UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Flying Saucers, UFOs, and Unidentifiable Aerial Phenomena

3newyorker.jpg

A New Yorker piece [Hello, Hal, by John Seabrook, 6/23/08. Page 38 ff.] about computers and the lack of verbal communication with them, had this to day about speech recognition [Page 41]:

“speech-recognition research is heavily dependent on the size of the data sample. Or “corpus” – the sheer volume of speech you work with. The larger your corpus, the more data you can feed to the learning algorithms and the better the guesses [you] can make.”

This applies to UFO research as well.

Skipping the early UFO accounts from before the Christian era, down into the Airships of the 1890s, one can take a look at what the UFO phenomenon has presented from 1947 forward to today [2008].

The first flying saucer reports, starting with Kenneth Arnold’s encounter, indicated that UFOs were tangible, “nuts-and-bolts” craft.

kena.jpg

This was the general perception of UFOs, flying saucers, well into the 1970s, when, as we’ve noted before, UFOs became amorphous lights in the sky pretty much.

Today, UFOs have even lost the quasi-tangibility of lights, appearing as diffuse blobs or anomalous images in the daylight and night-time hours.

The “metallic-like” saucers of the 50s and 60s are nowhere to be seen, or rarely so.

The Tremonton, Utah images filmed by Delbert Newhouse, in 1952, prefigured the raft of later sightings that only consisted of “energized lights” flitting around in the skies.

1952.jpg

(The seemingly substantive, triangular UFOs spotted in Belgium and Illinois or Phoenix are military prototypes in our estimation.)

What has happened is that the UFO phenomenon or, rather, phenomena, has gone from concretized craft to will-o-the-wisp things, with nothing but multiple colors or light intensities to distinguish them from normal aircraft.

This means that data – a corpus – need to be accumulated for serious ufologists to research, in ways that mimic what quantum or theoretical physicists do.

dark68.jpg

(Physicists use mathematical models and arcane methodologies to determine what reality or the Universe is made up of. Ufologists need to do the same for the phenomena that intrigues them.)

The change in the configuration of flying saucers may have much to do with what they are, intrinsically.

There is no doubt that flying saucers were once touchable, real artifacts of some kind. Too many persons witnessed them as real objects, of a metallic kind – the stuff that Stanton Friedman makes much of.

ufo21.jpg

But then UFOs (flying saucers) transmogrified into something not so tangible. Why?

Abductees (experiencers) provide tales of intangible beings and craft in their accounts.

(While we think abduction reports may stem from something other than a bona fide kidnappings, as the Hills and others stated, one much allow for the possibility of the realness of those accounts, some of them at least.)

hills.jpg

Those abduction stories supplement the change in flying saucers from hard objects to immaterial objects.

The UFO corpus for today – the date being accumulated – is that UFOs are more light than anything else.

And this is one path that might prove interesting, if ufologists can get in gear and do something other than redundantly ruminate over past UFO episodes.

8 Comments:

  • Here's a theory: Maybe they once were real but then haven't really been back since, say, the 1960's. Perhaps, since then our imaginations have run amok, conjuring up all sort of ever-evolving phenomena to suit the same changing tastes of the culture at hand. In short, maybe there as been a lot of made up over the past few decades, but like so many legends, a kernal of hard, metallic truth rests at its center.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Thursday, June 26, 2008  

  • Cullan:

    Jung also stated that there was something at the core of the flying saucer mystery, something more real than real.

    But I'm thinking the phenomenon is really phenomena, as you know, and ufologists have to decide which one element of the phenomena they want to zero in on.

    Thus the corpus needs scrutiny to see which part of the UFO panoply consisted of "nuts-and-bolts" craft and which part consists of the Jungian (or Hudsonian) projections (manifestations).

    And do UFOs really need this much attention?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 26, 2008  

  • Totally agreed. Unlike most ufologists, I wouldn't look at EVERY account as gospel truth. Only those that meet multiple criteria would be worth scrutinizing. The problem today (as it was, I'm sure, in the past) is that everything inexplicable in the sky is a "flying saucer". I think if the data were honestly reevaluated, we would have far fewer sightings to deal with and, yes, I think those are worthy of the time. But anecdotal evidence from Mildred in Springfield, MO doesn't make a tangible report. When it is caught (well) on film or video, witnessed by multiple reputable percipients, and inexplicable when juxtaposed against known aerial, atmospheric, and celestial objects/phenomena then it becomes a far meatier mystery worth the attention.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Thursday, June 26, 2008  

  • "When it is caught (well) on film or video, witnessed by multiple reputable percipients, and inexplicable when juxtaposed against known aerial, atmospheric, and celestial objects/phenomena then it becomes a far meatier mystery worth the attention."

    Cullan,

    You have it exactly right.

    That's why I'm guesing your name appears in a Provocateur(s) post about the UFO new-guard.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 26, 2008  

  • Hi
    If you look at models of materiality in physics from the Newtonian mechanical models to the transformation of science by quantum models, our 1951 model year saucer became a 2008 model with all the options. This conformance of parallel paths has led me to consider "flying ships" as experiential information made manifest like a hybrid car, not quite a this, not quite a that...and so why is this? This mirroring effect is camouflage but is it purposeful or a natural order of species...a phenomenon without a mind of it's own? Maybe both.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 27, 2008  

  • Bruce:

    The transformational aspect of UFOs (flying saucers) certainly can be explained (in part surely, and maybe more than that) by your astute observations and insights at your blog(s).

    That's why we count you among the new-guard of ufology (or whatever it will end up being called by the new-thinkers).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 27, 2008  

  • Thanks for the kind words. just did a piece that describes a process that refuses to be conceptualized in four words or less."The Evolution of Energetic Parasitism As A Semi Sentient Phenomenon" looks at this phenomenology as a parasitic form of species utilizing the human informational field in it's evolutionary process...theories within theories...

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, June 27, 2008  

  • BD:

    Madame Blavasky would stand in awe of your erudition.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 27, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home