UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Metaphysical UFOs


The UFO phenomenon is being taking all over the place, especially into realms that smack of quantum theory.

(We’re guilty of a quantum evaluation ourselves.)

Once the UFO epithet replaced the term “flying saucers,” the phenomenon was opened to conjectures that have become more bizarre by the day.

Tangible objects that once dominated the unidentified flying scenario have been substituted by amorphous blobs of light and/or skimpy drones of a TinkerToy kind.


And now an article – one of many recently – in SEED magazine (June 2008, Page 50) presents the results of tests in Austria that seem to confirm reality is the result of observation.

We, Mac Tonnies, and others, have presented the hypothesis – hardly new – that reality may be chimera, created by someone of something, and we (humankind or each of us singularly) are a concoction from the mind of a master computer geek. (Some would call that geek God.)

The idea that UFOs are creations of the mind is not unique to ufology. Swiss psychologist Carl Jung posed the idea way back in 1958 in his work, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies.


But many, if not most ufologists, such as Stanton Friedman and Richard Hall, think UFOs are flying saucers – physical, metal-oriented craft, and they have the weight of evidence in their favor – or they did.

UFOs of late have shown up as anything but tangible, touchable objects; they’ve appeared, as noted, in forms that belie anything concrete or firm.

This allows UFO theorizers to expand their hypotheses into areas once considered arcane, or metaphysical.

Does this do justice to the phenomenon? Perhaps.

But it also removes the possibility of actually getting proof of the UFO reality, which is the bugaboo that haunts the topic.

Ufologists keep trying to prove to “outsiders” that UFOs are real, when any commonsense view of sighting reports and legitimate photos/film/videos indicates that UFOs are indeed real – that is a given, or should be.


The question that should be, must be focused upon is “What are UFOs?”

This is where the door is opened to all kinds of crackpot ideas, along side some valid querying.

And thus the investigation or research into the UFO reality has become very muddied.

Fortunately a few UFO devotees – mostly outside the UFO mainstream – have taken the quackery in stride, ignoring it pretty much, and have begun to look at the phenomenon in unique ways, often scrapping the whole ball of UFO wax that has accreted over the past 60 years.

This new group of “ufologists” -- they eschew that title – can be found in links at the right of your monitor screen here.

Seek them out if you really want a more “scientific” view or approach to the UFO mystery.

And skip the party-going UFO conventioneers and UFO socialites. They’ll merely waste your time and divert you from a real scrutiny of UFOs.


They are named at our companion blog – UFO Provocateur(s).


  • My two bits about Carl:

    Not to knock the great Jung but I think his Archetype theory wasn't entirely sound. For one, it presupposes a shared experiential well of motifs, which cannot be guaranteed. Among these, he included the mandala, which to most would not arise in the subconscious without exposure to it. He placed too much confidence in genetic memory, as it were, without much data to support this supposition. For instance, in sleep paralysis, the "Old Hag" is often conjured from the cauldron of archetypes as the suffocating being on one's chest but not always. Sometimes men have been reported, aliens, and even amorphous shadows without any nascent features at all.

    However, there is some intriguing data concerning thought-forms (Tibetan monks would call them Tulpas) and groups such as SORRAT seemed to have some success with their "Philip" experiment in the production of this mind-conjured phenomenon. But whether these entities arose from a collective psyche to exist only in the percipients minds or if they indeed achieve tangible, corporeal realization is entirely conjecture. Monks have rarely availed themselves to the controled rigors of the laboratory and SORRAT's experiments were not repeatable or independently verified.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Friday, May 09, 2008  

  • Cullan:

    Jung's contributions to mythology and religion is, perhaps, greater than his contributions to psychology.

    The mandala is significant, if one gets into the quantum parallels to the symbol.

    Even Freud allowed the archetypal connections to some neurotic behaviors.

    And "thought forms" are enabled by new quantum theories, making them actually tangible.

    (See that SEED magazine piece I keep touting.)

    Jung, like Freud, and even Einstein, was steeped in a Victorian view of reality, but he (and his buddies) did present some intriguing hypotheses which is something sorely lacking today, especially in the UFO community.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 09, 2008  

  • I will have to check it out - if I can find it in my neck of the jungle. :-D

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Friday, May 09, 2008  

  • C:

    If you can't find the May/June issue of SEED, you might check to see if the piece is online at http://www.seedmagazine.com

    If it's not online, let me know, and I may be able to scan the piece and send it to you.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 09, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home