Here's a question for you to think about: If you are a person who's familiar with all of the old and modern ufo cases, what are some of the assumptions about the ufo phenomenon that you believe we can now make with a reasonable degree of certainty?
Here are my first 2 of the list:
1) There are one or more intelligent sources behind the ufo phenomenon (ie, not all ufos can be explained by natural phenomena and psychological abberations)
2) People are being intentionally deceived by at least one of these intelligent sources. They want to be seen, but they don't want to be seen for what they are. They want to be seen as something else.
If we can accept only those first 2 points, I think this might clear up alot of the wacky cases like Billy Meier and George Adamski. Cases where seemingly sane and intelligent people are supporting wacky ideas.
If there is an intelligence behind the ufo phenomenon, and it wants to deceive people as to what its true identity is, then it only makes sense that this intelligence would contact suggestible people in positions of influence and direct them *away* from the truth. These people of influence would then misdirect the masses.
Why would seemingly sane and intelligent people follow the zany ideas of a certain person?
Consider this scenario for the Billy Meier case:
A legitimate intelligence contacts Meier, and fills his head with foolish and false ideas. Events are arranged so that some of his close associates experience a few of these paranormal events, and thus they become convinced of Meier's "authenticity". The cult is born.
After Meier spreads the word and gathers followers, the job has been done, so the intelligence disappears. However, when time goes by and no additional paranormal events occur, Meier's followers reasonably begin to doubt his contact with the space brothers. The intelligence is now long gone, so Meier fakes photos in order to hang on to the followers he's gained.
Now take into consideration the first 2 points which I think we can reasonably assume. With that in mind, I find the above scenario more reasonable than the idea that a man (with no unique ideas and second-rate photos) gathered such a rabid following of seemingly sane and normal people, based upon nothing paranormal at all. I suspect that something legitimately paranormal initially occurred around this man. But the intention of this intelligence was deception, and everything that has occurred since then was in fact intended by this intelligence.
Now let's consider another more current case: Steven Greer and his Disclosure Project. It certainly seemed to have started sanely enough, but then went rapidly down nutty lane. I even donated money to them after watching Out of the Blue many years ago, because I thought the organization had great promise.
What if, perhaps, this Disclosure Project was recognized by the intelligence behind ufos as an organization that could legitimately threaten the shroud of deception held in place? Who would be the person to "contact" who could effectively neutralize the threat that the Disclosure Project posed? It would of course be Dr. Greer. He even claims some sort of contact, as I understand it. I see no reason to disbelieve him out of hand, and so the possibility stands that he was also contacted by this intelligence, which I think filled his head with ideas that effectively discredited and neutralized the Disclosure Project.
So here is the hypothesis, which is built from only those first 2 assumptions: One motivation of the ufo intelligence is to contact individuals and organizations that have the potential to damage the deception held in place, and the intelligence takes steps to neutralize the threat.
On the plus side, this hypothesis runs alongside the Vallee ideas of this intelligence as a sort of human psychological "control-system".
On the minus side, it does not fit neatly into the "either he is a charlatan or he is the real deal" dichotomy. For people without flexible minds who like to make snap judgements, this would be a hard thing to digest.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
A Valuable Exercise
Recently I was relating a story of something very strange that happened to me when I was younger, and I realized that there was a technique I had employed which I would really like to share with everyone.
Several months ago I was listening to an interview (on the Paracast I believe), where a man mentioned that people should sit down and make a list of the unexplained things that have happened to them in their lives. After hearing this, I decided to sit down and do it. I can't tell you how useful this has been to me.
When I first sat down to do this, I honestly thought that my life had been pretty uneventful regarding paranormal experiences, and that not much has happened to me. In fact, that's how I've described myself to others on numerous occasions. However, after sitting down and compiling this list, I was surprised to discover that not only have I experienced *alot* of bizarre things, but the process of sitting down and making a concerted effort to recall memories actually caused me to remember things that I had previously forgotten.
This exercise worked well for me, and it's especially appealing to those of us who look dubiously upon hypnotic regression for memory retrieval. Perhaps no regression is needed after all!
I would recommend to everyone reading this that you should set aside about half an hour to just sit down and write all the unexplained events that you can remember occurring in your life, even if you think nothing has happened to you. Keep the list handy, so that when something comes to your mind at a random time, you can append it to the list.
I suspect that you'll be surprised to discover the bizarre things that lie buried in your past. I certainly was.
Several months ago I was listening to an interview (on the Paracast I believe), where a man mentioned that people should sit down and make a list of the unexplained things that have happened to them in their lives. After hearing this, I decided to sit down and do it. I can't tell you how useful this has been to me.
When I first sat down to do this, I honestly thought that my life had been pretty uneventful regarding paranormal experiences, and that not much has happened to me. In fact, that's how I've described myself to others on numerous occasions. However, after sitting down and compiling this list, I was surprised to discover that not only have I experienced *alot* of bizarre things, but the process of sitting down and making a concerted effort to recall memories actually caused me to remember things that I had previously forgotten.
This exercise worked well for me, and it's especially appealing to those of us who look dubiously upon hypnotic regression for memory retrieval. Perhaps no regression is needed after all!
I would recommend to everyone reading this that you should set aside about half an hour to just sit down and write all the unexplained events that you can remember occurring in your life, even if you think nothing has happened to you. Keep the list handy, so that when something comes to your mind at a random time, you can append it to the list.
I suspect that you'll be surprised to discover the bizarre things that lie buried in your past. I certainly was.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
"Other-Dimensional" Entities
Inspired from a recent discussion, in this blog I'll be playing around with the "inter-dimensional theory" of ufos.
Thinking on this theory, my first realization is that I really don't have a solid concept of what another dimension might be. I understand dimensions in the basic sense (length, width, depth), but as to "other dimensions"... that's another story.
So what would it mean if these beings associated with ufos exist in another dimension?
One possibility is that another dimension means simply "outside of our range of perception". Our senses are basically just various receiving apparatus which pick up waves of different types which are being transmitted and reflected from the "external world". Our senses are able to register only an extremely narrow range of these waves.
It would make sense to me that a hypothetical being who only transmits/reflects waves which are beyond the capacity of our sensors to receive is equivalent to a being who exists in "another dimension".
Following the speculative road with this definition of "other dimensions", where does it lead us?
Well firstly, I see no reason to assume that the beings associated with ufos have the same range of perception that we do. Which means that these hypothetical beings could potentially be outside of our range of perception, while still being able to perceive us. And additionally, if such a being is capable of altering the frequency of the waves which it transmits or reflects, then it can conceivably make itself perceivable by humans and invisible to humans at will.
If one accepts such a possibility, that there might exist beings who are just as "real" as we are, but transmit/reflect only waves outside of our range of perception, then this leads to a load of other interesting inferences.
If other beings do exist outside of our range of perception, then there is no reason to assume that the amalgamation that I consider "me" consists of only what is perceivable by my poor-quality receivers. Parts of me that are just as much "me" as my arms or legs might exist beyond my capacities of perception. In addition, these other beings might be able to perceive these unseen parts, and perhaps manipulate them in various ways, affecting our moods or behavior in ways that would seem totally random to us.
Something to consider when we wonder why humanity and life on earth always seems to be going in a direction diametrically opposite to the direction most people want.
Thinking on this theory, my first realization is that I really don't have a solid concept of what another dimension might be. I understand dimensions in the basic sense (length, width, depth), but as to "other dimensions"... that's another story.
So what would it mean if these beings associated with ufos exist in another dimension?
One possibility is that another dimension means simply "outside of our range of perception". Our senses are basically just various receiving apparatus which pick up waves of different types which are being transmitted and reflected from the "external world". Our senses are able to register only an extremely narrow range of these waves.
It would make sense to me that a hypothetical being who only transmits/reflects waves which are beyond the capacity of our sensors to receive is equivalent to a being who exists in "another dimension".
Following the speculative road with this definition of "other dimensions", where does it lead us?
Well firstly, I see no reason to assume that the beings associated with ufos have the same range of perception that we do. Which means that these hypothetical beings could potentially be outside of our range of perception, while still being able to perceive us. And additionally, if such a being is capable of altering the frequency of the waves which it transmits or reflects, then it can conceivably make itself perceivable by humans and invisible to humans at will.
If one accepts such a possibility, that there might exist beings who are just as "real" as we are, but transmit/reflect only waves outside of our range of perception, then this leads to a load of other interesting inferences.
If other beings do exist outside of our range of perception, then there is no reason to assume that the amalgamation that I consider "me" consists of only what is perceivable by my poor-quality receivers. Parts of me that are just as much "me" as my arms or legs might exist beyond my capacities of perception. In addition, these other beings might be able to perceive these unseen parts, and perhaps manipulate them in various ways, affecting our moods or behavior in ways that would seem totally random to us.
Something to consider when we wonder why humanity and life on earth always seems to be going in a direction diametrically opposite to the direction most people want.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Ufology Social Element
After writing that last post, it occurred to me that the "social element" of ufology can't be altogether disregarded. It is only necessary for the scientific research group to ignore this element. This does not exclude the possibility of a seperate or sub-group whose efforts are specifically directed in a social direction.
There is a similar group already in existence, and that is the group involved in the Disclosure Project. However, I think that the ideal group would proceed in a very different manner than Greer's, if they want to achieve a successful social effect.
The single most important difference in my ideal hypothetical group and Greer's group is that upon joining, all members must first agree to a unified public stance: "Ufos are a reality, and beyond this we do not know."
Nothing more can be publicly discussed by any members of the group. No banning of space weapons, no alien races, no planetary exchanges, no reverse-engineered technologies. All of these things do nothing more than muddy the waters, strain credulity, and actually go against the goal of convincing the public. All members, regardless of their "pet theories", must agree that by joining the group they will adopt the group's stance in public. Privately, the members can speculate on crazy stuff till their hearts' content, but publicly they must not deviate from the initial stance.
Now certainly in a forum such as a press conference, questions will arise regarding the specifics about ufos. What do they look like? Where do they come from? etc. The temptation at this point is for individuals to propound on theories because they are ashamed to say simply, "I don't know." Perhaps they're afraid that this will make their stories less believable. Whatever the case, it must be stressed that there is no shame in answering that something is unknown.
If Greer's group had started with this sort of unified front, I think it would have made greater public headway than it has. As it presently stands, guys like Clifford Stone promoting the idea of "52 different alien races" are simply negative influences on the presumed goal. I honestly have no personal opinions on the validity of such statements, but it is absolutely worthless to publicly discuss such topics when the topic of the *reality of ufos themselves* has not been publicly acknowledged as a fact. This would be the equivalent of the Wright Brothers discussing the building of airports before they had sufficiently convinced the public of the feasibilty of an airplane.
There is a similar group already in existence, and that is the group involved in the Disclosure Project. However, I think that the ideal group would proceed in a very different manner than Greer's, if they want to achieve a successful social effect.
The single most important difference in my ideal hypothetical group and Greer's group is that upon joining, all members must first agree to a unified public stance: "Ufos are a reality, and beyond this we do not know."
Nothing more can be publicly discussed by any members of the group. No banning of space weapons, no alien races, no planetary exchanges, no reverse-engineered technologies. All of these things do nothing more than muddy the waters, strain credulity, and actually go against the goal of convincing the public. All members, regardless of their "pet theories", must agree that by joining the group they will adopt the group's stance in public. Privately, the members can speculate on crazy stuff till their hearts' content, but publicly they must not deviate from the initial stance.
Now certainly in a forum such as a press conference, questions will arise regarding the specifics about ufos. What do they look like? Where do they come from? etc. The temptation at this point is for individuals to propound on theories because they are ashamed to say simply, "I don't know." Perhaps they're afraid that this will make their stories less believable. Whatever the case, it must be stressed that there is no shame in answering that something is unknown.
If Greer's group had started with this sort of unified front, I think it would have made greater public headway than it has. As it presently stands, guys like Clifford Stone promoting the idea of "52 different alien races" are simply negative influences on the presumed goal. I honestly have no personal opinions on the validity of such statements, but it is absolutely worthless to publicly discuss such topics when the topic of the *reality of ufos themselves* has not been publicly acknowledged as a fact. This would be the equivalent of the Wright Brothers discussing the building of airports before they had sufficiently convinced the public of the feasibilty of an airplane.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Science Begins With Thought
I recently read a blogger's inquiry into people's ideas of what might further the scientific inquiry into the ufo phenomenon. I think this is an excellent question.
Thinking about the subject, I must first acknowledge that science is not just instruments and measurements, its foundation is a particular way of thinking regarding the world around us. Because of this, a religious zealot with a lab coat and microscope is not a scientist, regardless of whether his religion is Mormonism or Darwinism. I may not have a great deal of helpful advice regarding which instruments and measurements will best serve ufology, but I believe I can offer observations of what will help ufology from a psychological perspective.
One of the major obstacles that is keeping ufology from moving forward is this ubiquitous striving to acquire mainstream acceptance. As I see it, this "social factor" comprises the majority of the efforts and discussions in ufology today, and is the primary cause for all of the bickering and in-fighting. There are a few exceptions, Vallee and Keel come to mind, but they are notably absent from the field presently.
To illustrate why I believe this mind-set needs to change, we should look first at the subject itself. Those who have studied this field seriously will soon come to the realization that the truth behind ufos, whatever it may be, is something that lies far outside the spectrum of what we consider ordinary reality. It exists in our world like the idea of an airplane existed during the time when man could not fly. Consider how difficult it was for people at that time (including the prevailing scientific establishment) to accept the idea that man could fly, and then amplify that mental block ten-fold. This would approximate the psychological gulf existing between our misconceptions and reality regarding the ufo phenomenon, in my opinion.
As such, it seems only logical that progress in our understanding of the ufo phenomenon, at this point in time, cannot be some sort of grand social revolution. Real understanding is only going to take place among individuals or small groups. It is going to be a long, long time before ufology gains this "credibility" that those in the field so are so desperately grasping towards. The roads of inquiry and credibility run parallel in the beginning, but diverge further and further as one delves into a subject whose underlying reality strays far from the mainstream.
The further a person goes down one road, the further he is away from the other. Sooner or later, he must choose one and leave the other behind.
Because of this, for the scientist who sincerely wishes to learn of the reality behind the ufo phenomenon, he must firmly discard the desire for widespread social or mainstream scientific acceptance. History supports the premise that this social change will never happen unless it serves the intelligence behind the phenomenon, and that is something that we can neither predict nor rely upon.
By freeing oneself of this baggage, I believe a person will be more able to discover (and not reject) the incredibly weird reality that undoubtedly underlies the ufo phenomenon, but which we are unable to discover.
So this is my hypothetical foundation for the establishment of a group investigating the reality of the ufo phenomenon. The individuals involved must share in a common aim, which is for scientific inquiry into the mystery by any means available. Nothing is assumed known unless agreed upon by all members. No attention will be directed towards acquiring mainstream scientific or social acceptance. It makes no difference whether the investigation moves into the field of chemistry or into a field of crop circles, it is all on an even plane.
If anyone knows of such a group drop me a line.
Thinking about the subject, I must first acknowledge that science is not just instruments and measurements, its foundation is a particular way of thinking regarding the world around us. Because of this, a religious zealot with a lab coat and microscope is not a scientist, regardless of whether his religion is Mormonism or Darwinism. I may not have a great deal of helpful advice regarding which instruments and measurements will best serve ufology, but I believe I can offer observations of what will help ufology from a psychological perspective.
One of the major obstacles that is keeping ufology from moving forward is this ubiquitous striving to acquire mainstream acceptance. As I see it, this "social factor" comprises the majority of the efforts and discussions in ufology today, and is the primary cause for all of the bickering and in-fighting. There are a few exceptions, Vallee and Keel come to mind, but they are notably absent from the field presently.
To illustrate why I believe this mind-set needs to change, we should look first at the subject itself. Those who have studied this field seriously will soon come to the realization that the truth behind ufos, whatever it may be, is something that lies far outside the spectrum of what we consider ordinary reality. It exists in our world like the idea of an airplane existed during the time when man could not fly. Consider how difficult it was for people at that time (including the prevailing scientific establishment) to accept the idea that man could fly, and then amplify that mental block ten-fold. This would approximate the psychological gulf existing between our misconceptions and reality regarding the ufo phenomenon, in my opinion.
As such, it seems only logical that progress in our understanding of the ufo phenomenon, at this point in time, cannot be some sort of grand social revolution. Real understanding is only going to take place among individuals or small groups. It is going to be a long, long time before ufology gains this "credibility" that those in the field so are so desperately grasping towards. The roads of inquiry and credibility run parallel in the beginning, but diverge further and further as one delves into a subject whose underlying reality strays far from the mainstream.
The further a person goes down one road, the further he is away from the other. Sooner or later, he must choose one and leave the other behind.
Because of this, for the scientist who sincerely wishes to learn of the reality behind the ufo phenomenon, he must firmly discard the desire for widespread social or mainstream scientific acceptance. History supports the premise that this social change will never happen unless it serves the intelligence behind the phenomenon, and that is something that we can neither predict nor rely upon.
By freeing oneself of this baggage, I believe a person will be more able to discover (and not reject) the incredibly weird reality that undoubtedly underlies the ufo phenomenon, but which we are unable to discover.
So this is my hypothetical foundation for the establishment of a group investigating the reality of the ufo phenomenon. The individuals involved must share in a common aim, which is for scientific inquiry into the mystery by any means available. Nothing is assumed known unless agreed upon by all members. No attention will be directed towards acquiring mainstream scientific or social acceptance. It makes no difference whether the investigation moves into the field of chemistry or into a field of crop circles, it is all on an even plane.
If anyone knows of such a group drop me a line.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Duhon's Hammer
What is the most common thing brought up when discussing UFOs and pararnormal subjects?
Lately, I'm beginning to think it's that infamous rule we all know as "Occam's razor". I've read it everywhere, and this thing really gets on my nerves. People on all sides of the issue hold up Occam's razor as if it is the ultimate all-purpose tool of rational thought and deduction.
Unfortunately it's not. It's generally a tool for lazy people.
The next time someone holds up this razor business please consider this addendum to Occam's razor, which is really just common-sense, and helps to reveal just how porous this "all-purpose" rule in fact is:
Duhon's hammer- The accuracy of Occam's razor is inversely proportional to the number of factors, involved in the phenomenon being investigated, that the investigator is ignorant of.
To help illustrate Duhon's hammer, consider a group of cave dwellers who don't understand electrical science. One night three of these men see a giant bolt of lightning, streaking down from the clouds to the ground and striking a large tree in their village. The tree catches fire and is burned to a cinder.
The next morning everyone in the tribe discovers the burned-down tree, and these three men tell everyone that they witnessed a light come down from the sky and burn the tree. People in the village become afraid, and the "educated men" of the group are consulted for help in explaining this bizarre occurrence.
The educated men consult among themselves and come to the only rational conclusion: It is all a hoax. These men burned down the tree themselves and made up the story, perhaps for attention.
But the three men insist that they are telling the truth.
In response, the educated men ask the tribe to consider Occam's razor. Which alternative is more likely: A) That a magical ray of light streaked down from the sky, defying all known laws of science, and burned their tree to the ground, or B) That this small group of men instead set fire to the tree themselves and then concocted this "paranormal" story to conceal their hoax?
Occam's razor is a fine tool when trying to decide whether the sweets in the fridge were eaten by your girlfriend, but it is pretty weak when dealing with subjects where the laws and facts are little understood.
Lately, I'm beginning to think it's that infamous rule we all know as "Occam's razor". I've read it everywhere, and this thing really gets on my nerves. People on all sides of the issue hold up Occam's razor as if it is the ultimate all-purpose tool of rational thought and deduction.
Unfortunately it's not. It's generally a tool for lazy people.
The next time someone holds up this razor business please consider this addendum to Occam's razor, which is really just common-sense, and helps to reveal just how porous this "all-purpose" rule in fact is:
Duhon's hammer- The accuracy of Occam's razor is inversely proportional to the number of factors, involved in the phenomenon being investigated, that the investigator is ignorant of.
To help illustrate Duhon's hammer, consider a group of cave dwellers who don't understand electrical science. One night three of these men see a giant bolt of lightning, streaking down from the clouds to the ground and striking a large tree in their village. The tree catches fire and is burned to a cinder.
The next morning everyone in the tribe discovers the burned-down tree, and these three men tell everyone that they witnessed a light come down from the sky and burn the tree. People in the village become afraid, and the "educated men" of the group are consulted for help in explaining this bizarre occurrence.
The educated men consult among themselves and come to the only rational conclusion: It is all a hoax. These men burned down the tree themselves and made up the story, perhaps for attention.
But the three men insist that they are telling the truth.
In response, the educated men ask the tribe to consider Occam's razor. Which alternative is more likely: A) That a magical ray of light streaked down from the sky, defying all known laws of science, and burned their tree to the ground, or B) That this small group of men instead set fire to the tree themselves and then concocted this "paranormal" story to conceal their hoax?
Occam's razor is a fine tool when trying to decide whether the sweets in the fridge were eaten by your girlfriend, but it is pretty weak when dealing with subjects where the laws and facts are little understood.
Ok let's test this posting thing.
Hello, welcome to post number one for my blog, tentatively titled "Jumping the Fence".
Ok, so as a very brief intro I'm a big fan of the UFO subject. And recently I was warming up to post yet another soliloquy on a certain forum when it occurred to me, "I keep bringing up subjects that no one here is talking about, and perhaps no one here is interested in. I'm basically talking to myself, so why don't I just take this to the next logical level and start a blog like everyone else?"
It seemed obvious, so why hadn't I thought of this before? I think it's because I've never really felt that seemingly universal inspiration to start posting commentary on my social life and relationships. I have no interest in other people's social lives and relationships so why should they be interested in mine?
So basically, I just needed to find a subject that I would actually enjoy writing about. I think UFOs and paranormal subjects are the ticket for me.
Ok, so as a very brief intro I'm a big fan of the UFO subject. And recently I was warming up to post yet another soliloquy on a certain forum when it occurred to me, "I keep bringing up subjects that no one here is talking about, and perhaps no one here is interested in. I'm basically talking to myself, so why don't I just take this to the next logical level and start a blog like everyone else?"
It seemed obvious, so why hadn't I thought of this before? I think it's because I've never really felt that seemingly universal inspiration to start posting commentary on my social life and relationships. I have no interest in other people's social lives and relationships so why should they be interested in mine?
So basically, I just needed to find a subject that I would actually enjoy writing about. I think UFOs and paranormal subjects are the ticket for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
