The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Why no ufologist has ever seen a UFO

ufoinsky.jpg

Yes, even some of the Iconoclasts have seen unidentified aerial phenomena, as have some ufologists.

One Iconoclast has also seen a formation of UFOs. No ufologist has had a similar experience.

But no ufologist, Iconoclast, or UFO maven has seen a nuts and bolts flying disk.

The general public has purportedly seen UFOs, flying saucers and disks, and/or aerial phenomena that befuddled them.

Yet, no ufologist – even those who’ve begged the gods – has seen anything that they can, unreservedly, say was a UFO or something more.

Why is this so?

The phenomenon, as we conjecture, is quantum in nature. And subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.

UFOs exist or do not exist, until they are observed (measured), using the analogous hypothesis of Schrodinger’s cat.

Eugene Wigner states the problem: The consciousness of the observer makes the difference. When we become conscious of something, we bring about the crucial collapse of the wave function so that the perplexing mixed states of life and death [existence] disappear.

Thus, UFOs, brought into existence by observation, are subject to the whims of the observer’s consciousness.

Ufologists are predilected to see UFOs but won’t, or can’t. The phenomenon won’t allow it. (See Jacques Vallee’s ruminations about UFOs for one possible reason why this is so.)

The mind-set of ufologists forces the phenomenon into a state of non-existence; in reality and forever (as we’ve stated here previously).

Once uflogists give up their quest (which even some who’ve assumed the mantle of ufologist are calling for – now asking to use the term “unidentified aerial phenomena”), UFOs will reassert their existence, but in a different format, as they’ve done since their first observations: as symbols in the sky, airships of the early 1900s, flying disks after 1947, and UFOs thereafter.

Ufologists are their own worst enemies, with internecine squabbling, egotistical needs which have supplanted proper research and investigation, and outright prevarication (for various mundane reasons).

The phenomenon is truly dead, in practical terms and theoretically. All because ufologists have never been able to experience them.

15 Comments:

  • So what is happening when I take a picture and an object appears in it that was not seen when the photo was taken? Or when an object shows up when I'm not looking through the lens and just snapping some randon photos?

    By Blogger M. Mann, at Tuesday, December 05, 2006  

  • M.Mann:

    The camera becomes the observer, and an objective one.

    Therefore, a UFO (sometimes a real one) appears.

    But give a ufologist a camera and the UFO will not appear.

    The objectivity of the inanimate camera is affected, by quantum mechanics, because of the non-objective secondary observer.

    By Blogger UFOgroup, at Tuesday, December 05, 2006  

  • How do you define "ufologist?"

    By Blogger UFO Bits, at Tuesday, December 05, 2006  

  • UFO bits:

    A ufologist, for us, is a bona fide researcher/investigator such as Dick Hall, Stanton Friedman, Jerome Clark, Kevin Randle, Bruce Maccabee, Nick Pope and Andy Roberts (in England), et al.

    By Blogger UFOgroup, at Wednesday, December 06, 2006  

  • Your blog post about why no ufologist has ever seen a UFO is especially interesting to me because a member of my family worked at Area-51 and S-4 in the 1980s and 90s. Dan Burisch started in 1986 as a microbiologist, and ended up working deep in the underground lab directly with the live extraterrestrial that was brought to S-4 after the crash of their disc near Kingman. Dan talks in great detail about his interaction with this being on the DVD that was just released and his testimony has recently been verified by others. (Copies of the DVD are available at http://www.eaglesdisobey.net) You can also see clips from the DVD and other material recorded by Project Camelot on Google Videos - there's a link to them from the website.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, December 07, 2006  

  • Windy1:

    Lots of people, credible people (scientists, pilots, clergy, et al.), have seen UFOs or more, but no recognized ufologists, who would give their eye-teeth to see one.

    And why is that? The answer harks back to our quantum hypothesis.

    By Blogger UFOgroup, at Thursday, December 07, 2006  

  • "Yet, no ufologist – even those who’ve begged the gods – has seen anything that they can, unreservedly, say was a UFO or something more."

    Excellent! Since I’ve seen many an unidentified object over the years, I could never be labeled with the moniker “UFologest.” Quite a relief actually!

    http://oddempire.org

    By Blogger The Odd Emperor, at Friday, December 08, 2006  

  • Wasn't one of the main things that got Jacques Vallee interested in UFOs, was his sighting of a nuts and bolts flying disc in 1955, when he was 16, in Pontoise, France?

    If there's someone who could be termed a true UFOlogist, it's Jacques Vallee.

    Kind of blows your whole theory out of the water.

    By Anonymous John Sawyer, at Wednesday, February 21, 2007  

  • John Sawyer--

    You are absolutely correct.

    And Vallee is certainly not the only "ufologist" to have witnessed a stereotypical ufo, nor the only scientist, physicist, President, military and/or intelligence person, pilot, etcetera, et al and ad infinitum.

    To be very specific:

    To quote from Vallee's last non-fiction book, "Forbidden Science" (Journals 1957 to 1969), North Atlantic Press, pp. 15-16
    First Edition, 1992, about his early teenage ufo sighting:

    "It was during the following year, a Sunday in May, 1955, that I observed a flying saucer over Pontoise.

    "My mother saw it first. She had been working in the yard, pulling weeds and caring for her flowers. She was getting ready to put her tools away to prepare the afternoon coffee, a sacred tradition in our family. She had to scream to get our attention, because my father and I were up in the attic, where he had his woodworking room. He was busy and did not consider such an event significant enough for him to come down. I rushed to a window that had a Southern exposure but could see nothing. I ran down three flights of stairs into the yard to join my mother, and then I did see it.

    “What I observed was a gray, metallic disk with a clear bubble on top. It was about the apparent size of the moon and it hovered silently in the sky above the church of Saint-Maclou. I have no recollection of seeing it go away. My mother says it flew off, leaving a few puffs of white substance behind. Remembering the war years, she first thought they were parachutes.

    “I was left with the single strong impression that we must respond; that human dignity demanded an answer, even if it was only a symbolic acknowledgement of our lack of understanding. I realized then and there I would forever be ashamed of the human race if we simply ignored “their” prescence.

    “The next day I met with my closest friend Phillipe at the College, where we were “cramming” for the Baccalaureate examinations. He mentioned seeing the same strange object from his house, half a mile North of my position, on higher ground. He had watched it through binoculars, and confirmed my description.

    “My father was sternly opposed to making any kind of report. The family of a distinguished judge does not get his name into the papers with some flying saucer story. What we had seen must be some new kind of aircraft, he insisted, something explainable. I convinced myself that he must be right.”

    And yet, it is obvious now in hindsight, that Vallee's father was wrong. As is the RRR Group and Rich ard Reynolds, their consigliere.

    This event in Vallee's life began a process of investigation, research, and exploration which Vallee continues even today.

    I also noticed no one, like Mr. Reynolds or any of the RRR Group personnel responded to your point, either, Mr. Sawyer. Telling, that.

    What say you, Rich, and RRR Group?
    Can you explain the contradiction between what you claimed here and the truth of the matter? I await your posting of this comment and your belated response. And don't just say it was a "quantum manifestation" Vallee saw.

    Dr. X

    By Anonymous Dr. X, at Wednesday, April 11, 2007  

  • Dr. X...

    We use the term "ufologist" in a derogatory way.

    Dr. Vallee is not a ufologist, and wouldn't call himself one.

    He's a scientist.

    It's the rabid UFO maven who uses the coined term "ufologist" to try and give weight to their superficial study.

    And those are the very persons who have never seen a UFO.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 11, 2007  

  • Not only is your definition of the term not true, it is positively disingenuous and rather misleading.

    It is also narrow, cynical, self-serving, evasive, and just plain wrong. I thought you were trying to be serious, and made an inaccurate, if legitimate or at least sincere, effort in your incorrect assumptions about "why no ufologist has ever seen a UFO".

    Please don't retreat into sophomoric sophistry. You are not allowed to have your cake and eat it too. Schrodinger's cat would not be pleased! ;')

    (And speaking of this reference to things quantum, just what do you _exactly_ mean by saying ufos/uaps are "quantum manifestations"? I find your current, very limited explication of this term inadequate and unclear--please expand on this term, of your use.)

    See wiki or dictionary.com, etc., for the normal definition, without your qualifications or bias reflected, and then tell me Vallee is not both a scientist, and a ufologist, in the generally accepted definition of the term, which is not the one you _now_ state.

    You should have declared this bias beforehand. I find it derogatory and more reflective our your own prejudices than anything else.

    Thus, it is _you_ who are unscientific, and are the rabid _anti_-ufo mavens.

    This just continues to undermine the legitimacy you seek and pretend to have. What purpose does this bias serve for you? I'm really quite curious how you think this serves any real purpose, either your own, whatever that may truly be, or others you seek to influence. You impugn your own integrity in this manner.

    And yes, I have seen a ufo or uap myself. Close up and personal. A definitive CE 1, according to Vallee himself. Or is he wrong, too? Could there be even the slightest possibility you are in error in this assumption of yours?

    If so, you owe it to your "public", and yourselves, to admit such. That would be honest _and_ scientific.

    What say you?

    Dr. X

    By Anonymous Dr. X, at Thursday, April 12, 2007  

  • Sorry Dr. X...

    We can have our cake and eat it too.

    Ufology and ufologists have, for almost 60 years, proved nothing about the mystery they've locked into.

    Vallee's approach is open-minded and objective.

    Such persons see UFOs, and that's a part of the mystery -- the UFO game, which is controlled by the UFO phenomenon itself.

    (We'll be addressing this in a new posting upcoming.)

    As for quantum mechanics, we get the impression that the theory eludes you.

    So it would be futile to engage in a dialogue with you about it.

    We suggest you move away from this post to our more recent posts for further "conversation" with us.

    (You are feisty, we'll give you that, but talk about sophomoric...)

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 12, 2007  

  • Yes Dr. X YES! If my very life depended on your truths & wisdoms, I'd more than likey enjoy complete healing & an increased life expectancy beyond the average! The blog authors ARE VERY GOOD AT CONJECTURE as they have admitted themselves in their posting.
    Here's the way it is with me. Firstly I'm an 'experiencer'. Secondly I'm in acceptance and assimilation mode. Thirdly I allow for healthy skepticism. Fourthly I include a scientific blending into my subscription(s). Fifthly I replace the term 'ufologist' with 'esoteric researcher'. Lastly I frown on outright debunkery. BUT HEY! IT'S ALL VALID IN THE LONG RUN!

    By Blogger John Webster, at Saturday, November 15, 2008  

  • I Guess Dr. Steven Greer doesn't count huh?, thats a ridiculous assumption you are making,who did you check with? or is this more guestimation....Ha..ha

    I tell you what, I have seen a UFO and it was close too , about 5000-600-ft away, and I'm no nut job, Ive been an IT Analyst for over 11 yrs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, August 12, 2010  

  • Dr. Greer is not a ufologist; he's much more.

    We are talking here about those peripheral UFO aficiondos who call themselves "ufologists."

    They are without credential or credibility.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 12, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home