UFO Impulsivity & Paranormal Phenomena

SRL+ · Feb 20, 2011

When the performance begins there seems to be a impulsive, erratic, dynamic energy present. The word “performance”implies what the UFO phenomenon presents itself as. It is not by chance nor mistake that the UFO phenomenon presents itself to either the experiencer or experiencers, whether physiologically, psychologically, or in tandem. The performance has a tendency to play itself out. In other words the performance has a beginning and an end, leaving either the experiencer or experiencers with a varied array of impressions, from euphoria to terror. The phenomenon is able to detect, and engage different forms of consciousness, interacting with multiple forms of consciousness during any given performance. In some cases either the experiencer or experiencers psyche dictates the parameter of what may be experienced. There have been known instances in which pre-cognitive qualities have been associated with UFO and paranormal phenomena.

The word “Impulsivity” is used in terms of global locations, nature, duration, and erratic behavior of manifestations. They can occur anywhere at anytime. They can materialize and dematerialize. The duration of either sightings or experiences can last from seconds to hours. The UFO phenomenon has been occasionally associated with either injury or death. UFO and other paranormal phenomena usually engage either the experiencer or experinecers at random, but not necessarily at will, even though there are known recurring performances at recurring locales.

The late Terrence McKenna in a short lecture describes the neurotic aspect of the UFO phenomenon. McKenna hypothesized that there is a “neurotic energy dynamic” in the mass psyche which is caused by the repression of legitimate modalities for exploring consciousness. Whether or not his views as to the reasons for the neurosis are valid, there seems to be a type of neurotic energy present.

There are many other examples of UFO and paranormal phenomena characteristics, yet this should suffice in order to suggest a point. And that is, when presented with these observations one may be drawn toward a possible conclusion, that if in fact there are forms of either consciousness(s) or intelligence(s) in the UFO and paranormal phenomena, it may be surprising if the phenomena were self-cognizant by virtues of the behavior displayed. However it is not to say there could be one or more additional driving forces within, or outside the phenomena

boomerang · Feb 20, 2011

Another recurrent theme in witness reports is the almost total control the phenomena seems to have over the unfolding of events. It's hard to experimentally study something which is controlling the experiment!

plumbbob12 · Feb 20, 2011

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> I’m sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I, along with many others find Terrence McKenna’s lectures interesting, but he was a creative word-smith. The term: “neurotic energy dynamic” really means nothing. When one connects this neurotic energy dynamic as being the result of a: “repression of legitimate modalities for exploring consciousness” – I am left speechless. What “repression”, what “modalities”? What kind of “neurotic energy dynamic”? How is this “dynamic” expressed, and where does it originate in our mind/brain? As I have said in the past, words have meaning. I could just as easily say that “our perception of the UFO mythology is a direct result of subliminal oscillations in our prefrontal cortex”. This would mean nothing. If we want to engage in an intelligent conversation on the UFO enigma, we have to discuss it in terms that everyone can understand, and relate too. Our language is built on analogy, and sometimes our analogies are way too weak to express paranormal events. We need to simplify our language, and not complicate it in order that others can understand what we are attempting to say about something that is out of the ordinary. pb

softbeard · Feb 20, 2011

I completely agree. I think Mr. McKenna is making a big deal out of people's varied reactions. Lots of big words, little point.

mike · Feb 20, 2011

We tend to think about our brains in a hard wired kind of way, and on an individual by individual basis its a logical conclusion. My thoughts are private uless i choose to use a mechanism to express them, either the spoken word, or the written, both "hard wired" mechanisms, wether its characters on a page/screen or sounds carried on soundwaves.

But bit by bit.... we are learning that its possible to add a WiFI component to this mix.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7159464/Do-we-want-brain-scanners-to-read-our-minds.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/living/article6898177.ece

Scientists have discovered how to “read” minds by scanning brain activity and reproducing images of what people are seeing — or even remembering.
Researchers have been able to convert into crude video footage the brain activity stimulated by what a person is watching or recalling.
The breakthrough raises the prospect of significant benefits, such as allowing people who are unable to move or speak to communicate via visualisation of their thoughts; recording people’s dreams; or allowing police to identify criminals by recalling the memories of a witness.
However, it could also herald a new Big Brother era, similar to that envisaged in the Hollywood film Minority Report, in which an individual’s private thoughts can be readily accessed by the authorities.

It therefore seems logical to me that if we can do it, they can do it, and to a degree that makes our current research look like a candle compared to a lighthouse.
We dont think in terms of our minds being "open books", its not our experience that this should be so.
But when you look at our research in this area, and extrapolate it to its conclusion......
Then the reality that our minds are "open" books to those with the right technology becomes very likely.

softbeard · Feb 20, 2011

mike said:
It therefore seems logical to me that if we can do it, they can do it,

Very good point. Extrapolating on this does start to explain things a bit.

mike · Feb 21, 2011

Even more so when you consider its likely to be a two way process, not just the ability to read the open book of the human mind, but also to write apon its pages, "screen" memorys are not a new idea within this genre.

softbeard · Feb 21, 2011

Yeah, well... things get a bit blurry continuing on that road. I don't think the extrapolation necessarily goes down the science-fiction pathway, but it is interesting.

mike · Feb 21, 2011

Yesterdays SciFi is tomorrows SciFact.......

the U.S. Army has just awarded a $4 million contract to begin developing "thought helmets" that would harness silent brain waves for secure communication among troops. Ultimately, the Army hopes the project will "lead to direct mental control of military systems by thought alone."
If this sounds insane, it would have been as recently as a few years ago. But improvements in computing power and a better understanding of how the brain works have scientists busy hunting for the distinctive neural fingerprints that flash through a brain when a person is talking to himself. The Army's initial goal is to capture those brain waves with incredibly sophisticated software that then translates the waves into audible radio messages for other troops in the field. "It'd be radio without a microphone, " says Dr. Elmar Schmeisser, the Army neuroscientist overseeing the program.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1841108,00.html#ixzz1EYnSe6Ku

Again, weve already figured out the brain can be reverse engineered, and interfaced with via technology.
These systems in development as they are now, are like a candle compared to a lighthouse, but an advanced technological species would be able to do this in a way that would seem like magic.

The very fact that our (human) research has provided proof of concept is very significant.

If a database was built up identifying various neurons with concepts, objects and people it would allow them to "read the subject's minds", according to Dr Cerf.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...Scientists-plan-to-record-peoples-dreams.html

The ability to "read" whats in our minds is just the start, remember when CD's were Read Only ?
Now we can both read and write to CD's . Its only a matter of time and research.

The implications for humanity are profound, but then the same was said of powered flight once, now its common place. Personally i think its a natural thing for any sufficiently advanced species to do.
we are already getting a taste of this, we can now communicate with each other all over the planet.
we swap text, audio ,video in real time. Direct mental transfer via technology is the logical next step.
Powered flight and space travel were once the realms of fiction too.

Given that "screen" memorys are part of the genre already, id say its a good bet they have this ability, which in turn could explain an awful lot of the strangeness associated with this enigma.

jimp · Feb 21, 2011

I don't think we can predict what future technology will be capable of. We can look at current technology and see that some of it was predicted by ideas that were once science-fiction. But not all. Some technologies are discovered by pure accident. So how many projects kicked around at DARPA eventually result in a usable technology? Maybe thousands of ideas and only a few significant results?

To take a picture of brain activity and determine a person's mental state might prove difficult. It hard to look at a photograph of someone and determine whether they are laughing or crying. I suppose I am skeptical about all this because I don't think consciousness results from brain activity. I see it as the other way around: brain activity results from consciousness. This isn't dualism, really, because I think consciousness originates in a higher dimension and is merely manifested through the brain and body at a different frequency. I have no way of proving this, but it feels right to me.

Regarding the original poster, it seems that a lot of ghostly paranormal phenomena is often described as being unaware of the witnesses, while other occurrences appear to be interactive. If some UFOs result from the same cause -- a tear in the fabric between dimensions maybe -- then those UFOs would be unaware of us in this dimension. But since other UFOs are described as interacting with the witnesses, then they must be 1) deliberate visitors, aware of how they got here and with some purpose, or 2) accidental visitors but fully aware in this dimension.

Maybe the aliens -- whatever they are -- can manipulate our minds. Why? Keel thinks they are stranded beings whose only way of feeling alive is to express themselves through us -- messing with us, tricking us, like a kid poking and prodding an unfortunate little animal. If UFOs are nuts-and-bolts, then the aliens might be manipulating our minds in order to carry out their purpose here, whatever that is. OR, all the discombobulating experiences that witnesses experience around UFOs may simply be a reaction to the alien technology: manipulating gravity, bending space and time, i.e., unintentional on the aliens parts.

mike · Feb 21, 2011

jimp said:
I don't think we can predict what future technology will be capable of. We can look at current technology and see that some of it was predicted by ideas that were once science-fiction. But not all. Some technologies are discovered by pure accident. So how many projects kicked around at DARPA eventually result in a usable technology? Maybe thousands of ideas and only a few significant results?

To take a picture of brain activity and determine a person's mental state might prove difficult. It hard to look at a photograph of someone and determine whether they are laughing or crying. I suppose I am skeptical about all this because I don't think consciousness results from brain activity. I see it as the other way around: brain activity results from consciousness. This isn't dualism, really, because I think consciousness originates in a higher dimension and is merely manifested through the brain and body at a different frequency. I have no way of proving this, but it feels right to me.

Regarding the original poster, it seems that a lot of ghostly paranormal phenomena is often described as being unaware of the witnesses, while other occurrences appear to be interactive. If some UFOs result from the same cause -- a tear in the fabric between dimensions maybe -- then those UFOs would be unaware of us in this dimension. But since other UFOs are described as interacting with the witnesses, then they must be 1) deliberate visitors, aware of how they got here and with some purpose, or 2) accidental visitors but fully aware in this dimension.

Maybe the aliens -- whatever they are -- can manipulate our minds. Why? Keel thinks they are stranded beings whose only way of feeling alive is to express themselves through us -- messing with us, tricking us, like a kid poking and prodding an unfortunate little animal. If UFOs are nuts-and-bolts, then the aliens might be manipulating our minds in order to carry out their purpose here, whatever that is. OR, all the discombobulating experiences that witnesses experience around UFOs may simply be a reaction to the alien technology: manipulating gravity, bending space and time, i.e., unintentional on the aliens parts.

The technology i refer to are not predictions, its already happened, the ability to extract words and images from the human mind is a reality,

Psychic computer shows your thoughts on screen

Chris Gourlay

<STYLE type=text/css>div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}</STYLE>Scientists have discovered how to “read” minds by scanning brain activity and reproducing images of what people are seeing — or even remembering.
Researchers have been able to convert into crude video footage the brain activity stimulated by what a person is watching or recalling.

Finally, the software was used to monitor the two patients’ brains as they watched a new film and to reproduce what they were seeing based on their neural activity alone.
Remarkably, the computer programme was able to display continuous footage of the films they were watching — albeit with blurred images.
In one scene which featured the actor Steve Martin wearing a white shirt, the software recreated his rough shape and white torso but missed other details, such as his facial features.
Another scene, showing a plane flying towards the camera against a city skyline, was less successfully reproduced. The computer recreated the image of the skyline but omitted the plane altogether

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/living/article6898177.ece

crude stuff at this point, but its proof of concept

The discoveries come amid a flurry of developments in the field of brain science. Researchers have also used scanning technology to measure academic ability, detect early signs of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative conditions, and even predict the decision a person is about to make before they are conscious of making it.
Such developments may have controversial ramifications. In Britain, fMRI scanning technology has been sold to multinational companies, such as Unilever and McDonald’s, enabling them to see how we subconsciously react to brands.
In America, security agencies are researching the use of brain scanners for interrogating prisoners, and Lockheed Martin, the US defence contractor, is reported to have studied the possibility of scanning brains at a distance.
This would allow an individual’s thoughts and anxieties to be examined without their knowledge in sensitive locations such as airports.
Russell Foster, a neuroscientist at Oxford University, said rapid advances in the field were throwing up ethical dilemmas.

softbeard · Feb 21, 2011

mike said:
crude stuff at this point, but its proof of concept

Yeah, very crude. I see what you're getting at here, but I don't buy the 'writing' stuff. I don't think things like this can ever be forced on an unwitting receipiant. At best, you would see extra images, just like when you watch television or dream. It doesn't mean you automatically incorporate them into your memories. I think you're not giving enough credit to the human conciousness and its ability to perceive and distinguish reality.

mike · Feb 21, 2011

softbeard said:
Yeah, very crude. I see what you're getting at here, but I don't buy the 'writing' stuff. I don't think things like this can ever be forced on an unwitting receipiant. At best, you would see extra images, just like when you watch television or dream. It doesn't mean you automatically incorporate them into your memories. I think you're not giving enough credit to the human conciousness and its ability to perceive and distinguish reality.

The definition of hallucination covers that aspect

Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or as a response to a drug.

The objects or events so perceived.

A false or mistaken idea; a delusion

One can "see" things that are not there.

But that aside, the brain is a read/write apparatus as is
and it is indeed possible to induce a false memory

http://my.ilstu.edu/~dmmcbri/false.html

Its also possible to erase existing memory aka amnesia

While i can see that the idea of replicating these mechanisms using technology is one you doubt, to me its simply a matter of understanding the existing process's and replicating them technologically

heres an example of the "read" process. again crude stuff at this stage

Crude results at this stage, but then when you compare the Wright Flyer I. to the concorde........ These things are only a matter of time

We are also working on the "chippocampus" lol

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/chippocampus.html

A "brain chip" could be used to replace the "memory centre" in patients affected by strokes, epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease, it has been claimed.
US scientists say a silicon chip could be used to replace the hippocampus, where the storage of memories is coordinated.

softbeard · Feb 21, 2011

The video, while very impressive, is not really showing anything surprising to me. From the narration, I understand that the information being 'tapped' is what the cat's eyes see. It is not, necessarily, looking into the 'mind' of the cat; ie. its actual thoughts. No mind-reading is going on, only 'eye-reading'. It's a subtle but important distinction. And going from this to 'mind-writing' against a subjects concious will is a real stretch, even assuming there were real reasons for doing so. Makes for a good science-fiction plot, though.

plumbbob12 · Feb 22, 2011

Wait, Wait, Wait.　 "A silicon chip used to replace the hippocampus"????? How would one "wire" this chip in? What would they use to connect to the presynaptic terminal? Would they flash weld a gold filament to a living cell? Last I heard, cells do not communicate by Boolean logic. I know that the YouTube film showed some poor cats head clamped into a vise like mechanism and some very cloudy information was transferred, but this kind of thing has been going on for some time. This does not mean that they are decoding the brain. An analogy I like to use in listening to the neuron-electrical noise, and plotting it so that one can move a curser on a computer screen is like putting a listening device on your car’s engine, and being able to interpret if your engine is starting, or your car is being put into gear by what you hear. You would still not know squat about how the engine works internally. This is what Neuroscience is doing when they put electrodes on a persons skull, and interpret by means of a computer that you want a cursor to move right or left. This is not mind reading, as we have no idea what the mind is, or how it is related to our physical brain.
　

mike · Feb 22, 2011

softbeard said:
The video, while very impressive, is not really showing anything surprising to me. From the narration, I understand that the information being 'tapped' is what the cat's eyes see. It is not, necessarily, looking into the 'mind' of the cat; ie. its actual thoughts. No mind-reading is going on, only 'eye-reading'. It's a subtle but important distinction. And going from this to 'mind-writing' against a subjects concious will is a real stretch, even assuming there were real reasons for doing so. Makes for a good science-fiction plot, though.

Actually they are reading the neurons from the animals brain, not signals from the optic nerves. the narrator even mentions the "noise" that may be other thoughts not related to the video
I can "write" to your brain right now.
I am describing to you 3 plaster ducks on a wall, one has a broken wing. in your mind you now have the idea of 3 plaster ducks one with a broken wing, text on the screen was transfered to your brain, synaptic connections were made and voila i have "written" the idea of 3 plaster ducks one with a broken wing in your mind, replicating that synaptic connection and transfering those patterns via technology isnt un doable, if i can do it now the old fashioned way, then it can be replicated via technology, its simply a matter of understanding and exploiting the same mechanism ive just used
---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

plumbbob12 said:
Wait, Wait, Wait.　 "A silicon chip used to replace the hippocampus"????? How would one "wire" this chip in? What would they use to connect to the presynaptic terminal? Would they flash weld a gold filament to a living cell? Last I heard, cells do not communicate by Boolean logic. I know that the YouTube film showed some poor cats head clamped into a vise like mechanism and some very cloudy information was transferred, but this kind of thing has been going on for some time. This does not mean that they are decoding the brain. An analogy I like to use in listening to the neuron-electrical noise, and plotting it so that one can move a curser on a computer screen is like putting a listening device on your car’s engine, and being able to interpret if your engine is starting, or your car is being put into gear by what you hear. You would still not know squat about how the engine works internally. This is what Neuroscience is doing when they put electrodes on a persons skull, and interpret by means of a computer that you want a cursor to move right or left. This is not mind reading, as we have no idea what the mind is, or how it is related to our physical brain.
　

thats not what the experts are saying

The apparent complexity of the human mind is not a barrier to building a ‘replica' brain claims Professor Markram. ‘The brain is of course extremely complex because it has trillions of synapses, billions of neurons, millions of proteins, and thousands of genes. But they are still finite in number. Today's technology is already highly sophisticated and it allows us to reverse engineer the brain rapidly'.
Another hurdle on the path to a model human brain is that 100 years of neuroscience discovery has led to millions of fragments of data and knowledge that have never been brought together and exploited fully. ‘Actually no- one even knows what we already understand about the brain', says Professor Markram, ‘A model would serve to bring this all together and then allow anyone to test whatever theory you want about the brain. The biggest challenge is to understand how electrical-magnetic-chemical patterns in the brain convert into our perception of reality. We think we see with our eyes, but in fact most of what we ‘see' is generated as a projection by your brain. So what are we actually looking at when we look at something ‘outside' of us?'

http://www.physorg.com/news171565512.html

Personally i think it is completly possible to reverse engineer the brain and understand how it works, its just a bio-organic machine, mapping the human genome was once unthought of, now its underway as a reality.
I dont think there is anything supernatural about our biofunctions, it can all be reverse engineered and manipulated

to the question of how you link a chip with brain cells

They used special proteins found in the brain to glue brain cells, called neurons, onto the chip. However, the proteins acted as more than just a simple adhesive.
"They also provided the link between ionic channels of the neurons and semiconductor material in a way that neural electrical signals could be passed to the silicon chip," said study team member Stefano Vassanelli from the University of Padua in Italy.
The proteins allowed the neuro-chip's electronic components and its living cells to communicate with each other. Electrical signals from neurons were recorded using the chip's transistors,

http://www.livescience.com/681-brain-cells-fused-computer-chip.html

Already done, no magic involved

The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level.
The aim of the project, founded in May 2005 by the Brain and Mind Institute of the École Polytechnique in Lausanne, Switzerland, is to study the brain's architectural and functional principles. The project is headed by the Institute's director, Henry Markram. Using a Blue Gene supercomputer running Michael Hines's NEURON software, the simulation does not consist simply of an artificial neural network, but involves a biologically realistic model of neurons.<SUP id=cite_ref-Brainsim_0-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-1 class=reference>[2]</SUP><SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class="noprint Inline-Template" title="The material in the vicinity of this tag failed verification of its source citation(s) from September 2010">[not in citation given]</SUP> It is hoped that it will eventually shed light on the nature of consciousness.<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class=Template-Fact title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from November 2010">[citation needed]</SUP>
There are a number of sub-projects, including the Cajal Blue Brain, coordinated by the Supercomputing and Visualization Center of Madrid (CeSViMa), and others run by universities and independent laboratories in the UK, US, and Israel.

Reverse engineering the human brain down to the molecular level ? its more likely than you think

softbeard · Feb 22, 2011

mike said:
they are reading the neurons from the animals brain, not signals from the optic nerves. the narrator even mentions the "noise" that may be other thoughts not related to the video

She says 'visual neurons' in the video. This does not mean to me that we are looking at what the cat is thinking. The cat may be thinking about the last mouse that it caught while it's visual neurons are processing the image in the video. I think it's a real stretch to say that we are looking into the cat's thoughts. To me, this is a very interesting video showing me the image the cat is seeing with its eyes. Nice.

mike · Feb 22, 2011

softbeard said:
She says 'visual neurons' in the video. This does not mean to me that we are looking at what the cat is thinking. The cat may be thinking about the last mouse that it caught while it's visual neurons are processing the image in the video. I think it's a real stretch to say that we are looking into the cat's thoughts. To me, this is a very interesting video showing me the image the cat is seeing with its eyes. Nice.

Ok well heres a report on recording peoples dreams

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...Scientists-plan-to-record-peoples-dreams.html

this one reports they can read what you are seeing, and recalling

Psychic computer shows your thoughts on screen

Scientists have discovered how to “read” minds by scanning brain activity and reproducing images of what people are seeing — or even remembering.
Researchers have been able to convert into crude video footage the brain activity stimulated by what a person is watching or recalling.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/living/article6898177.ece

they even discuss the "write" function

“You can use a device like this to do some pretty cool things. At the moment when you see something and want to describe it to someone you have to use words or draw it and it doesn’t work very well.
“You could use this technology to transmit the image to someone. It might be useful for artists or to allow you to recover an eyewitness’s memory of a crime.”
Such technology may not be confined to the here and now. Scientists at University College London have conducted separate tests that detect, with an accuracy of about 50%, memories recalled by patients.
The discoveries come amid a flurry of developments in the field of brain science. Researchers have also used scanning technology to measure academic ability, detect early signs of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative conditions, and even predict the decision a person is about to make before they are conscious of making it.

At the moment when you see something and want to describe it to someone you have to use words or draw it and it doesn’t work very well.
You could use this technology to transmit the image to someone

allow you to recover an eyewitness’s memory of a crime

Such developments may have controversial ramifications. In Britain, fMRI scanning technology has been sold to multinational companies, such as Unilever and McDonald’s, enabling them to see how we subconsciously react to brands.
In America, security agencies are researching the use of brain scanners for interrogating prisoners, and Lockheed Martin, the US defence contractor, is reported to have studied the possibility of scanning brains at a distance.
This would allow an individual’s thoughts and anxieties to be examined without their knowledge in sensitive locations such as airports.
Russell Foster, a neuroscientist at Oxford University, said rapid advances in the field were throwing up ethical dilemmas.
“It’s absolutely critical for scientists to inform the public about what we are doing so they can engage in the debate about how this knowledge should be used,” he said.
“It’s the age-old problem: knowledge is power and it can be used for both good and evil.”

softbeard · Feb 22, 2011

I still think all of this is still just jumping to wishful-thinking, science-fiction, conclusions. I don't see any 'mind-reading' going on in any of these reports, mainly because no one has precisely defined what a 'mind' is.

SRL+ · Feb 22, 2011

plumbbob12 said:
 I’m sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I, along with many others find Terrence McKenna’s lectures interesting, but he was a creative word-smith. The term: “neurotic energy dynamic” really means nothing. When one connects this neurotic energy dynamic as being the result of a: “repression of legitimate modalities for exploring consciousness” – I am left speechless. What “repression”, what “modalities”? What kind of “neurotic energy dynamic”? How is this “dynamic” expressed, and where does it originate in our mind/brain? As I have said in the past, words have meaning. I could just as easily say that “our perception of the UFO mythology is a direct result of subliminal oscillations in our prefrontal cortex”. This would mean nothing. If we want to engage in an intelligent conversation on the UFO enigma, we have to discuss it in terms that everyone can understand, and relate too. Our language is built on analogy, and sometimes our analogies are way too weak to express paranormal events. We need to simplify our language, and not complicate it in order that others can understand what we are attempting to say about something that is out of the ordinary. pb

That was a very good post plumbbob12. I thought Mr. Mckenna's lectures were UFO commonplace. I'll keep that in mind. Here's something for you to view. Whether you like Mckenna or not, he has a fascinating insight into the phenomena. I'm not sure when this lecture took place but Vallee was the speaker before Mckenna.Terence McKenna - Shamanic Approaches to the UFO

UFO Impulsivity & Paranormal Phenomena

Free episodes:

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept