or ufo ( also pronounced correctly as "yoo-foe" ), refer to the word originally created by the USAF and used as a reference to alien craft ( alien suggesting, but not necessitating ET or any other particular origin ). As the eminent ufologist Jacques Vallée once said, "I cannot think of anything more treacherous than this word, unidentified." However I believe that with our present analysis in hand, we have a way to navigate these treacherous waters. But we still need to beware of the sharks. They take the form of skeptics who prey upon the uninformed and make statements like, "A UFO is just an unidentified flying object and because it's unidentified it could be anything at all." Few statements could be more misleading, but now you have the information to fight back fair and square.

 

[Burnt State]

But, as you pointed out previously, Randall, much of what informs our meaning of the U?F?O? acronym is sociological at best. Is there not an express danger in allowing for the meaning of what could be a 'game changer' for our species to be mostly defined, simplified and overly processed by mass media & popular culture? That rather large engine that manufactures meaning could simply be part of a much larger Keelian distraction, no?

 

[Randall]

But, as you pointed out previously, Randall, much of what informs our meaning of the U?F?O? acronym is sociological at best. Is there not an express danger in allowing for the meaning of what could be a 'game changer' for our species to be mostly defined, simplified and overly processed by mass media & popular culture? That rather large engine that manufactures meaning could simply be part of a much larger Keelian distraction, no?

Interesting question, and I would say the short answer is, "Yes." At the same time, I would maintain that a well formed definition helps to minimize that problem because it's the absence of a consistent well formed definition that has facilitated all the vagaries and faulty interpretations we see out there today, particularly with the way that some skeptics use it to breed confusion and misinformation. In contrast, a well formed definition provides a solid foundation from which to proceed with serious study.

Perhaps we'll never get our hands on a UFO, and as unlikely as it seems, perhaps it will be proven somehow that no alien craft exist or could have come here from wherever they come from. If that happens, then UFOs can be moved 100% into the realm of misidentifications, frauds, and fiction. In the meantime however, there have been too many observations of craft that are perfectly reasonable to class as alien.

 

[Burnt State]

But what most people are saying is that it could be a lot more complicated than just alien craft, and if that's the case then putting all our eggs into one Black Triangle over Belgium basket? And we now believe that it's probably an experimental basket like a significant portion of the craft we've seen.

But, personally I think the ETH is most likely a smokescreen for something else altogether, something more bizarre and complicated. Even my own witnessed event with the two metallic craft that I saw, that displayed incredible capacities not of this world, I think sometimes was some kind of surreal, epic magic show, put on just for our benefit. It makes no sense.

If I decided to place that event on the ETH shelf and forget about it I would have stopped asking questions about it long ago. I would not be here on this forum slinging words so often, that's for sure.

 

[Randall]

But what most people are saying is that it could be a lot more complicated than just alien craft, and if that's the case then putting all our eggs into one Black Triangle over Belgium basket? And we now believe that it's probably an experimental basket like a significant portion of the craft we've seen.

But, personally I think the ETH is most likely a smokescreen for something else altogether, something more bizarre and complicated. Even my own witnessed event with the two metallic craft that I saw, that displayed incredible capacities not of this world, I think sometimes was some kind of surreal, epic magic show, put on just for our benefit. It makes no sense.

If I decided to place that event on the ETH shelf and forget about it I would have stopped asking questions about it long ago. I would not be here on this forum slinging words so often, that's for sure.

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ( ETH ) is only one alien possibility. The "something more bizarre and complicated" you speak of sounds equally alien ( or even more so ) to me.

 

[Burnt State]

You're right. Because the idea of zipping around the galactic cluster to make these brief fly by's, collecting soil, water and some of the local big brained DNA sounds entirely normal and boring. If i'm a species that has the capacity to distort and shift reality, as well as maneuver ships in the oddest of ways then maybe I'm not just out on an Alien U. graduate school field trip. Maybe what I'm up to is far stranger than that and I'm just trying to make my distraction more palatable, But that doesn't mean I'm alien. I could be living next door to you and I smile brightest and laugh the loudest when you call me ET from the stars. I'm no life form as you know it but I wear a good disguise.

 

[trainedobserver]

Here's a link to a pretty comprehensive table of UFO hypothesis variations from John Greer's The UFO Phenomenon: Fact, Fantasy and Disinformation. A great book b.t.w.

I just noticed some the bullets are a bit off and I can't seem to fix it. "Or natural" and "Or apparition" should be on the same level as "Material."

 

[Burnt State]

Here's a link to a pretty comprehensive table of UFO hypothesis variations from John Greer's The UFO Phenomenon: Fact, Fantasy and Disinformation. A great book b.t.w.

I just noticed some the bullets are a bit off and I can't seem to fix it. "Or natural" and "Or apparition" should be on the same level as "Material."

Thanks for posting this. When I first started reading this forum years ago this was the one thread i started on and hooked me in - a mixed blessing. I have always thought this was an excellent breakdown of the possibilities. I have been looking for it ever since. Somehow, that's the disenchanted metaphor for all of this relooping of ideas.

 

[trainedobserver]

We need a list like that for the more important question. What is their purpose? What function does the UFO phenomenon provide whatever system is responsible for them? In short, what are they doing here?

Here is a start:
You could repeat the following under two major headings:
Altruistic motivations
Selfish motivations

• Exploration for
  • Exploitation of resources
  • Colonization
  • Cultural evangelism
• Implementation or Monitoring of
  • Ongoing scientific program
  • Ongoing commercial program

 

[Randall]

We need a list like that for the more important question. What is their purpose? What function does the UFO phenomenon provide whatever system is responsible for them? In short, what are they doing here?

The behavior of UFOs suggests exploration, and exploration implies data gathering, and data gathering means taking measurements, and taking measurements means making observations and acquiring samples. Beyond the analysis of the raw data from these activities, the rest is guesswork. We can infer that their craft require materials for construction, operation, and maintenance, and therefore acquiring resources might be a motivation. If they are a starfaring race, perhaps visitation may be a prelude to establishing an outpost or settlement. I have doubts about conquest as a motivating factor. But who can say for sure? Without more information, this is about as far as we can get and not completely fall off the edge into wild speculation and conspiracy theories.

 

[manxman]

no it doesnt in most cases, its random bright spots, or lights moving in randon ways, without purpose, thats how i dismiss most without giving them a second thought, just atmospheric plasma, in all its variations.

 

[Randall]

no it doesnt in most cases, its random bright spots, or lights moving in randon ways, without purpose, thats how i dismiss most without giving them a second thought

What are you referring to and who are you talking to? It would be more clear if you used the reply button because it automatically quotes the person you are addressing.

 

[trainedobserver]

no it doesnt in most cases, its random bright spots, or lights moving in randon ways, without purpose, thats how i dismiss most without giving them a second thought, just atmospheric plasma, in all its variations.

I guess I'm starting off with UFO reports that contain descriptions of what appear to be manufactured vehicles, sometimes with occupants, as well as "alien abduction" reports. If you take those things as reports of "real events" then you are left wondering what they would be doing here. The only thing that really makes any sense to me is a non-altruistic exploitation of resources.