Westall incident 50 years on

[Creepy Green Light]

Of course CGL, there is another explanation in modern Ufology and that is-accepting a non-nuts n bolts explanation firstly- that whatever is behind the phenomenon, it shows exactly what it wants us to see, no more, no less - in fact one could argue that every single sighting of whatever craft in whatever situation, even aliens being seen etc, it's all by 'their' design and as such, as modern tech evolves and becomes smaller and cheaper, ostensibly making the capturing of countless great photos ever more likely, rather than the field gaining more evidence, it seems to be just as ever - just out of reach.

It definitely seems that types of UFO change with the times and so do reported close encounters, in fact it seems there are far, far less close-up landings, strange interactions with beings etc. I do not doubt cases such as Delphos, Kansas or Soccoro, New Mexico. Both are amazing witness and physical evidence cases that are extremely hard to debunk and it personally saddens me that in these days of iPhones etc these kind of cases seem to be reported much less. Will we ever get another Westall or Ruwa? Imagine a modern day elementary or middle school with a bloody great saucer landing at the edge of the sports field with 100+ youngsters crowding round for a long look? It would be on Youtube and Twitter etc in seconds - this being something the phenomena, I think, does not wish to happen yet, and so the phenomena stops putting on such shows. There must be very few schools worldwide where absolutely no kids have a camera phone. Even in very poor countries cellphone ownership is commonplace. Perhaps some Innuit-type people in Siberia, who have no network access, may be the last of people to whom an amazing landing display could still happen without the world getting real-time proof.

Even if someone is still resolutely nuts n bolts, such as Stan Friedman I think, it's easy to think any UFO occupants watching the Earth will be aware of our technology advances and seeing how they don't seem to wish to 'land on the Whitehouse lawn' yet, I doubt they wish to provide easy evidence. Which, for those of us in love with this field, is a real shame because it reduces the likelihood of any of us getting a class-A sighting of a daylight disc for instance. It seems high-altitude night-time shenanigans and simple but still amazing lights in the sky are the order of the day for now....I wonder if world governments put together a worldwide UFO-spotting grid of infra-red and night-vision cameras etc, maybe the phenomena will evolve even more into a form that makes such a grid impotent. It's always one step ahead it seems.

Interesting points Gogg's. Some of that is hard for me to wrap my head around but it's still interesting. Just the sheer numbers of camera's alone (personal, iphones, surveilance, etc.) - there should be thousands of clear UFO photo's/video's - especially if they are sighted as frequently as MUFON & the newspapers tell us.

 

[Sand]

Just the sheer numbers of camera's alone (personal, iphones, surveilance, etc.) - there should be thousands of clear UFO photo's/video's - especially if they are sighted as frequently as MUFON & the newspapers tell us.

Creepy_Green_Light, I can appreciate where you’re coming from on the lack of photos. But I think that, unless everyone who says they saw a UFO is lying, the lack of photos speaks to how people behave when they think they’re seeing a UFO, not to whether there are truly anomalous UFOs. Let’s take for example the O’Hare Airport UFO which happened in November 2006. At that time most everyone was carrying a phone that had a camera. I don’t think anyone would doubt that those people at O’Hare believed they saw something. There are recordings of the UA and O’Hare employees communicating about it as it is happening. And let’s say there was no true UFO involved, that it was just some weird cloud. Still, no one took out their phone and took a picture of what they thought was a UFO. Whether or not it was a truly anomalous UFO doesn’t even enter into it, In fact, following what Goggs was saying, it might be even more puzzling that people aren’t taking pictures of what they think are UFOs if there are no true UFOs. (And I‘m ignoring the O’Hare pictures that people faked after-the-fact.)

 

[mike]

Of course CGL, there is another explanation in modern Ufology and that is-accepting a non-nuts n bolts explanation firstly- that whatever is behind the phenomenon, it shows exactly what it wants us to see, no more, no less - in fact one could argue that every single sighting of whatever craft in whatever situation, even aliens being seen etc, it's all by 'their' design and as such, as modern tech evolves and becomes smaller and cheaper, ostensibly making the capturing of countless great photos ever more likely, rather than the field gaining more evidence, it seems to be just as ever - just out of reach.

It definitely seems that types of UFO change with the times and so do reported close encounters,
.

This would of course be entirely consistant with an advanced species trying to coax us gently to technological parity.

The target species will need to walk before they can run. The carrot on the stick needs to be recognisable and understandable.

Indeed our own science and knowledge can be seen as a progession curve. Likewise if you were trying to introduce new sophonts to galactic society, you would want use the boiled frog approach

By the time you uplift these new members to full membership, they will see this as completly normal and hardly a shock.

Even at its simplest if the target population has only 2 percent who are OK with the idea of alien life and you land on their collective lawn, 98 percent will freak out. If the goal is smooth integration of that society into the more advanced one, then thats a massive fail.

Take your time, tease them give them clues. let them step by step acheive parity, and contact becomes a blasé non event.

Biologicals dont like surprises,

People Are Scaring Their Cats with Cucumbers. They Shouldn’t.

Cats are terrified of cucumbers and no one knows exactly why

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I've been thinking of an addendum to my earlier post. Talking about the perceived lack of great photographic evidence of UFOs with the explosion in smartphone/digital camera usage has made me think that not only does 'the phenomenon' only allow us to see what it wants us to see, what about if it is actually showing us the same?

What I mean is that there may indeed have been more separate incidents of relatively close-up UFO encounters in the past but due to the fact that 40 years ago communication technology was fewer and further between, perhaps only a percentage of such incident reports filtered out into wider society. As we have gained more and more cameras and inter-connectedness, the UFO phenomena dials it back a bit, is a little less in-the-face, so that the end result is roughly the same 'strength' of reports gets into the community at large.

If it is a conscious choice to be displaying UFOs but not landing on the lawn, then to me it follows there is a purposeful intent to expose us to a certain amount of experiences. Because the phenomena does not control how many of us are able to film and report sightings, it can only alter it's own part in the equation, if it doesn't want to be 'found out' completely by the whole world just as of yet.

 

[Sand]

What I mean is that there may indeed have been more separate incidents of relatively close-up UFO encounters in the past but due to the fact that 40 years ago communication technology was fewer and further between, perhaps only a percentage of such incident reports filtered out into wider society. As we have gained more and more cameras and inter-connectedness, the UFO phenomena dials it back a bit, is a little less in-the-face, so that the end result is roughly the same 'strength' of reports gets into the community at large.

Interesting thought. Following your reasoning I think a further question is, to what extent are real UFO sightings needed today? Youtube and the internet receive a continual flow of fake UFO sightings. Television is loaded with shows that place little value on the true origin of the UFO tales they present. For the great bulk of the population, from believers to disbelievers, there is little difference between the impact of these fake human generated UFOs sightings and any real sightings. If a person, whether believer or disbeliever, cannot distinguish between a real sighting and a fake or prosaic one, what does it matter if the sighting isn’t real? A real UFO event would only be needed when a desired purpose is not being served by the "human generated" UFO phenomenon. If a real UFO sighting does take place the interesting question is then, as compared to the human generated UFOs what is that perceived purpose?

 

[Burnt State]

Interesting thought. Following your reasoning I think a further question is, to what extent are real UFO sightings needed today? Youtube and the internet receive a continual flow of fake UFO sightings. Television is loaded with shows that place little value on the true origin of the UFO tales they present. For the great bulk of the population, from believers to disbelievers, there is little difference between the impact of these fake human generated UFOs sightings and any real sightings. If a person, whether believer or disbeliever, cannot distinguish between a real sighting and a fake or prosaic one, what does it matter if the sighting isn’t real? A real UFO event would only be needed when a desired purpose is not being served by the "human generated" UFO phenomenon. If a real UFO sighting does take place the interesting question is then, as compared to the human generated UFOs what is that perceived purpose?

If we separate the idea of UFO propaganda, which includes all the many hoaxes and small blips and dots of white up against a neutral sky background, from actual encounters with unique objects, then we are left with wondering about the purpose of the real object. UFO propaganda and other messengers of deception serve human desires and human needs: to engage in mystery, to heighten ego, to engage in control mechanisms with cults etc. They may also serve to fulfill a larger simple concept of UFO's existing, but as they "exist" up against a backdrop of hoaxes, and human construction they also serve to prove their lack of existence and human origins. There is somewhat of a paradox at work when looked at from this angle which defeats many UFO addicts.

If we could somehow identify those cases that are not rooted in human imagination, confabulation or construction then we might find that there is no purpose being exacted whatsoever; or that the purpose is to teach according to mike's postulation above - to get us ready for more advanced ways of thinking about ourselves, life, the universe and everything; or because it is a shy phenomenon who appears to not make excuses for itself and is almost always elusive, nonsensical and ephemeral, then perhaps it is simply there, like any object in nature that provokes our curiosity and interest, out of no actual intention of its own.

The lack of good photographs or digital images continues to make us wonder whether or not the phenomenon exists fully in the material universe as we understand it, as "their" frames of reference, and physics, appear to be working in ways much different than our own. This may be a phenomenon that we simply can not interact with on any meaningful level at all, and again, as pointed out by mike earlier, may be the equivalent of us trying to carry on meaningful dialogues with mosquitoes. It's probably best just to make art out of them.

 

[mike]

I've been thinking of an addendum to my earlier post. Talking about the perceived lack of great photographic evidence of UFOs with the explosion in smartphone/digital camera usage has made me think that not only does 'the phenomenon' only allow us to see what it wants us to see, what about if it is actually showing us the same?

What I mean is that there may indeed have been more separate incidents of relatively close-up UFO encounters in the past but due to the fact that 40 years ago communication technology was fewer and further between, perhaps only a percentage of such incident reports filtered out into wider society. As we have gained more and more cameras and inter-connectedness, the UFO phenomena dials it back a bit, is a little less in-the-face, so that the end result is roughly the same 'strength' of reports gets into the community at large.

If it is a conscious choice to be displaying UFOs but not landing on the lawn, then to me it follows there is a purposeful intent to expose us to a certain amount of experiences. Because the phenomena does not control how many of us are able to film and report sightings, it can only alter it's own part in the equation, if it doesn't want to be 'found out' completely by the whole world just as of yet.

It is of course natural for us to see the whole phenomena from our own perspective.

We are still pretty much in the dark, we really dont know whats happening.

But logically that would not be the case from their pov. Xenosophontologists interacting with us (for whatever purpose) would in all likelyhood be very experienced in projects like this, be they first contact, Species uplift, or invasion.

One can make the case that since just about everyone has a smart phone and still no good evidence exists they dont exist.
But if the projects goals are to foster the hive mind, then the proliferation of these devices could also represent a project well and truly on track.

Another aspect of the smart phone is they make it harder not easier to document such things imo. the data is stored electrically not chemically like the old emulsion film technology. Manipulating these devices is far easier

The proliferation of these devices and the subsequent phasing out of the old type cameras would make it easier for a technologically advanced culture to hide

If we can do it.........

Edward Snowden reveals how Government can hack into YOUR smartphone and see EVERYTHING