The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is?

[smcder]

Well and of course my quote regarding the fact that Bigfoot is "not of the body" is from The Return of the Archons but i'm sure you knew that already.

I did not know that already . . . the map of my mind has isolated areas of knowledge amidst vast seas of ignorance marked Here Be Dragons.

 

[Tyger]

Suicide cults would abound on a very high order, and be of a manner so wildly disturbing and bizarre that society would begin to reorganize itself and abandon consumerism as our current panacea. Instead we would opt for the discovery of new maths in order to better comprehend our insignificant captivity and attempt to make contact with our gods. This movie will be starring a cloned Charles Heston with Kubrick, who is not really dead after all, at the helm of the camera in his A.I. cyborg body to create the first ever deterministic sci-fi movie that will move the masses.

It seems like Prometheus is just such a movie?

I'm curious about the roots of these ideas - . . . that we're being manipulated and can't trust our perceptions, that the phenomena stays one step ahead . . . Lovecraft, Forte and Vallee obviously, the Trickster concept but where else do these ideas come from and who champions them in the paranormal field now?

Sometimes it really is explainable by something as simple as human nature: paranoia takes many guises. The belief one is being watched, one is being manipulated - while perchance accurate gut feelings in small local instances - are rarely so on a larger scale. [The money and manpower required is prohibitive - unless one has a society like the former Soviet Union where everyone was a potential 'informant' to a totalitarian government - but that took decades to accomplish.]

The idea of an overarching 'protecting' group (or nefarious group - there is always a mention of the Right and Left Hand Path) is rooted in the Biblical story of creation. In the esoteric streams in the West and East there are the mentions of the White Brotherhood [group of guiding Initiates]. The idea of attending Guardian Angels [Eastern term is 'Devas'] is along these lines - a spiritual hierarchy interested in humanity's development.

Folk tales abound with the presence and influence of 'folk' from the subtler realm working mischief or magic in people's lives. Legends speak of the 'genius' that comes to work with the human to advance evolution. The difference here seems to be that these 'interventions' are no longer recognized by some as spiritual but material - so the idea of being handled becomes a material/physical question.

Science Fiction is riddled with this idea: go back to the great writer Olaf Stapledon ['Star Maker'. 'Odd John', 'Last and First Men']. Here is Wiki: "Stapledon's writings directly influenced Arthur C. Clarke, Brian Aldiss, Stanisław Lem, John Gloag, Naomi Mitchison, C. S. Lewis, Vernor Vinge, John Maynard Smith, and indirectly influenced many others, contributing many ideas to the world of science fiction. The "supermind" composed of many individual consciousnesses forms a recurring theme in his work. Star Maker contains the first known description of what are now called Dyson spheres. Freeman Dyson credits the novel with giving him the idea, even stating in an interview that "Stapledon sphere" would be a more appropriate name. Last and First Men features early descriptions of genetic engineering and terraforming. Sirius describes a dog whose intelligence is increased to the level of a human being's."

Just saw an old episode of 'Star Trek:TNG' where Moriarty and his lady love are set up in a tape-loop universe in a small gadget - and Picard muses that perhaps 'we' are also in such a 'universe' in a gadget 'sitting on someone's desk somewhere in the universe'.

 

[smcder]

quote="Burnt State, post: 182626, member: 5332"]i don't know about the paranormal field, but i do believe that the collective psyche of the planet suffers from an incredible self-esteem complex. we don't like to admit it but the way we treat the host body, that is also us, is like an anorectic, bulimic, cutting, depressed teenager that doesn't want to talk about it, or admit any of their many, many mistakes and insecurities. and no matter how you try to get us to think better of who we are, we just continue to wage war on ourselves in a relentless fashion. we perpetuate an indifferent self-complex that says if i ignore it all, i can pretend those cuts all over my arms and thighs are not real; they don't exist. i can get better later on, perhaps. and so it goes.

i think the roots of this whole thing is that we are a very immature species with great potential that needs to grow up still. we show great signs of ingenuity, imagination and inventiveness, but we're quite shortsighted and lack patience. maybe we'll get to the stars, if we don't self-destruct first. maybe then we'll learn to think a little more highly of ourselves and our varied capacities.[/quote]

A therapist would have a field day with this my friend! ;-)

i think the roots of this whole thing is that we are a very immature species with great potential that needs to grow up still. we show great signs of ingenuity, imagination and inventiveness, but we're quite shortsighted and lack patience.

When I hear this or think it myself - I then always think compared to what? And it is interesting that I do seem to have a mark of comparison in mind . . . that's as complex to explain as any other ideal.

maybe we'll get to the stars

I recently read the following by John Michael Greer:
The Archdruid Report: Toward a Green Future, Part One: The Culture of Biophobia
Toward a Green Future, Part One: The Culture of Biophobia

I’m pretty sure that this is why the recent film Gravity has fielded such a flurry of nitpicking from science writers. What believers in progress hate about Gravity, I suggest, is not that it takes modest liberties with the details of space science—show me a science fiction film that doesn’t do so—but that it doesn’t romanticize space. It reminds its audiences that space isn’t the Atlantic Ocean, the Wild West, or any of the other models of terrestrial discovery and colonization that proponents of space travel have tried to map onto it. Space, not death, is the antithesis of life:empty, silent, cold, limitless, and as sterile as hard vacuum and hard radiation can make it.Watching Sandra Bullock struggling to get back to the only place in the cosmos where human beings actually belong is a sharp reminder of exactly what lies behind all that handwaving about “New Worlds for Man.”

And I was startled at how much I took for granted that the stars were the endpoint of human ambition . . . even though I personally ha no interest in it. When did such an idea start that we are destined for the stars? Is it really an innate drive? If so, how in the world do we explain that? Greer goes on to talk about biophobia and it may well be that we have some kind of repulsion to our own skins - the term "meat suit" is an almost pornographic denigration of the human body but I think it's the way many of us imagine ourselves - and perhaps some believe they could do it (incarnation) better (Kurzweil for example) than billions of years of evolutionary adaption to this locale - (and perhaps they could - but such a body would be adapted to what world?) and there is certainly a fetish for a gleaming steel body as the new image of Resurrected Man.

If it is our modern culture that does make it to the stars and not a more grown-up version, then there is every reason to think we could repeat the process on any other planet.

I think there is room for the idea that this wasn't an inevitable progression for man - that historical contingency came into play - or choice . . . run the tape over and we might have come to a very different place. One possibility is that our greatest ambition might be to geo-engineer the planet into a space faring vessel and launch ourselves and our planet into the deeps . . . this frigate earth as Melville describes it.

 

[trainedobserver]

Call me gloomy, but I think the species peaked long ago and is in decline. Our fascination with technology and our assumption that we are "advancing" the human condition rather than mucking it all up, says absolutely nothing about the "static condition" of our own biological evolution. Biologically and behaviorally we have not advanced one iota since the beginnings of recorded history. In fact, it can be argued we have degenerated biologically in a wholesale fashion through our recorded history. Flush toilets and weapons of mass destruction are not signs of evolution anymore than changes in social paradigms and economic systems. Needless to say, I think the whole trans-humanist business is a pipe-dream.

 

[smcder]

maybe

maybe not . . .

 

[smcder]

Call me gloomy, but I think the species peaked long ago and is in decline. Our fascination with technology and our assumption that we are "advancing" the human condition rather than mucking it all up, says absolutely nothing about the "static condition" of our own biological evolution. Biologically and behaviorally we have not advanced one iota since the beginnings of recorded history. In fact, it can be argued we have degenerated biologically in a wholesale fashion through our recorded history. Flush toilets and weapons of mass destruction are not signs of evolution anymore than changes in social paradigms and economic systems. Needless to say, I think the whole trans-humanist business is a pipe-dream.

ok . . . you're gloomy! ;-)

now . . . call me a cab

 

[smcder]

Call me gloomy, but I think the species peaked long ago and is in decline. Our fascination with technology and our assumption that we are "advancing" the human condition rather than mucking it all up, says absolutely nothing about the "static condition" of our own biological evolution. Biologically and behaviorally we have not advanced one iota since the beginnings of recorded history. In fact, it can be argued we have degenerated biologically in a wholesale fashion through our recorded history. Flush toilets and weapons of mass destruction are not signs of evolution anymore than changes in social paradigms and economic systems. Needless to say, I think the whole trans-humanist business is a pipe-dream.

I've not buckled down to look at this thesis:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined: Steven Pinker, Arthur Morey: 9781455883110: Amazon.com: Books

and there is a TED talk or something like that online and lots written about it . . . but basically he is saying there is less violence on the planet than ever before in history - now, this doesn't mean we have advanced but I think Pinker is probably going to make that argument.

 

[trainedobserver]

I've not buckled down to look at this thesis:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined: Steven Pinker, Arthur Morey: 9781455883110: Amazon.com: Books

and there is a TED talk or something like that online and lots written about it . . . but basically he is saying there is less violence on the planet than ever before in history - now, this doesn't mean we have advanced but I think Pinker is probably going to make that argument.

I think it is easy to confuse the advancement of social control systems with the idea of "evolutionary advances" exhibited in individual specimens. I would argue that the idea of human evolution and advancement as a "species" has nothing to do with which social control mechanisms or constraints exist at any given time and local. It would only take a couple of generations of ignorance (or a few days without food, water, or rest) to reset those artificial constructs and put us back into more violent modes.

 

[trainedobserver]

The Donald Shrum story from 1964.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Call me gloomy, but I think the species peaked long ago and is in decline. Our fascination with technology and our assumption that we are "advancing" the human condition rather than mucking it all up, says absolutely nothing about the "static condition" of our own biological evolution. Biologically and behaviorally we have not advanced one iota since the beginnings of recorded history. In fact, it can be argued we have degenerated biologically in a wholesale fashion through our recorded history. Flush toilets and weapons of mass destruction are not signs of evolution anymore than changes in social paradigms and economic systems. Needless to say, I think the whole trans-humanist business is a pipe-dream.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that you are in fact correct. We can prove it! The French did many moons ago with their human reproductive potential testing. Our best just serves to devo us.

Q: Are we not men?

A: We are Devo

 

[smcder]

I think it is easy to confuse the advancement of social control systems with the idea of "evolutionary advances" exhibited in individual specimens. I would argue that the idea of human evolution and advancement as a "species" has nothing to do with which social control mechanisms or constraints exist at any given time and local. It would only take a couple of generations of ignorance (or a few days without food, water, or rest) to reset those artificial constructs and put us back into more violent modes.

It would only take a couple of generations of ignorance (or a few days without food, water, or rest) to reset those artificial constructs and put us back into more violent modes.

Agreed - but then what would happen? Given the right circumstances would we make the slow climb back "up" to a more civilized mode? Is that also arguably in our nature?

see: A Canticle for Liebowitz

I would argue that the idea of human evolution and advancement as a "species" has nothing to do with which social control mechanisms or constraints exist at any given time and local.

And I think you could argue it just the other way around . . . I think you could argue that the will to put social control mechanisms in place is as indicative of our species' basic "nature" as the tendency to resort to violence when the controls are off . . . so we're complex - I think Pinker may be saying that it is the better "angels" of our nature that put those controls in place and that they will re-assert themselves time and again if we do slide "back".

I have a book about rescue stories during the Holocaust - the author examines lots of stories to find out who rescues and why - and comes up with a complex matrix which amounts to: people generally did what they could - some risked all and their families, some did nothing, but most did what they could - it might be a loaf of bread, it might be to hide them overnight, it might be simple encouragement, but most people tried to do something.

And the exact same thing could be said about the German people's participation in the Holocaust - most did what they could. Some were sadistic prison guards, some refused to help at all and were imprisoned or killed themselves - some gave up their friends, some merely turned their heads but again, most did what they could.

Was their any basic/biological difference in the rescuers and the participants? I don't think so - I'm not even sure cultural differences could account for it . . . they were simply on opposite sides.

I think it is easy to confuse the advancement of social control systems with the idea of "evolutionary advances" exhibited in individual specimens.

We have to tease that out - do "evolutionary advances" come at the individual level? A mutation - but then it has to be passed on and now you have a group and then a population (if it is successful) but if you just have one extraordinary individual, is that an evolutionary advance? Or are just saying that a basic person is potentially no better or worse than they ever were? (I agree with that.)

But it would be hard to imagine a strictly genetic advance that would evolve us toward being "better" people - epigenetics now seems to show that genes actually change the proteins they code for in response to changes in the environment - so what actual genetic change would allow us to become better people? An increase in mirror/empathy neurons? I would argue more empathy could as easily make a monster as a saint - the best torturer is the one who can imagine just how best to inflict suffering on his victim . . . more intelligence? I don't think there is a correlation between intellect and good behavior.

It could also be argued that individuals don't actually have to become better people for a population to become more civilized. Given the right opportunity, we almost all of us would do nasty, selfish things - but most of us also would participate in rules that restrict our ability to do those things - political constitutions are based on our tendency to do the wrong thing, but the tendency to write and re-write those constitutions is based on our tendency to do the right thing.

Now - if you are saying each person comes out of the womb with the same basic potential for good and evil as 10,000 years ago I think yes and I think that is as it should be for the survival of the species and the individual - even the psychopath must play a role - or else that type wouldn't keep turning up generation after generation. But it doesn't negate that given the right opportunity, we tend to civilize ourselves and at least refine the kinds of harms we do to one another.

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm saying that I don't think "civilization" is an evolutionary indicator. I also think you misunderstood my poorly written sentence.
I think it is easy to confuse the advancement of social control systems with the idea of "evolutionary advances" exhibited in individual specimens.
What I mean to convey was that we can easily confuse advances in social engineering as some sign of biological or "spiritual" evolution of the species. However, when we examine an individual specimen, we can easily see nothing has really changed for the better for as far back as we can see in our recorded history and for some time before that.

 

[smcder]

I'm saying that I don't think "civilization" is an evolutionary indicator. I also think you misunderstood my poorly written sentence.
I think it is easy to confuse the advancement of social control systems with the idea of "evolutionary advances" exhibited in individual specimens.
What I mean to convey was that we can easily confuse advances in social engineering as some sign of biological or "spiritual" evolution of the species. However, when we examine an individual specimen, we can easily see nothing has really changed for the better for as far back as we can see in our recorded history and for some time before that.

However, when we examine an individual specimen, we can easily see nothing has really changed for the better for as far back as we can see in our recorded history and for some time before that.

Would you say anything has changed for the worse? Perhaps, having everything we need to produce either saint or sadist - we have maximized our spiritual potential from a strictly genetic point of view?

 

[trainedobserver]

However, when we examine an individual specimen, we can easily see nothing has really changed for the better for as far back as we can see in our recorded history and for some time before that.

Would you say anything has changed for the worse?

It's been a while since I've read anything along those lines. The teeth and jaws comes to mind.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I'm saying that I don't think "civilization" is an evolutionary indicator. I also think you misunderstood my poorly written sentence.
I think it is easy to confuse the advancement of social control systems with the idea of "evolutionary advances" exhibited in individual specimens.
What I mean to convey was that we can easily confuse advances in social engineering as some sign of biological or "spiritual" evolution of the species. However, when we examine an individual specimen, we can easily see nothing has really changed for the better for as far back as we can see in our recorded history and for some time before that.

This IMO is the truth and just about every measurable physical indication leads to the conclusion that we are environmentally devolving at a rapid rate. The sperm count in men alone is just a fraction of what it was just 100 years ago. So honestly, there are marked physical degraded changes due to environmental specialization. In the last 100 years IQs on average have significantly dropped as well. We are simply, matter of factually, devolving in a hurry. That's what mechanistic civilization does for a person.

Have sperm densities declined? A reanalysis of global trend data.

Gene Expression: IQ and Populations

 

[smcder]

It's been a while since I've read anything along those lines. The teeth and jaws comes to mind.

I like that because when I went to get implants (teeth that never came in) the doc said I had the jaws of a neanderthal, about twice as much bone mass as the average male - although they still probably pale in comparison to those of an eskimo child.

 

[smcder]

This IMO is the truth and just about every measurable physical indication leads to the conclusion that we are environmentally devolving at a rapid rate. The sperm count in men alone is just a fraction of what it was just 100 years ago. So honestly, there are marked physical degraded changes due to environmental specialization. In the last 100 years IQs on average have significantly dropped as well. We are simply, matter of factually, devolving in a hurry. That's what mechanistic civilization does for a person.

Have sperm densities declined? A reanalysis of global trend data.

Gene Expression: IQ and Populations

Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using asample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

 

[trainedobserver]

More robots from space hassle good folk minding their own business.

Pascagoula

 

[Burnt State]

However, when we examine an individual specimen, we can easily see nothing has really changed for the better for as far back as we can see in our recorded history and for some time before that.

Would you say anything has changed for the worse? Perhaps, having everything we need to produce either saint or sadist - we have maximized our spiritual potential from a strictly genetic point of view?

I currently educate youth to think more clearly & ask more questions about the rapidly changing world they live in called, the Digital Revolution. Their modes of communication, human interaction, stress levels & emotional responses to the world around them are all undergoing tumultuous change. This is an age of human experimentation in both issues of self-esteem and relationship dynamics. While many old folk argue about the true definition of marriage when 1 in 2 end in divorce, kids have friends with benefits and unprecedented access to hardcore pornography, and all the other info the world has to offer. I have 1,000 or so odd posts here over the last two years; my daughter, age 12, has racked up 20,000 posts on tumblr in the last nine months. The times, they are a changin'.

Soon, I know, the tech will change and revolutionize even more, and the world I once knew will fade away and dissolve, while her world will rise, filled with invisible technology, and an Internet inside her head. Marriage and children might be fanciful gestures in an overcrowded, underfed world as she will have different sense perceptions and experiences of reality. I would expect that in that era of brain manipulation, with new neural pathways, and google looking deeply into our souls, a lot will shift, maybe even evolve.

Our bodies are clunky, emotional vessels tied by attachments to our others, corrupted with obesity and diabetes....it's all so non-Vulcan. I think we all need to hold onto our hats as there is a lot shaking down the pipes that we can't even imagine. Maybe those old notions of good and evil will become facile and be replaced by discovery sciences in an indifferent era?

Still, in our history there have always been great spiritual voices to help guide us through our struggles, but in an age of heteroglossia, with many voices yammering, where are those voices and will they ever return? Perhaps plurality will give way to undiscovered paradigms? In other words, we ain't seen nothing yet, well that is if we don't all die from cancer first.

 

[Burnt State]

More robots from space hassle good folk minding their own business.
Pascagoula

This one really gets me b/c of the follow up police recording with them alone in the room talking very consistently about an absolutely impossible experience. I also find it rather strange that the younger guy never really spoke about it again while the older man basked in it. I don't think I ever understood their pairing, so disparate in age, but out fishing together? The skeptic could frame a debunking around sexual assault here if it wasn't for that recording in the station. This is one of my top picks for ultra weirdness and is highly suggestive of the 'alien' craft. It's also one of the few cases that actually has people remembering crossing over the threshold and into the craft, whereas most abductee reports blank on that moment.