Ugh. too many intellegent people.

[Solarion]

Hello Paracasters:
There are so many threads about serious topics that require more research that I am too lazy to do.
Monsanto allegedly poisoning us. Ericson twins attacking the UK. The climate change debate.
I've scooped up my brain off the floor numerous times.
Thank you for reading
Solarion

 

[mike]

On the upside years from now when the UFO enigma is finally solved, i consider it likely many of the answers will have already been posted here as speculation.
I like to think UFO researchers a hundred years hence will look at this place and conclude we were on the right side of history.

 

[stonehart]

On the upside years from now when the UFO enigma is finally solved, i consider it likely many of the answers will have already been posted here as speculation.
I like to think UFO researchers a hundred years hence will look at this place and conclude we were on the right side of history.

That kind of melts my mind thinking about it but right you are there is truth to this.

 

[Wade]

On the upside years from now when the UFO enigma is finally solved,

Did you listen to the Greg Bishop episode yet? He mentioned on it...as he had in the past...that he felt any "solution" to the phenomena would come from outside the field. Do you think this would be true? If so, which field(s)?

 

[Constance]

Did you listen to the Greg Bishop episode yet? He mentioned on it...as he had in the past...that he felt any "solution" to the phenomena would come from outside the field. Do you think this would be true? If so, which field(s)?

I haven't heard the interview with Bishop. I'd also like to read a written text he's presented in which he develops the reasons why he thinks that "any 'solution' to the phenomena'" is likely to come from outside the field of ufo and related research. Can anyone recommend a/the source where I can read about this?

 

[Wade]

I can't answer that for sure Constance. I think he brought it up on the now defunct (and very much missed) ufomystic but I can say I emailed him once about another matter and I got a pretty quick reply from him. As a matter of fact I can same the same about others as I've written to Nick Redfern, Loren Coleman, George Hansen,Patrick Harpur, Albert Rosales (a number of times) and Chris himself (before I joined here) and got pretty quick replies. It seems there are some pretty accommodating guys in this field.

 

[Burnt State]

I haven't heard the interview with Bishop. I'd also like to read a written text he's presented in which he develops the reasons why he thinks that "any 'solution' to the phenomena'" is likely to come from outside the field of ufo and related research. Can anyone recommend a/the source where I can read about this?

Constance, this goes back to some of our own ongoing dialogues about the dissatisfaction of the UFO aficionado. The more you study and investigate, the more hardened you get regarding finding a solution. Greg is a thorough researcher who brought the Paul Bennewitz affair into detailed focus. He knows his stuff.

If you are a Radio Misterioso Fan then you will know that this has been an ongoing dialogue of his that includes ongoing conversations with some of his most frequent guests, notably Nick Redfern & Paul Kimball, especially other hosts (i.e. BOA, Hidden Experience) that appear on his show and other paranormal athletes and documentarians who have been active in the field for a very long time. His dialogues on his show have moved in and out of the myraid ways of looking at this field and, all theories considered, we know that UFO's do conform to what we expect them to be, that they live in the liminal zone between the physical and the immaterial. They are ephemeral. They don't make sense. In fact, they are absurd. Consequently, he spends a lot of time interviewing unique and offbeat characters like Dean Radin, Gulyas, Rosales and Red Pill Junkie, because it's hard to find anything new to say about UFO's or to find anything you can get a hold on about them.

I think his statements on this last episode are a good synopsis of his thinking over the many years, and of what we know about UFO's which is mostly not much. Consequently, we need a new way to see the UFO, and perhaps, someone working away on why seeds like to grow in niche environments, or why Monarch Butterflies migrate may have better luck at discovering something that cracks open the conundrum in a new way.

 

[Burnt State]

Hello Paracasters:
There are so many threads about serious topics that require more research that I am too lazy to do.
Monsanto allegedly poisoning us. Ericson twins attacking the UK. The climate change debate.
I've scooped up my brain off the floor numerous times.
Thank you for reading
Solarion

how can you have too many intelligent people?

do you think it takes the fun out of it all?

 

[DaveM]

how can you have too many intelligent people?

do you think it takes the fun out of it all?

He said it himself... he is too lazy. Besides, you have to spell intelligent (intellegent) correctly, don't you?

 

[manxman]

Not pertickly.

 

[Constance]

Constance, this goes back to some of our own ongoing dialogues about the dissatisfaction of the UFO aficionado.

Yes, you've helped to make me aware of that. I'm wondering, though, about how things stand with the ufo researchers who have spent decades researching the records of ufo events far and wide, who know the available history of the modern ufo phenomenon. Have any of these major and accomplished investigative scholars of the ufo phenomena taken the position that nothing has been learned or understood? If so, which one(s)?

Of course, a few productive longtime researchers have dropped away from the field because of 'dissatisfaction' with the lack of progress and frustration regarding the obstacles placed in the way of further research. My point is that those who know the field best, who have read the entirety of the global research, or even the bulk of it, do not seem to conclude that nothing 'real' has been recorded, measured, and demonstrated in investigative research involving ufos over the last 65 years.

I'd also add that a number of traditional career researchers have expanded their thinking to include perspectives taken by Jacques Vallee and others interested in issues of perception and consciousness involved in all human experience. Vallee, to my knowledge, has not advised ufo 'aficionados' to bury all the ufo research of these last 65 years.

So, while I'm also interested in these new perspectives you talk about, I can't coincide with your position that what's been accomplished in the past in this field might just as well be placed on the trash heap.

The more you study and investigate, the more hardened you get regarding finding a solution. Greg is a thorough researcher who brought the Paul Bennewitz affair into detailed focus. He knows his stuff.

If you are a Radio Misterioso Fan then you will know that this has been an ongoing dialogue of his that includes ongoing conversations with some of his most frequent guests, notably Nick Redfern & Paul Kimball, especially other hosts (i.e. BOA, Hidden Experience) that appear on his show and other paranormal athletes and documentarians who have been active in the field for a very long time. His dialogues on his show have moved in and out of the myraid ways of looking at this field and, all theories considered, we know that UFO's do conform to what we expect them to be, that they live in the liminal zone between the physical and the immaterial. They are ephemeral. They don't make sense. In fact, they are absurd. Consequently, he spends a lot of time interviewing unique and offbeat characters like Dean Radin, Gulyas, Rosales and Red Pill Junkie, because it's hard to find anything new to say about UFO's or to find anything you can get a hold on about them.

Do you have a textual source or sources to recommend which I should read to catch up on the ideas involved in the above?

I think his statements on this last episode are a good synopsis of his thinking over the many years, and of what we know about UFO's which is mostly not much. Consequently, we need a new way to see the UFO, and perhaps, someone working away on why seeds like to grow in niche environments, or why Monarch Butterflies migrate may have better luck at discovering something that cracks open the conundrum in a new way.

I can agree with you here. The more we learn about the nature of reality and consciousness, the more we are likely to understand about what we experience in this world.

 

[Burnt State]

Yes, you've helped to make me aware of that. I'm wondering, though, about how things stand with the ufo researchers who have spent decades researching the records of ufo events far and wide, who know the available history of the modern ufo phenomenon. Have any of these major and accomplished investigative scholars of the ufo phenomena taken the position that nothing has been learned or understood? If so, which one(s)?
....
I'd also add that a number of traditional career researchers have expanded their thinking to include perspectives taken by Jacques Vallee and others interested in issues of perception and consciousness involved in all human experience. Vallee, to my knowledge, has not advised ufo 'aficionados' to bury all the ufo research of these last 65 years.

So, while I'm also interested in these new perspectives you talk about, I can't coincide with your position that what's been accomplished in the past in this field might just as well be placed on the trash heap.

Do you have a textual source or sources to recommend which I should read to catch up on the ideas involved in the above?

In this past episode there was some really important messaging at the end of the show where the group looked at all of the many unique books and interesting and creative idea folk that are out there, and not all of them UFO focussed but many have paranormal connections and ideas. Bishop says, following this, and I paraphrase immensely: You should never get cynical and jaded. See how we just rhymed off all these different writers of great books with great ideas? We got all excited about that, like when you were first all excited about UFO's. I think he was trying to make a point here that despite the fact that we have not arrived at any great conclusions, nor have we made much progress, it doesn't mean we should reject all that came before. We should maintain our excitement and interest in those ideas that are valuable to us - it's up to us to maintain the excitement.

I think it's easy to get jaded and cynical - that's why few stay in pursuit. But that doesn't mean we should ever throw anything out the door - if anything, defining that really interesting canon of work is important to the study of the phenomenon. As they listed them, names included: Fort, Michel, Keel, Vallee, Tonnies and I would also throw in McDonald & Clark into that mix. The dissatisfaction is not that this group hasn't made progress or created some really interesting ways of understanding unique phenomenon, but that after so much study, the progress has been minimal regarding the big questions. Consequently, finding new angles on the phenomenon is what sustains the field overall, and sustains the individual's interest.

But in terms of what an individual in a lifetime can expect to know, following the totality of what's already been accomplished, you have to settle for, "Not a Lot." And, for anyone who has seen one of them, good luck on repeating that event, or ever getting to know for sure what it was that you saw - it's just a nebulous event. No one can ever really claim, "I know what I saw."

There is no textual source for this discussion though I'm sure a lot of blogging has covered this before, especially on UFO Mystic. Listening to the people who are experts in the field, who are the ongoing participants and living historians of the field tend to repeat these ideas with frequency. Just listening to the Paracast and Radio Misterioso is enough for you to recognize the undercurrent of cynicism and reality of minimal accomplishments. They repeat this refrain almost every other month. But that doesn't mean anyone's advocating burning all that came before, after all, the stations are still on searching for a signal.

 

[boomerang]

Constance, this goes back to some of our own ongoing dialogues about the dissatisfaction of the UFO aficionado. The more you study and investigate, the more hardened you get regarding finding a solution.

This is close to the crux of why we tend to wander and ramble. And also why we so easily become disillusioned. There are precious few if any new or original theories about what lies at the root of the UFO enigma. And yet the phenomenon is real and ongoing--so we have here a group of intelligent and self-reflective seekers who use the UFO enigma as a kind of springboard to investigate a wide range of esoteric topics. We learn in the process. This forum has generated enough first rate ideas to keep hundreds of talented science and science fiction writers busy for a lifetime. I think the kind of people who hang here love a mystery more than fine chocolate (well, almost). And the Paracast Forum offers us a safe haven to sort of lessen our loneliness in feeling that no topic is too weird or outlandish to discuss.

And who knows. Perhaps this is the true purpose behind the tricksterish paranormal. It's nature's way of prodding the smart monkey to think.

It's also a kind of honesty test for impartial thinkers like Grep Bishop. Like so many first rate researchers, after decades of study and effort he is honest enough to admit that something strange is undoubtedly happening but he has no idea what. The journey, rather than the destination, may be the point.

 

[Wade]

Very well put sir, and to a great extent sums up why I'm here.

 

[manxman]

I was keen as mustard once aswell, it does get old, and then theres the dogmatic skeptic, nearly all ex gov, or government contractor etc etc, i dont know how long the ghostly puppeteers behind the curtain running the UFO show have been playing both sides for, but nowadays you have to spend more time on why someone is making a claim/story, rather than the claim/story.

It just gets old as all the ex government men stink the show out.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

My greatest exasperation is with the testimony of contactees/experiencers/abductees. Do we just grant a carte blanche acceptance of what they say? How can we evaluate what they say? Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs seemed to pick those testimonies that fit their hypothesis that this phenomena consists of physical being from another planet doing biological research in order to create a hybrid race. Any story that came their way that disputed that hypothesis was not pursued. But that is no way to scientifically evaluate a phenomena! We must include all testimonials. But the obvious problem is that some people lie. We may not understand their motivation but nonetheless, people do lie. But with a phenomena that is so bizarre, how can we know who is lying? Whitley Strieber recently claimed that there are now MRI related tests (still very expensive) that allow us to tell if a person is telling a true story that they experienced, versus a story they made up and may actually believe. This is because such memories are recorded in different parts of the brain. With everything Whitley says, I give this a benefit of a doubt.

Yet what do we do with a field that has evoked a lot of testimony using regression hypnosis performed by artists, historians and housewives? We have heard from experts in the medical field who vehemently disagree with the use of hypnosis in ufology to gather forgotten experiences.

This leaves little old me in a state of frustration, ready to just chuck out every book I've ever read about abductee testimony, since they ALL seem to have been greatly enhanced by hypnotic regression, a tool that is now seen as invalid for this type of research. People like Jeff Ritzmann have done a great deal of investigation into this, and he recommends that any testimony recovered via hypnosis be thrown out! He admits this does mean we have wasted around 30 years in the ufology field following the fantasies and confabulations of hypnotic regression. This in itself would prompt an old sod like me to want to just shake my head in disgust (at my earlier naive acceptance of everything) and move on, getting rid of all ufology books before I die and my family finds them and concludes that I was daft!

Making this topical, Betty Andreasson is making the rounds of all paranormal and fringe related talk shows. On each show, she tells the EXACT same tale in the EXACT same words, as if she memorized a script. She is making the rounds because the first book, THE ANDREASSON AFFAIR by Raymond Fowler, has been re-issued as a prelude to the publishing of Betty's own book about her experiences. In 2005, Betty's step son came out and told the world that the entire case was a hoax put together by Betty and his dad. Betty and her husband effectively disowned him and he later died of a drug overdose. So much for Betty's much self-proclaimed Christian charity.

Now, if (as I have) you have read ALL the books by Raymond Fowler about this case, you find extraordinary tales of wonder and absurdity. Betty is a naturally talented artist, and has embellished the books with her own drawings. MOST OF THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN RECOVERED VIA REPEATED ONGOING HYPNOTIC REGRESSION SESSIONS. So, what are we to make of this? Should we just throw it all out and start over?

The older I get, the less I believe in just about anything about this topic except visual sightings with radar confirmation. Since I seemingly have no way for me to personally tell whether any close encounter tale is true, I am edging towards discounting them all. Otherwise, I just make value judgments of each case based on my particular subconscious programs, my conscious value system and psychological structure. But truth should have nothing to do with any of these personal attributes.

WHAT SAY YOU?

Do we just throw our hands up on personal contact stories, yell "I GIVE UP!" and just walk away? I have reached an age where I no longer want to be taken for a ride.

ADDENDUM: I certainly acknowledge that I have related some of my own personal contact stories as a child here on the forum. Yet if I were to read them, I would have no way to prove to myself that they actually occurred, as is true with most contact stories. While the personal contact stories have been my main interest in ufology (since dots of light in the sky are not very exciting), I now find myself wanting to "leave the church" of ufology in this area.

This 90's song by REM sums it up for me in terms of losing my religion (ufology).

 

[Stagger Lee]

Personally, Hopkin's books made for some scary night time reading when I was much younger. These days, I'm not sure what to make of it all. Regarding one of Fowler's books on the Andreasson affair- I had to stop reading when Fowler himself pointed out that the hypnotic regression sessions were conducted by Betty's husband- at least those sessions recorded in that particular book. Fowler put it in such a way that he trusted the husband, but wanted to let the reader know the circumstances the sessions were recorded under- at least he was honest - upfront about the material held in that particular book.

 

[mike]

Did you listen to the Greg Bishop episode yet? He mentioned on it...as he had in the past...that he felt any "solution" to the phenomena would come from outside the field. Do you think this would be true? If so, which field(s)?

Define "the field" lol

It might come from anywhere, imo there are scenarios within scenarios as far as this aspect is concerned.

The factor that provides the solution could be anything.

If we lump ET into a single category (which may or may not be a simplistic approach depending on the scenarios with the sceanrios within that scenario lol)

Then we have 2 major factors, 1: ET might introduce themselves, or 2: we might discover them

Nested within each of these scenarios are multiple ones.

One common conclusion i hear often in the podcasts is the idea that ET is in control of the show, that "disclosure" will be to their timetable not ours.

The current status quo does lend some merit to this idea, and the question "why the silence" is imo a very good one to pursue.

The sustainability bottleneck topic has recently been brought into the mix


OUR galaxy, the Milky Way, is home to almost 300 billion stars, and over the last decade, astronomers have made a startling discovery — almost all those stars have planets. The fact that nearly every pinprick of light you see in the night sky hosts a family of worlds raises a powerful but simple question: “Where is everybody?” Hundreds of billions of planets translate into a lot of chances for evolving intelligent, technologically sophisticated species. So why don’t we see evidence for E.T.s everywhere?


The physicist Enrico Fermi first formulated this question, now called the Fermi paradox, in 1950. But in the intervening decades, humanity has recognized that our own climb up the ladder of technological sophistication comes with a heavy price. From climate change to resource depletion, our evolution into a globe-spanning industrial culture is forcing us through the narrow bottleneck of a sustainability crisis. In the wake of this realization, new and sobering answers to Fermi’s question now seem possible.

Maybe we’re not the only ones to hit a sustainability bottleneck. Maybe not everyone — maybe no one — makes it to the other side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/o...&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article&_r=2

I think its worth factoring in the idea that if ET is here, Then they have vastly more experience at the game of life than we do.

Where we only have one example to draw on, they may have seen "us" thousands of times before.

Maybe only 1 in 50 make it past the various hurdles an energy harvesting species faces as it climbs from the cave fire to the stars.

How often have we seen a wildlife documentary where the subjects are in some sort of strife, but the film crew does not interfere, letting the situation play out as it will.

Maybe as i posit in my Post biological hypothesis there is simply no point in trying to explain legs and lungs to a tadpole.

The trigger factor may be a level of scientific parity, so that we meet as equals. To avoid that known culture trap. That when an advanced culture meets a primitive one, its bad news for the latter


The trigger could be anything, from our side or theirs, It may even be as i suggest in the PBH not even applicable at this layer of reality

 

[Constance]

MOST OF THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN RECOVERED VIA REPEATED ONGOING HYPNOTIC REGRESSION SESSIONS. So, what are we to make of this? Should we just throw it all out and start over?

The older I get, the less I believe in just about anything about this topic except visual sightings with radar confirmation. Since I seemingly have no way for me to personally tell whether any close encounter tale is true, I am edging towards discounting them all. Otherwise, I just make value judgments of each case based on my particular subconscious programs, my conscious value system and psychological structure. But truth should have nothing to do with any of these personal attributes.

WHAT SAY YOU?

Do we just throw our hands up on personal contact stories, yell "I GIVE UP!" and just walk away? I have reached an age where I no longer want to be taken for a ride.

Having read your post about your own abduction experiences/memories/? of what appeared to be alien abductions, I empathize with you both for what you have experienced/remembered of a long series of such encounters (as you stated) and also empathize concerning the confusion into which you are placed by the declarations by some individuals that hypnotic regression cannot be relied upon for evidence of what happened. What I say, in response to your question in caps, is that I would not take so seriously the claims that hypnotic regression produces no veridical evidence of past experiences. Hypnotic regression is a legitimate technique used by psychologists and psychoanalysts for well more than a century now for various purposes requiring exploration of past events (not by any means all related to alien abductions). It's a technique that continues to be used because it very often works. If you are now in deep doubt, I'd suggest consulting medical and psychological research archives concerning hypnotic regression and its value. I certainly would not take seriously Jeff Ritzmann's recommendation that the technique itself be "thrown out."

 

[mike]

While Hypnosis isnt generally relied apon by courts as testimony for reasons the link below explains. It is none the less used as a tool by law enforcement.
A person cannot generally be convicted by the results of hypnotic regression, but there are many cases where the leads gained by this process have provided the evidence that does

Forensic hypnosis has been used in some high profile cases such as the Boston Strangler, Ted Bundy, and Sam Sheppard. First of all, forensic hypnosis must be conducted by a trained professional who knows how to get information without leading a witness or accidentally implanting a suggestion or memory. Secondly, very exacting procedures and standards must be met during the hypnosis session. Last, when the case goes to court the jury must consider the four dangers of hypnosis in deciding the case. The four dangers are: (1) suggestibility – a hypnotist could "suggest" a race, height, eye color, etcetera which the subject accepts as truth; (2) loss of critical judgment – under hypnosis personal beliefs and prejudices may influence how an event is interpreted during recall; (3) confabulation or lies – a person who has a reason to lie may create lies while under hypnosis or gaps in the memory may be filled in with false material that supports a self-interest; (4) memory cementing – a false memory seems so real to the witness that he develops false confidence in it. If all of the above conditions are met, then hypnosis testimony may be used in court and has in many cases been used successfully.

The Role Of Forensic Hypnosis: Famous Court Cases That Used Hypnosis To Solve Crime - Connecting Hypnotherapy...


Abstract
Following a brief review of the literature on hypnosis and memory, this paper overviews the procedures that are used in conducting forensic hypnosis interviews. Ten forensic hypnosis cases are then described. These real world cases are in stark contrast to research done in an artificial laboratory setting where the information to be recalled lacks personal relevance and was not associated with emotionally arousing situations. These cases illustrate how forensic hypnosis can result in obtaining important additional investigative leads which lead to the solving of crimes.

Solving crimes with hypnosis. - PubMed - NCBI