Who is the most important Ufologist?

[Randall]

Are there any qualifications that are relevant to UFOs? In terms of understanding what they aren't I would say aeronautics, avionics, military and defence, weather , astronomers. But in terms of what they could be, do we need to compartmentalise expertise? Anyone with bright ideas who can connect the dots who perhaps takes an omnilogical standing may fair better?

The MUFON UFO Field Investigator's Course used to be pretty good. I imagine that it probably still is. I've also seen some leisure learning ufology courses at various colleges. Those credentials will tell the participant more about UFOs than a doctorate in ( insert academic field of choice here ). In fact, most academic institutions are anti-UFO, treating it as myth, hoax, cultural phenomenon, etc. That's not to say that one's academic education can't have some relevance. For example, if you're an astronomer or meteorologist, chances are good that you can discern objects in the sky better than someone without such training. That being said, most people without that training are pretty good at differentiating between stars, airplanes, and clouds anyway. Although our own engineers are creating some interesting aircraft, I still think almost anyone who got a good look at an alien craft would know it was a UFO.

In the case of someone who fakes credentials to write books on the subject. What if the books are brilliant ? Are we concerned then with the veracity of an individual's life experience, the journey as opposed to the destination. How does this view apply to other things? Do we then rule out deathbed confessions and people with any criminal convictions?

Interesting question. I would say that the brilliance of a book depends a lot on how much of the content is believable, and being caught fabricating credentials doesn't help instill confidence. However if the book made some hitherto unpublished claim that included information that could be independently verified as something alien, then the evidence would speak for itself. For example if the author claimed to have a relationship with the aliens, and said they would land at a particular location on a particular date, and that independent investigators could attend the meeting, and it actually happens, who cares what reputation the author has. However we have yet to see such evidence forwarded by any ufologist, credible or otherwise.

 

[trainedobserver]

Vallee wins for being the first to utilize information theory and computer analytics on UFO data.

 

[trainedobserver]

Question: Do we really think that there is a solution to the UFO problem? If so, what would it take to crack it? The right person? So many great folks have looked into it. More information? We already have so much. The proper analysis tools brought to bear on the data? If so, what new pattern might point to the answer? I don't know. Will the accumulation of more reports finally bring it all to some critical mass? I just don't think so personally.

I think we have all the pieces to the puzzle, we just don't have the box.

The UFO enigma has been with us since we first started scratching on rocks it seems like. If we haven't sussed it out by now we should asking why that is so. Not enough information? No. Not enough time to consider the information? No. Insufficient perspective on the information? Perhaps.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The "why" underlining our choices for most important Ufologist state a great deal about us as individuals. Ultimately, it's a direct indicator of what our own suspicions underline with respect to the mystery itself. It also indicates how our own minds align themselves with those that have adopted and evolved thinking patterns and philosophically relevant investigative orientations that we find intrinsic value with.

In my own anomalous considerations it's extremely important to me to look at the UFO situation through as broad a lens as would be possible. One that does in fact examine history for relevant reported/documented correlations, and in the same light, one that does not limit itself to definitions solely derived via contemporary historic linear context.

I agree that no one single voice within Ufology, based upon their academic credentials alone, could be declared the most important contributor or researcher in this field of interest. However, with respect for indisputable key organizational efforts, and the efficiency of interdepartmental communications that best forward a contemporary study of the overall phenomena involved, there is no question that one that exemplifies the legitimate backbone of ongoing developmental funding, as well one wherein the rigid discipline that an academic scientific approach is going to insure the effectiveness of that which is instituted, will always be best and most effective means to pursue it with.

As a personal qualifier with respect to "Ufology" and most specifically "Ufologists", I place a smaller amount of value on those that focus on the mass documented cataloging of reported individual humanoid encounters, than I do the documented reporting of non encounter oriented observations of correlated UFO behavior. In terms of what I personally find the most entertaining and enticing to myself as a reader, there is no question it's the former by far. I absolutely love reading about surprise alien encounters and their nonsensical interactive pancake making adventures with us unsuspecting breakfast bound simpletons. Frankly, I love reading about UFO abductions for the same reason. It's just GREAT story telling and of a variety that I really enjoy.

Here is my reasoning. The more I have studied humanoid encounter reports, the more I have determined just how many times that the apparent interactions of the humanoids with us unsuspecting humans seem to be enmeshed just inside and outside the sentient awareness of the observer themselves. It's like the human witnesses are dreaming while in an active awake state of observation. I think this is exactly what's happening, but certainly not due to some humanly inherent mental aberration or hiccup. Bits and pieces of their (the observer's) own familiarities are seemingly reconstructed amid the encounter as if the foreign sentient agent were attempting to garner relative sentient leverage in an attempt to best make contact. I suspect that it's a near field sentient act of translation for which the human participant has no cognizant reference or awareness. One that is unknowingly being engaged by a nonhuman sentience via our natural orientation and our native cognitive entrainment within the field of consciousness.

So I am thinking hypothetically, that pretty much anytime we get too close to a UFO, or a nonhuman aspect of sentience, our powers of perception may become incredibly unreliable. If truth be known, I suspect that nearly all UFOs consist of a very similar technological theme. It's what gives them their nonsensical, or "impossible physics" observed movements. IMO, they manipulate reality, not time and space.

So who is the most important Ufologist? Whichever one inspires you to be, and keep being, YOU.

 

[Randall]

Question: Do we really think that there is a solution to the UFO problem? If so, what would it take to crack it? The right person? So many great folks have looked into it. More information? We already have so much. The proper analysis tools brought to bear on the data? If so, what new pattern might point to the answer? I don't know. Will the accumulation of more reports finally bring it all to some critical mass? I just don't think so personally.

I think we have all the pieces to the puzzle, we just don't have the box.

The UFO enigma has been with us since we first started scratching on rocks it seems like. If we haven't sussed it out by now we should asking why that is so. Not enough information? No. Not enough time to consider the information? No. Insufficient perspective on the information? Perhaps.

Interesting question. I guess the answer depends on what we mean by, "the UFO problem". From my perspective, once we have learned enough about the aliens to bring them into our familiar collective civilization, they'll no longer be alien, and therefore their craft will no longer be alien, and as a consequence their craft will no longer be classed as UFOs. Instead they'll be called Pleiadian transports ( or something along those lines ). That might temporarily solve the problem, however there's no way we can be sure that some other aliens might not enter the picture that need to be figured out. Therefore, so long as there are ufologists and the possibility of aliens, ufology is not a topic that can be assumed to have a final solution. There will always be a rich history and the possibility of new encounters.

 

[Burnt State]

Question: Do we really think that there is a solution to the UFO problem? If so, what would it take to crack it? The right person? So many great folks have looked into it. More information? We already have so much. The proper analysis tools brought to bear on the data? If so, what new pattern might point to the answer? I don't know. Will the accumulation of more reports finally bring it all to some critical mass? I just don't think so personally.

I think we have all the pieces to the puzzle, we just don't have the box.

The UFO enigma has been with us since we first started scratching on rocks it seems like. If we haven't sussed it out by now we should asking why that is so. Not enough information? No. Not enough time to consider the information? No. Insufficient perspective on the information? Perhaps.

I'm not sure if we have the right data. There may be oodles of it but aside from the occasional radar return we really haven't had a lot of actual instrumentation trained on craft while flitting about the skies. If anything we have a lot of after the fact data and guestimations of power output of objects but nothing really live. Witnesses who were close to objects appear to have been 'scrambled' enough by the experience that even their own reports on the same objects have some discrepancies. Thinking about Vallée, who tried repeatedly to take a few good swings of the bat, he really did not light a lot of fires in the ufologucal community, but appears to have drawn opposition instead. Still, he's had the most creative and thoughtful approach so far in trying to harmonize the technological and ethereal aspects of UFO's

As you say, not only do we not have a box to put the UFO conundrum into, but many of the ufologists seem to be bent on inventing new boxes all the time instead of consolidating and synthesizing ideas from their predecessors.

In the post-Vallée era do we have any strong voices leading the direction? All I've seen is endless infighting and the batting about of the toxic abduction birdie. I think that Bishop's refrain of needing an entirely new perspective, or someone working diligently in some other field, like a Kripal, might bring forth something new and unforeseen.

 

[Burnt State]

The more I have studied humanoid encounter reports, the more I have determined just how many times that the apparent interactions of the humanoids with us unsuspecting humans seem to be enmeshed just inside and outside the sentient awareness of the observer themselves. It's like the human witnesses are dreaming while in an active awake state of observation. I think this is exactly what's happening, but certainly not due to some humanly inherent mental aberration or hiccup. Bits and pieces of their (the observer's) own familiarities are seemingly reconstructed amid the encounter as if the foreign sentient agent were attempting to garner relative sentient leverage in an attempt to best make contact. I suspect that it's a near field sentient act of translation for which the human participant has no cognizant reference or awareness. One that is unknowingly being engaged by a nonhuman sentience via our natural orientation and our native cognitive entrainment within the field of consciousness.

So I am thinking hypothetically, that pretty much anytime we get too close to a UFO, or a nonhuman aspect of sentience, our powers of perception may become incredibly unreliable. If truth be known, I suspect that nearly all UFOs consist of a very similar technological theme. It's what gives them their nonsensical, or "impossible physics" observed movements. IMO, they manipulate reality, not time and space.

I wonder how much of the reality manipulation is something our own senses play a role in? I agree with all your points regarding our very close 'distorted' encounters, but just as we have this whole issue of the UFO craft changing its technology to match the times, it seems to me that our own brains, loaded with pre-recorded imagery and ideas about aliens and their craft, might be supplying its own visual representations in order to negotiate an impossible stimulus. Many do also talk about time slowing during reports as if our ability to maintain the illusion of the flow of time is being interrupted altogether. Now what do you think would be causing our sense of time to alter?

 

[nameless]

Question: Do we really think that there is a solution to the UFO problem? ..

Take just UFOs. I just want to entertain something here , if we rule out nuts and bolts type craft as being terrestrial and just take the crazy stuff that the traditional aliens in ships crowd like to sideline, the weird morphing floating plasma like stuff, lights, jellyfish, eggs, playful fire and god knows what else , if we apply that question to something which could be possibly a sentient creature or a sentient mechanism we can see the question being part of the problem as in how we objectify it. Its far out but then we have to treat and look at stuff in another way rather than the classical "train spotting" mentality.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I wonder how much of the reality manipulation is something our own senses play a role in? I agree with all your points regarding our very close 'distorted' encounters, but just as we have this whole issue of the UFO craft changing its technology to match the times, it seems to me that our own brains, loaded with pre-recorded imagery and ideas about aliens and their craft, might be supplying its own visual representations in order to negotiate an impossible stimulus. Many do also talk about time slowing during reports as if our ability to maintain the illusion of the flow of time is being interrupted altogether. Now what do you think would be causing our sense of time to alter?

I think the role that our brains play is almost 100% responsible in terms of the causal hallucinatory agent in our attempts to make sense of the situation. Frankly, I think this is due to the evolutionary point in which we are at developmentally with respect to our sentience, and our relationship to consciousness as a species in the universe. It is my opinion that UFOs represent a universal integral constant that we have yet to developmentally merge with. A portion of our environment that is as natural as any other orientation that life might aspire to and be born into. This evolutionary plateau does away with the aspect of what is artificial adaption of sentient species based on the ability of each species to integrally become a seamless part of the universe itself. When we observe UFOs it's always strictly an interpretation because we have no point of reference apart from our own relationship to the very medium that themselves are navigating. We have no choice but to observe them merged or superimposed into the framework of our own reality manufacturing process. For us and the point in which we are at evolutionarily, reality consists of our embryonic relationship to consciousness in which we exist externally, or remotely, in a constant feedback loop of our own making. It's almost like the human race at present exists on a consciousness umbilical cord. The point in which this constant comes into play sees species "leave the ocean" to dwell in the firmament of consciousness itself. Enter the shape shifter. Enter artificial consciousness which is what UFOs themselves are IMO.

 

[nameless]

Bicameralism (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Burnt State]

Take just UFOs. I just want to entertain something here , if we rule out nuts and bolts type craft as being terrestrial and just take the crazy stuff that the traditional aliens in ships crowd like to sideline, the weird morphing floating plasma like stuff, lights, jellyfish, eggs, playful fire and god knows what else , if we apply that question to something which could be possibly a sentient creature or a sentient mechanism we can see the question being part of the problem as in how we objectify it. Its far out but then we have to treat and look at stuff in another way rather than the classical "train spotting" mentality.

So are we talking sky critters here?

 

[boomerang]

Valle got my vote solely on the basis of the depth and breadth of his views. And the fact that he has always stressed the witness as an integral part of the phenomenon. I like the description of current ufology as "a lukewarm mess". I will go so far as to say I doubt the current state of affairs has surprised Valle. He has always seemed doubtful that the UFO mystery will yield to conventional technological analysis.

It's hard to discount those early and seemingly courageous pioneers of the field who (seemingly) climbed out on a limb in an effort to solve the UFO enigma. Ruppelt, Keyhoe, McDonald and the Marcels, come immediately to mind. There were certainly others as well.

 

[Burnt State]

There is very little original James E. McDonald material to be found online - please post it if you find it. In this excerpt he explains how fines of $10,000 or ten years in prison was a punishment used to silence the release of information and stall scientific investigation into UFO's . You can see what a bad ass he actually was in his open criticism of the three letter agencies and gov't policies.

 

[Burnt State]

For more detailed audio recordings with pioneers in Ufology, Wendy O'Connors Faded Discs Collection that was recently uploaded to archive.org has some exceptional files available to listen to. Track 27 from this link contains what is considered to be the most famous of James McDonald's lectures called "Science in Default."

On this same link are a series of interviews with McDonald, including lectures, plus some fascinating recordings with Frank Edwards and a huge collection of Keyhoe audio recordings, including some fairly controversial pieces where in one case his mic was turned down so no one could hear him, and another that resulted in the resignation of the audio host that openly mocked Major Keyhoe on his show:

Profiles In Ufology Major Donald E. Keyhoe, Dr. James E. Mc Donald & Frank Edwards Guide : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[nameless]

So are we talking sky critters here?

What ever floats your boat , if it is Quetzalcoatl space dragon energy worms then we should explore a way to approach this stuff from a zoological or preternatural point of view and no I don't mean old school kill it and stick it in a cabinet with a Latin name.

Sorry for being a bore, just wanted to say;

Our subscription to mainstream or outmoded dominant belief structures may ultimately influence or determine the success in getting somewhere with this. Ultimately with all of this stuff and the common element to say most of the threads running at this point on this board (as analogical onion layers) is that concensus reality or our idea of shared space and time doesn't make sense and doesn't really exist. Our consciousness of which they're could be many is the big daddy and offers us certain privileges. It operates levels of pattern recognition systems and imposes meaning on things that are meaningless to an agreed point or within mooted constraints, from the out there honed in taken as fact narrow world of "Slick" Simms to the scatter gun knitted factual causal imposition games of the fun knowing smirk of J P Farrell. Time, space, mathematics, psychology, etc.. None of this stuff actually means anything and is itself determined or defined by how we choose to define it to our context, but is itself possibly a distinct entity beyond our imposition, so is it any wonder when something comes along that doesn't fit into our created reality our filter set up or world view and seems to exist outside our system that tests the limits of our shaky perception that we are puzzled? We scramble to impose order on it or some useless definition and for the most part it works, mathematics in its wondrous practicable abstract reasoning works to a point (although modern strides in cryptography is finding it hard to deal with very big numbers which they hope will be solved with "quantum" computing).

This is why the ETH is so seductive as it is an easy catch all imaginative blank slate existing outside our known kingdom, like bandying the word "quantum"or using magic in the Harry Potter plot sense, as long as we can, if we attach a bunch of meaningful statements, its existence is sanctified in our belief. Is it a possibility? Yes but it's just a hypothesis at best and to say that it is rational or logical is is itself irrational and illogical and by its own rules, bends them to allow "fiction posing as the cusp of factual reality but not quite yet, but nearly there passableness", sitting well with people who can't fully take the "fuck it" leap of full on imagination but needs the touch stone foot on the ground of cold science in all its 1950s glory. I love that world, it's seductive, I'm surrounded by it at home with comics, dvds, novels, computer games, figures etc.. but with its ideas of flying men, mother ships, sentient droids, robot humans, time coils, laser whips, mind melds when applied to the real world anomalies of paranormal and UFO experiences it is just camp pedestrian nonsense and doesn't explain the big questions and that if you really thought about, doesn't make any sense in the whole scheme of things and particularly not if you base this on the myriad of abductions, contactee reports, UFO reports, humanoid sightings from around the world that if were to all be believed in would be just plain chain pulling tricksterism. But I'm not in thrall to this science fiction as much as I want to be, and this is where our imagination can be used against us, take heed. I understand it's our convention it's part of our system and our rules and how our brain is mapped, the safety that is to try to stay within the meagrely tangible. The "reality" is we don't know enough about our own world or how our consciousness works to begin to definitely subscribe to a hypothesis wholeheartedly as to what some other thing is. Nor do we know what lurks behind the doors of the privileged hierarchy and puppet masters. Rather than taking this ridiculous authoritative stand point of imposing warp drive time travel, Wells, Arthur C Clarke and Heinlein as hard science fact why not think, actually it could be anything beyond my little brain and that I know the distinction between fact and fiction and maybe there is an excluded middle? Look at this;

Yeti crab. This didn't exist until 2005. Did it exist before that? Of course it did.

Look at these:

Mushroom spores. Heres an alternative tangible way at looking at possible alien communication a la "The Inner Light" (Season 5, episode 25) next generation.

as Valee said
"I will be disappointed if UFOs are nothing more than spaceships."

oh yeah...

"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships."-Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Burnt State]

Time, space, mathematics, psychology, etc.. None of this stuff actually means anything and is itself determined or defined by how we choose to define it to our context, but is itself possibly a distinct entity beyond our imposition, so is it any wonder when something comes along that doesn't fit into our created reality our filter set up or world view and seems to exist outside our system that tests the limits of our shaky perception that we are puzzled? We scramble to impose order on it or some useless definition and for the most part it works, mathematics in its wondrous practicable abstract reasoning works to a point (although modern strides in cryptography is finding it hard to deal with very big numbers which they hope will be solved with "quantum" computing).

you sure do have a way of putting things into perspective on a macro scale. i can see how chasing the alien conundrum always returns us back to our UFO box and inability to think outside of that box. Clark says we don't have the vocabulary to talk about these things - what they really are. that statement still makes sense to me; it's all a limitation of human linguistics and how we've framed observable reality.

This is why the ETH is so seductive as it is an easy catch all imaginative blank slate existing outside our known kingdom, like bandying the word "quantum"or using magic in the Harry Potter plot sense, as long as we can, if we attach a bunch of meaningful statements, its existence is sanctified in our belief. Is it a possibility? Yes but it's just a hypothesis at best and to say that it is rational or logical is is itself irrational and illogical and by its own rules, bends them to allow "fiction posing as the cusp of factual reality but not quite yet, but nearly there passableness", sitting well with people who can't fully take the "fuck it" leap of full on imagination but needs the touch stone foot on the ground of cold science in all its 1950s glory.

well it certainly has served us well over the decades, despite many of the big thinkers always arriving much closer to your own estimation of things as seen in the two closing quotes from Vallee and Clark that you lay down. in fact the answer would be all too convenient wouldn't it, if it was just ET flying around in its spaceship from across the galactic hub? humans are mostly scared by irrational thought for in those avenues lie the demons, the funny painted van gogh stars and a world where we sit around and make metaphor and imagine the possibilities of associative thinking. but who really believes in magic, or whatever the mechanism is behind the magic of things like gravity that we still don't understand? we like our science cold and our news hard - though, in the age of corporate consumerism, the hard news died out somewhere in the 50's.

I love that world, it's seductive, I'm surrounded by it at home with comics, dvds, novels, computer games, figures etc.. but with its ideas of flying men, mother ships, sentient droids, robot humans, time coils, laser whips, mind melds when applied to the real world anomalies of paranormal and UFO experiences it is just camp pedestrian nonsense and doesn't explain the big questions and that if you really thought about, doesn't make any sense in the whole scheme of things and particularly not if you base this on the myriad of abductions, contactee reports, UFO reports, humanoid sightings from around the world that if were to all be believed in would be just plain chain pulling tricksterism. But I'm not in thrall to this science fiction as much as I want to be, and this is where our imagination can be used against us, take heed. I understand it's our convention it's part of our system and our rules and how our brain is mapped, the safety that is to try to stay within the meagrely tangible. The "reality" is we don't know enough about our own world or how our consciousness works to begin to definitely subscribe to a hypothesis wholeheartedly as to what some other thing is. Nor do we know what lurks behind the doors of the privileged hierarchy and puppet masters. Rather than taking this ridiculous authoritative stand point of imposing warp drive time travel, Wells, Arthur C Clarke and Heinlein as hard science fact why not think, actually it could be anything beyond my little brain and that I know the distinction between fact and fiction and maybe there is an excluded middle?

funny thing, that excluded middle. and perhaps in the fact that Greg Bishop's mode of thinking never really took off, except amongst some of the heretics of Ufoology, that we understand why we keep spinning our wheels. who really has ever embraced that excluded middle, the third bank of the river? instead people scoff openly at such irrational talk and when we bring up that discussion of imaginative, or magical thinking, we don't hear people raving on about The Morning of the Magician or The Rebirth of Pan (oft referred to texts in Bishop's pantheon) instead we get the stalwarts of ufology come out to stomp down those consdierations to return us to our magnetometers and geiger counters to look for the nuts and bolts of UFO's in the many beaches of a world covered in the sands of science.

instead of the yeti crab - who is absolutely stunning, i was thinking more about dinosaurs still alive:



or even all those lifeforms that live without sun in caves or around thermal vents. we have a limited concept of what is a life form, though many a curious scientist does pursue these things with vim and vigour. i think that the real sad crime is how ufoology has shaken down between two camps - believers and debunkers. i detest both labels and the blind motivations encapsulated by such thought and inability to stray from the path to approach the third bank of the river. if we could start it all over again, Marcello Truzzi would not have had Zeteticism co-opted, Greg Bishop would be one of the most important ufologists and maybe the fighting camps would be one broad spectrum, not busy biting each other on the ass and just calmly, and clearly picking apart each case to the bone until a fleck or two of gold yeti hair would shake free and point us in new directions.

It's probably best to close this onion with your last two quotes as they should resound a little more clearly, as should doubtful searching:

as Valee said
"I will be disappointed if UFOs are nothing more than spaceships."

oh yeah...

"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships."-Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Randall]

... It's probably best to close this onion with your last two quotes as they should resound a little more clearly, as should doubtful searching:

as Valee said
"I will be disappointed if UFOs are nothing more than spaceships."
oh yeah...
"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships."-Arthur C. Clarke
​

Vallée's pet theory is that UFO are from some other dimension, and he authored a book to promote that idea. Together with his other fantastical musings it would be natural for Vallée to be "disappointed" if they didn't conform to his vision of what he wants UFOs to be. In fact, although Vallée's historical contributions to ufology cannot be overlooked, Vallée appears to be a victim of his own particular brand of the "I Want To Believe" syndrome. If he weren't, then he have no reason to be disappointed would he? A more objective look reveals that his assumptions about UFOs coming from other dimensions is very weak.

On Clarke's comment. Why exactly did he say that? It doesn't make any sense. Despite his legendary reputation a a sci-fi writer and futurist, it sounds more like an offhanded comment rather than a well formed opinion. Over 1800 exoplanets have been discovered and the growing consensus among astronomers is that the galaxy could have billions of Earth like planets. Besides that, where else could UFOs conceivably come from that makes enough logical sense to take seriously?

 

[boomerang]

Vallée's pet theory is that UFO are from some other dimension, and he authored a book to promote that idea. Together with his other fantastical musings it would be natural for Vallée to be "disappointed" if they didn't conform to his vision of what he wants UFOs to be. In fact, although Vallée's historical contributions to ufology cannot be overlooked, Vallée appears to be a victim of his own particular brand of the "I Want To Believe" syndrome. If he weren't, then he have no reason to be disappointed would he? A more objective look reveals that his assumptions about UFOs coming from other dimensions is very weak.

On Clarke's comment. Why exactly did he say that? It doesn't make any sense. Despite his legendary reputation a a sci-fi writer and futurist, it sounds more like an offhanded comment rather than a well formed opinion. Over 1800 exoplanets have been discovered and the growing consensus among astronomers is that the galaxy could have billions of Earth like planets. Besides that, where else could UFOs conceivably come from that makes enough logical sense to take seriously?

Valle has constructed a kind of distinct 'aura' around his denial of the ETH hypothesis. I think the magnitude of his intellect has made it work for him as one viable school of thought. Although when pressed, I don't believe he has ever denied the possibility of a kind of practical joking and self-cloaking planet to planet phenomenon.

We may be again asking the wrong questions while expecting right answers. The ETH and multi-dimensional models are in no way incompatible. They may even be likely or even necessary.

 

[Burnt State]

On Clarke's comment. Why exactly did he say that? It doesn't make any sense. Despite his legendary reputation a a sci-fi writer and futurist, it sounds more like an offhanded comment rather than a well formed opinion. Over 1800 exoplanets have been discovered and the growing consensus among astronomers is that the galaxy could have billions of Earth like planets. Besides that, where else could UFOs conceivably come from that makes enough logical sense to take seriously?

Clarke's comment comes from a 1975 July 27th NY Times book review, but what he was reviewing I could not find out. Two possible books are The Unidentified by Coleman and Clark and David Jacobs' The UFO Controversey in America which are both 1975. Gray Barker also had a book out then as did Keel with Mothman Prophecies. Interestingly Clarke's quote I found is often lumped in with other quotes from famous Ufologists and some parasychologists on websites talking about the UFO as interdimensional being or as Demon, as per Keel's popularized the theory. Why would Clarke say this - looks like a comment that is reflecting directy on a book that has moved him off the nuts and bolts theory.

During the time of working with Kubrick on 2001 in an interview there is the following exchange with Clarke:

"Question: Can I be pedestrian and ask about the unidentified flying objects?

Clarke: Well can I be pedestrian and give a brief reply?

One, if you've never seen an unidentified flying object you are very unobservant.

Two, if you've seen as many as I have you won' t believe in them. (awkward laughter from the room)

Three, they have nothing to do with visitors from space.

Four, it is impossible to prove three. (hearty laughter from the room)"

It looks like in Clarke's estimation he simply was open minded and did not see the nuts and bolts interpretation as the end of the story at all. I also understand he had a much more involved fascination, like many of us, with encounters with UFO occupants.

 

[Burnt State]

It's billed as the final edition from beyond the grave. You can get your last edition of Saucer Smear right here. Good to see that Moseley managed to rack up at least two votes on the poll.