UFO Observation Methods

[Graphimancer]

Seeing UFOs

Okay, from what I can tell, there are certain proven ways to see UFOs.

Who
--People with open, receptive minds
--With people who have histories of paranormal encounters
--With people who spend a lot of time outdoors and looking up
When
--Night more common than day
--When you least expect it
Where
--Very remote places
--Near an airport, military base, or ICBM facility
--Near a vortex or some place/region of longstanding High Strangeness

Any that I’ve forgotten?

This also leads me to wonder, is there any real point in watching for nighttime lights in the sky? They are the most inconclusive of sightings, and can be explained away relatively easily.

If looking at night, do you think nightvision goggles or devices would aid in detecting UFOs?

Lots of questions, but I’m a curious sort.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I think you're more likely to see them with an infrared camera - I don't know why, just a hunch...

...or perhaps a camera sensitive to ultra-violet.

The 'regular' UFO pictures posted don't seem to tell us much except there's something in the sky, but what if people started using cameras that could examine 'exotic' wave-lengths and frequencies?

...which leads me to a question for the 'photographic' people on here. Are there camera's available that can photograph outside the visible light spectrum (infrared and ultraviolet excepted)?

I know they would probably be 'scientific' instruments rather than commercially sold cameras, but I often wondered what the world looks like when 'observing' wave-lengths outside the normal visible spectrum. Our skies could be full of UFO's which might be detectable in a narrow range of frequencies - or is there something fundamentally flawed with that idea?

Perhaps some UFO's give off sounds that are undetectable to the human ear, but are detectable using the right equipment.

 

[Graphimancer]

I'm a bit surprised at low repsonse to this thread--Doesn't this question cut to the heart of what the UFO forum is about?

 

[Rick Deckard]

I'm a bit surprised at low repsonse to this thread--Doesn't this question cut to the heart of what the UFO forum is about?

I remember Jeff Ritzmann once said on the show - and I'm paraphrasing (no pun intended) - "I'm convinced that if you go out into the country and ask 'them' to show themselves to you, they will".

So, there you go. Take your camera into the wilderness and ask 'them' to show themselves.

It's not something I have the courage to do and as Jeff (and DB) have said in the past, perhaps what you get is not what you bargained for (AKA "Be careful what you wish for - it might just come true.").

I often remind myself that I probably DON'T want to be confronted with something outside my sphere of understanding - because I would probably go insane trying to figure out what happened to me...

 

[Graphimancer]

I understand your point, and I have no desire to place myself in danger, but I also understand that people want quantifiability and repeatability.

I, in fact, agree that once you open yourself up to these things, you get the good and bad. I can personally attest to a lifetime of encounter with ghosts and spirits: Once they know you can see them, they will bug you for attention, and most of it will be unwanted.

I find it hard to believe, from the kooky-ass space brothers to the nuts&bolts guys, that no one has gathered data to understand when and why and where these things happen and appear. If people figure those things out, then a great deal about this phenoma could be intelligently extrapolated and the paranormal could become normal.

With all the hoaxers and disinformation people at work, I'm beginning to sympathise with those who believe the entire modern ufo phenomina is a Jungian projection, or that it has more to do with experiencer than the object witnessed. Where is the line drawn between consensus reality and personal reality? It would seem the majority of ufo experiences are in the realm of personal reality, and most ufo writing is trying to square up the personal with the consensus.

Hmmn. Not a bad thesis for an article to the paranormal press. I may have to consider that.

I'm a scholar by training, so please don't assume my inquiries are in the "I want to believe" camp. I'd prefer to place my thinking more in the realm of mental experiments.

 

[TClaeys]

With all the hoaxers and disinformation people at work, I'm beginning to sympathise with those who believe the entire modern ufo phenomina is a Jungian projection, or that it has more to do with experiencer than the object witnessed. Where is the line drawn between consensus reality and personal reality? It would seem the majority of ufo experiences are in the realm of personal reality, and most ufo writing is trying to square up the personal with the consensus.

Thats just the thing. How do you do any sort of testing relating to personal subjective aspects. Maybe a statement in your opening thread should read "believe in UFO's". Because it may be a part of our psyche rather than a testable, tangible thing. I mean, for example, how would you test for love?? Certainly it exists, by how would you measure it??

I don't know that there is any universal way to see UFO's for the population at large. Everyones chemistry is different and if it has to do with the observer (which I think a large part does) then it will vary greatly per each person.

So we ask the questions of why and when are where would "they" show themselves. And perhaps this is the wrong question. Maybe it is "what is happening with my brain chemistry when I see something??". I don't mean to say that it is all a question of being loony or anything like that. Plenty of sane people see UFO's. But under the foggy veil of our brains sits an incredibly complex labyrinth of chemicals, neurons, cells, and connections that we have yet to understand with any type of confidence.

And on top of that, as you say, we may be able to open that portal of invitation for this type of activity by changing our thinking. Belief is certainly powerful. Look at the placebo effect and explain why we are able to fool ourselves, or will ourselves to heal when that goes against conventional thinking. Maybe the paranormal is the same side of that coin: the mind-body connection. Geeez, and now try to figure out what reality is.

We seem to be beyond being able to delve into any of these areas due to limitations of science and technology. I wonder what might show up if Ritzmann was hooked up to all the scanning and technological gizmos we have while he experiences something. And if it were to show nothing, then, well, we either don't have the right equipment and methodology OR it is something else altogether.

It's an interesting thread, but so speculative as to not really get anywhere with it. I find this with a lot of threads, where I'd like to participate, but is more food for thought. But I suppose that IS what a forum is about. It might be better sitting around a campfire in a remote location (in the midwest so its close to home) and talking about this stuff to no end. When is that PC camping trip anyway??

 

[Graphimancer]

Well, I don't think this thread has lead nowhere. I think we may have established the foundation that the UFO experience is subjective in nature, and is more a question of the experiencer than the nebulous ufo itself.

That would then logically lead to a conclusion that all ufo research and stories are more likely part of consensus reality on the part of the ufo community, and that all evidence is really an extrapolation of disinformation, misunderstanding, and the collective weight of stories being rehashed until they take on the weight of history. You know the "phone" game, where people in a circle whisper a story to next person, and by the time it gets around the circle is doesn't resemble itself anymore? Well, if it's all subjecting and projected, then ufology would be built on that.

I can see how it would happen. Disinformation, debunkers, debunkers being forgotten or themselves debunked. Pretty soon you've got a slipper reality with so many twists and turns that it renew itself down through the decades. Each group of people who become interested in the subject effectively buy into the paradigm and perpetuate it. It takes on a nebulous belief structure, much like a religion, and even the nuts and bolts people start sifting through the rehashed smoke and shadows.

Ritzman, for example, may have experienced some basic archetype style visions, as have so many people down through the ages. Since he's a modern person, he doesn't see them as angels or saints or elves, but as ufos. He buys into the paradigm, and brings his own technical skills to ferreting out hoaxes in photographs. The powerful experiences he has had converted him, and then he helps perpetuate the communities consensus reality.

Notes:

1) Sorry for picking on Jeff Ritzman, but his name was used, so he was convienient.

2) I'm not saying for sure yet that his is how the paranormal works and survives, but I am beginning to see a workable thesis form up. I reserve the right to change my mind, or be wrong.

3) This is not to say that anyone's experience was not real or very powerful, only that it may not be real in the way you thought it was. Agents of change are still agents of change, no matter how they got to you. I've had my own, very powerful transformative experience, and I myself am still trying to come to grips with it.

 

[dorkbot]

I find it hard to believe, from the kooky-ass space brothers to the nuts&bolts guys, that no one has gathered data to understand when and why and where these things happen and appear.

Well, I'm fairly young so what I know about data collection on the subject to date is what I have been able to piece together from my own digging, largely by reading books, looking for references to other books and researchers within and tracking those down. From what I can tell so far the Internet is far from a complete repository of knowledge on the investigative work that has been done to date. There is a huge amount of data out there sitting on people's shelves collecting dust and there has never been any large scale, funded and organized scientific effort to look at the issue unless it has occurred in the black world.

There was a period in ufology where serious scientists worked on this stuff in their free time, some of them publicly and some privately. I just woke up and have a bit of a hangover so I'm not terribly motivated at the moment to compile a complete reference list of studies. There were a lot of studies done with magnetometers and other types of recording sensors back in the day. The contactees were there in the early days but it seems that at some point organized ufology turned into a complete circus and many of the serious people either quit or went into hiding. This is probably a subject that deserves a it's own study.

One of the central points I would make, one that seems obvious to me but apparently obtuse to many, is that if we assume we are dealing with another intelligence it is probably premature to then conclude that it is certain that we are dealing with only one intelligence with one motive and one consistent pattern of behavior. If we admit the possibility of other intelligent life then to my mind the argument that there are many such intelligences seems to have a lot of weight and it may be that among other intelligences there is a huge disparity of intelligence, technical sophistication and motivations. What would it look like to us if we were interacting with three groups: one that was 100 years advanced, one 1000 years advanced and one 1 million years advanced simultaneously? It's too early to conclude anything for certain.

If we are dealing with an uncooperative intelligence then the best we can really do at present in terms of understanding motivation are statistical studies of patterns and many such studies have been done. Vallee argues that many of the patterns seem to mimic a periodic reinforcement schedule. I think his argument is worth paying attention to but that it is probably only one aspect of the phenomena. There are studies that show time of day peaks, correlations with sidereal time, periodical interest in certain geographic locations, etc. I'm a huge Vallee fan but it is my impression that although he repeatedly makes the point that there is both a psychic and physical component involved, many people insist on extrapolating this to meaning that the whole of the phenomena is psychic with the physical component being some kind of trickery to make us think they are spaceships. I'm very uncomfortable with framing this question as EITHER they are spaceships from Zeta Reticuli OR they are spiritual demons.

It may very well be that one aspect of the technology or native ability of some of these things is the manipulation, either as intentional action or side effect, of human brain chemistry and/or consciousness. It is easy to demonstrate that humans observing the same event, a car crash for example, will, under careful questioning, report slightly different versions of the same story. I have no doubt that the same would occur with the UFO experience but I think it is a mistake to conclude that the whole of the phenomena is subjective in nature, especially where sensor data is concerned. There is a large body of observed data regarding UFO performance and environmental effects and it contains a consistent clump of data that seem to indicate specific operating characteristics. This is usually the point where somebody tosses in the Mothman and then concludes that we have to discard all the other observed data because somebody has seen a flying humanoid bat with glowing eyes.

I strongly suspect that if we actually ever get some real answers we are going to find out just how strange some of these things are. It's obvious that we are way beyond hot Venusian women wearing Nehru jackets.

 

[dorkbot]

...which leads me to a question for the 'photographic' people on here. Are there camera's available that can photograph outside the visible light spectrum (infrared and ultraviolet excepted)?

I know they would probably be 'scientific' instruments rather than commercially sold cameras, but I often wondered what the world looks like when 'observing' wave-lengths outside the normal visible spectrum. Our skies could be full of UFO's which might be detectable in a narrow range of frequencies - or is there something fundamentally flawed with that idea?

Perhaps some UFO's give off sounds that are undetectable to the human ear, but are detectable using the right equipment.

I know you said IR and UV excepted but if you were the kind of person that saw these things on a regular basis and had a bunch of $ to spend on a digital camera, the Fuji IS Pro might hold some promise as it is built to natively capture IR and UV.

From what I've read UV photography probably holds the most promise. Some sort of X-Ray sensor would be good but that strikes me as entirely impractical for field use. I understand that there is a new generation of relatively affordable ($2-3k) high speed cameras on the market.

Look into Harley Rutledge and the book Project Identification. One aspect he looked at was ELF and ultrasound. You might want to look into Wilbert Smith's work. He's next on my list to read up on. Grant Cameron said he is selling a cd for $5 that contains all of Smith's personal papers.

 

[Rick Deckard]

...which leads me to a question for the 'photographic' people on here. Are there camera's available that can photograph outside the visible light spectrum (infrared and ultraviolet excepted)?

I know they would probably be 'scientific' instruments rather than commercially sold cameras, but I often wondered what the world looks like when 'observing' wave-lengths outside the normal visible spectrum. Our skies could be full of UFO's which might be detectable in a narrow range of frequencies - or is there something fundamentally flawed with that idea?

Perhaps some UFO's give off sounds that are undetectable to the human ear, but are detectable using the right equipment.

I know you said IR and UV excepted but if you were the kind of person that saw these things on a regular basis and had a bunch of $ to spend on a digital camera, the Fuji IS Pro might hold some promise as it is built to natively capture IR and UV.

From what I've read UV photography probably holds the most promise. Some sort of X-Ray sensor would be good but that strikes me as entirely impractical for field use. I understand that there is a new generation of relatively affordable ($2-3k) high speed cameras on the market.

Look into Harley Rutledge and the book Project Identification. One aspect he looked at was ELF and ultrasound. You might want to look into Wilbert Smith's work. He's next on my list to read up on. Grant Cameron said he is selling a cd for $5 that contains all of Smith's personal papers.

Hey, thanks for the links, I appreciate that. I'm just about to read Richard Dolan's latest, but after that I'll definitely look into those names.

 

[jritzmann]

1) Sorry for picking on Jeff Ritzman, but his name was used, so he was convienient.

No need to apologize. However, it should be noted my experiences, several of them, were witnessed by others. Some very subtle, as David had when he came for a visit. It's not always dramatic and scary, but it had been for some friends and family.
I don't see them as "visions", but manifestations. I have a strong suspicion that we hold one key in our hands to witnesses that manifestation: Desire to see it. To know it.

However for many, it's not what they expected, nor what they wanted it to be. I'm wrestling these days with writing a book that is essentially making me relive it all. During such times the air changes around here, in a palpable way, and I need to stop and take a break. My wife has felt it, even when she hasn't known what I'm writing, or if I'm writing.

During the course of writing, I've come to question my "toxic" stance about the enigma. I'm wondering if "they" reflect what we present. If we fear, or doubt, they appear fearful and the experience is terrifying.

So, what if I got myself together and tried to be positive. What if.

It'd take a lot of doing on my part. And I cant believe I'm saying it, but I actually might again put myself in a position to see them, but maybe try and do it in a more positive way. Whether or not they'd show I don't know...I get the feeling they would.

I'd have to think very seriously about that. It took a long time to get away from this before, and it very nearly ruined my life. To think about going back in aint something I'm that keen on, unless I could really learn something. And even then, is it worth it.

I'd have to do a lot of work on me, before I'd ever go down that road again.

 

[Graphimancer]

You know, Jeff, if you've found some peace, you probably shouldn't put yourself back in that position. That's like the psychic equivalent of women who are attracted to wife beaters, and it just can't be healthy.

I'll put it in terms of my own experience, which was very powerful. (I'm not saying it was uncommon or special, but it was to me.) I can look at what happened to me in Chicago in two ways. On one side, I can take the mystical approach and say that enlightened astral beings contacted me and imparted important information to me, and that changed my life for the better. Or, I can say that I was abducted, and I was a victim. It could go either way. I can be positively transformed, or a victim.

I'd like to think it was positive. Despite the turmoil that followed in my life in the months afterwards, some really great things did happen, and I wrote tons of notes about the nature of reality that just kept flooding into my brain. I decided against searching out an abduction hypnotist of some sort, because that would almost surely confirm things in a way that I didn't want. I'm not saying that they would ask leading questions, but if they start seeing elements in my account that confirms what they do, it could certainly cast it in that light. I guess you could say I have trust issues regarding that process.

So, I think some truths may be subjective, and I don't want to put myself into a bad place and cast myself as a victim. I think you would not be well-served to do that either.