UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

UFOs are an epiphenomenon

2epiph.jpg

The genius and fame of Albert Einstein lies in the verification of his theories (about gravity, light, et cetera).

2einstein.jpg

Michio Kaku is one of our favorite physicists but he’s not in the same league as Einstein in that Kaku’s conjectures are merely that, conjectures. He has proposed some interesting hypotheses about everything from black holes, multiverses, and even UFOs.

2kaku.jpg

But he hasn’t provided one theory that allows testing of any of those conjectural hypotheses,

Nonetheless, we like the guy, and we like his imaginative, but unproven insights.

In ufology, the scientist who usually gets rave reviews and encomiums is Jacques Vallee.

2vallee.jpg

Dr. Vallee has proposed a categorical explanation for UFOs/flying saucers: they are manifestations of a deeply engrained phenomenon that has tempted and confused humankind since time immemorial, and change configuration with each new generation.

And like Kaku, Vallee provides no testable theory to prove his assertions.

Vallee is imaginative also, and erudite, but he gives nothing to science or lay persons that can be investigated scientifically or tested with scientific methodology.

But one thing is clear form Vallee’s pronouncements, and that is UFOs are an epiphenomenon -- A secondary phenomenon that results from and accompanies another.

UFOs are the external or conscious, overt manifestation of something that lies beneath or beyond them.

The real UFO phenomenon is masked by the UFO images and sightings many have observed, and which ufologists have long been obsessed with.

The true UFO phenomenon is hidden, and has always been so.

Vallee’s hypothetical writings indicate the same thing. It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t provide a mechanism by which the hidden UFO reality might be accessed.

Ufology needs an Einstein, not a Kaku or Vallee.

Lesser lights like Paul Kimball and us (and a few others) continue to recognize that ufology is flawed by its inept research and persistent obsession with old sightings that have been hammered into non-researchable data and obscure remembrances.

2kimball.jpg

Mr. Kimball has no illusions that he’ll discover the UFO reality, but he is optimistic that someone can and will, eventually.

Paul Kimball is thus a ufological agnostic.

We, on the other hand, think that UFOs may be an unknowable reality, like God.

That is, the reality is palpable in a circumstantial way but the core reality is beyond the ken of humanity or anyone, even an Einstein.

We are not ufological atheists, but we are UFO cabalists it seems.

2cabala.jpg

18 Comments:

  • You 'iconoclasts' border on an example of a twisted paradox, almost exponentially so. I allow that you'll perceive my words as an attack then possibly exercise 'FULL MODERATION' as to whether or not my words are included as a comment. NO AFFRONT intended. I'll gently suggest you simply need to (step outside of your-ego-self) for a moment . . . give (it) something else to DO in the corner somewhere. Allow (yourSELVES) a (quantum pause which = meditate) . . . breathe . . . exhale a few times - do this several times toward experiencing the TRUE REALITY and THEN write about stuff. Exercise (that) again won't you? Yes, Einstein was brilliant, no taking away from that, and so are the other thinkers you've mentioned in this, your post. However others, maybe unbeknownst to you, know things about Einstein which you may not have crossed paths with yet.
    I'm quite aware (as are many others) of your biases toward anomalous researchers in general. It's like you're DEFENDING AGAINST SOMETHING. You're NOT FREE. For, if you were free you wouldn't have to defend against anything PERIOD. It's apparent you need material proof of difficult to believe 'reported esoterical claims' but you disqualify yourselves from any privy to such 'hard evidence' of any sort. I'd never submit (what I hold) to you and I do NOT intend this to be a weaponized posit. You also demonstrate a (NEED to CONNECT with the 'Quantum'), Period again! Ya talk about ('it') but ya don't walk ('it'.) (This connect) could SET YOU FREE!
    Try "Skybooksusa.com". If you outrightly refuse to try, then it further presents, as all too obvious, that your perception(s) ARE RIGIDLY SET and not much of what you "blogspeak' could ever move your readership forward. Ya simply THINK and DO TOO MUCH. Try BEING! You're not 'doings' you're BEINGS! Einstein (as a BEING) WAS/IS part in the parcel of quantum and may well agree with what I speak. Why do you force abrasive rhetoric?

    By Blogger John Webster, at Tuesday, December 02, 2008  

  • Interesting, John....interesting, in several ways.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 02, 2008  

  • Umm... what's (with the) random placement of parentheses? Any good argument begins with the ability to clearly communicate that which you intend. Mr. Webster, I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Could you rewrite this more succinctly and clearly?

    For example, you state: "However others, maybe unbeknownst to you, know things about Einstein which you may not have crossed paths with yet." Yet, you do not follow this thought through. Who are these individuals? What is it that they have to say about Einstein? Is it germane to the topic at hand? Was Einstein a great tennis player. Indeed, that may be an obscure fact, but is it salient?

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Wednesday, December 03, 2008  

  • Cullan...

    I think Mr. Webster has been infuenced (badly) by James Joyce or Ezra Pound.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 03, 2008  

  • Have fun posting and commenting amongst your (clique) selves . . . this blog is no longer worth my time.

    By Blogger John Webster, at Wednesday, December 03, 2008  

  • So quick we are to say "either this or that, it must be". Lesson from logic: the dialectic exchange. Thesis contrasted with anti-thesis produces synthesis, the "higher", combined truth of the thesis plus anti-thesis. This process has been responsible for the advancement of philosophy throughout history.

    Lesson from quantum physics: is it particle, or is it energy. Answer: depends on the test to which a conscious observer puts the potential event. It is a matter of perspective. In other words, the potential event is "both/and" before "mind" interacts with it. The most powerful interactions of mind are from the non-conscious mind, according to Jung.

    So, are Unexplained Aerial Phenomena ET spacecraft, or projections of the collective unconsciousness dramatized into fully "real" metaphors delivering needed information. Or is this proposed metaphorical, symbolic, yet "real" process presented to us by an ET, or extra-dimensional intelligence (or other), to send us information in a form we might can access, once we see through the literal presentation to the symbolic message contained therein?

    Proposed answer: perhaps some, none, or all the above apply, all at once. We may be dealing with a number of events created from different sources, simultaneously interacting with us. It may be that no single answer applies to all UAPs.

    You have heard of the Zen koan. What better way to humble our arrogant, "rational", linear thinking into conscious silence, that to present these logically unanswerable questions. Then, when we finally give up "thinking" and sit in thoughtless silence, the Answer may come.

    I enjoy thinking of the UAP experience as a most wonderful koan.

    Rip Parker

    By Blogger Rip Parker, at Wednesday, December 03, 2008  

  • Sorry he felt exluded from some "clique", but I was just challenging him to make his point as it related to your thoughts that UFOs are tangential to a larger issue. Instead, we are presented with allusions to secrets of Einstein. That, in and of itself, might have been interesting had he completed the thought. Instead, he simply dangled in our faces like a carrot.

    However, I think he wanted to get angy and storm off: "I allow that you'll perceive my words as an attack..."; "I'm quite aware...of your biases toward anomalous researchers in general."; and my favorite, "I do NOT intend this to be a weaponized posit". Indeed.

    So, instead of fully realizing these facts and presenting a sound counterpoint, we are greeted by a jumble of pedantic language intended to ... You know, I'm still not sure what the point of the comment was.

    And on the other hand, Mr. Rip Parker (great name, right?) does offer some interesting thoughts relevant to the topic at hand, if a little too metaphysical for my tastes.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Thursday, December 04, 2008  

  • Cullan:

    John Webster will be back. He just can't keep away.

    He loves our blogs.

    Yes, Rip Parker is almost esoteric and arcane, thus interesting in a strange way.

    But for us, and you apprarently, clear writing a la William Strunk and E.B. White is preferred.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, December 04, 2008  

  • Thank you gentlemen. Perhaps "...clear writing a la Strunk and White..." is the thesis. Perhaps my "esoteric, arcane, metaphysical" thoughts are an antithesis. Who will present a synthesis?

    Rip

    By Blogger Rip Parker, at Thursday, December 04, 2008  

  • In regards to Mr "Webster" and his abrasive rhetoric. How anyone could get insulted by being reminded that this is an English Language blog, not 17th century Queen's English or whatever that was is quite beyond me.

    However; more OT. Vallee seems to be saying (if I read him correctly) that UFOs and related phenomena may very well be outside of current framework of science and that we may need to look elsewhere.

    In other words, one does not study the film industry by interviewing people who have seen movies.

    A finished motion picture is only barest nub of the process, from conception, to production and into distribution/presentation. Those fleeting images are only the shadow of the process.

    We can do this scientifically but we have to be courageous enough to drop many of the forgone conclusions that almost all Ufologists. People needt start working around the blind side of the problem.

    And there is a blind side, it happens to be the one most Ufologists defend against.

    By Blogger The Odd Emperor, at Monday, December 15, 2008  

  • So let me throw one more untestable hypothesis into the mix.

    UFOs are the psychological artifacts of disruptions of the perceptive and cognitive functions of the brain caused by an external stimulus. The stimulus is naturally occurring (non-techological), random, intense, unstable, and current science is not advanced enough to propose or identify the stimulus phenomenon.

    This disrupted cognition and perception lead to jumbled, “crazy” memories. Human memory is ephemeral because humans are highly prone to misinterpret (or reinterpret over time) iillogical memories and fill in memory blanks with what “should” fit in the hole. This leads to close encounter and alien abduction scenarios, which are simply interpretations of flawed memories based on current culture and belief systems (a sort of cultural memory pareidolia). Since the phenomenon is natural, it has been occurring for eons and accounts for similar, but different, accounts over time (e.g., Vallee’s Magonia).

    The phenomenon may have visual properties (a light in the night; a dark object in the day) or it may directly disrupt the visual cortex (i.e.,, something is “seen”, but there’s really no image striking the retinas).

    Have fun with this one guys!

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Friday, January 02, 2009  

  • Purrlgurrl...

    You have it somewhat right, except that UFOs register on radar or non-human perception devices.

    And what about cameras?

    Also, group observations that agree pretty much with what was seen or experienced take away the idea of your UFOs that register on one percipient as stimuli of the Vallee kind.

    Your observations about abductees can't easily be faulted however.

    Thanks for the astute comment(s).

    We'll peruse it more seriously and get back to you perhaps.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 02, 2009  

  • purrlgurrl -
    Nicely worded, succinct commentary. In so far as your proposition is not inconsistent with Jung's take on the subject, we are in agreement.

    The exception I see from Jung's stand point, and Vallee', if I understand him correctlhy, is that these "disruptions" only appear to be random when, in fact, they are necessary eruptions of the deep unconscious mind, connected with the collective unconscious, intended to challenge the cognitive, rational processes producing cracks through which unconscious instruction can occur and thereby expand conscious perceptions.

    Also, these events are quite capable, energized by the collective unconscious, of producing real, material objects and events, as real as any material/energetic event we may experience. Then, with all this confusion, the brain kicks in with fanciful imaginings searching for a sensible file in which to place these apparently non-sensible experiences.

    Nice little mystery that I like to call "The Big Koan".

    Rip Parker

    By Blogger Rip Parker, at Friday, January 02, 2009  

  • RP:

    The Big Koan, as you out it, is not out of the question.

    And UFOs may be extrusions of the unconscious, as Jung had it.

    But, for us, UFOs seem to be respresentative of something basic or absolutely real in the Platonic sense.

    That is, UFOs are the shadows on the cave walls.

    We have a follow up to this particular posting, so stay tuned for that.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 02, 2009  

  • in the summer of 1974 i went to a remote area in beaver creek state park,gretchins lock,to camp for the weekend with two friends from h.s.my friend don and i arrived about 600 pm. we were about two miles from the main road.we unloaded our gear and were talking when we heard the trees cracking on the hill behind us and to our right.we looked in that direction
    and a disk appeared at tree top level on the hill behind us where the noise drew our attention to.it
    was skimming the tree tops bending them as it traveled from our field
    of view from right to left. as we looked it cleared the hill behind us and traveled south east in the open above the creek and engaged the tree tops on the hill in front
    of our campsite,bending them as it
    continued out of our field of vision.i looked at don and said did you see that? his reply was yeah but, i'll never admit it.
    the disk was peuter in color appoximately sixty feet in diameter
    made no noise except for disturbing the tree tops. it was in our view for about ten to fifteen seconds and disappeared over the hill in front of our camp site across beaver creek.this was broad daylight the height would be maybe one hundred to one hundred fifty feet.i could have literally hit it with a rock from where it went over the valley where we stood.we did not hear or see it again.it was using the trees to avoid being seen.it was moving about fifty miles an hour (approximately)i often wondered if it was ours ,usa, because of the way it was skimming the trees to avoid being seen.it was definately a deliberate act because it disengaged the trees as it flew across the valley and engaged the trees as it traveled and it maintained about four feet of penetration on the tree tops,just enough to avoid breaking any limbs.
    i would sign an afidavit to the authentsity of this report.
    it was closer than my comfort zone
    allowed at the time.i was afraid it was going to return for us.we could not have escaped if it had chosen to come for us.
    this was about seven to seven thirty pm in late july 1974 beaver creek state park in eastern ohio within two miles of the pennsylvania border,beaver county.
    don finally admitted to seeing the craft at our thirty year high school reunion august 2006.

    quanjang

    By Blogger quanjang, at Tuesday, February 24, 2009  

  • Quanjang,

    We posted your sighting at our UFO Reality blog:

    http://ufor.blogspot.com

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 25, 2009  

  • So I'm not sure if anyone still looks at this post, but, I'd like to throw in some side comments here, even if for no audience. I've noticed a lot of mention of Jung's theories regarding the unconscious/conscious mind being cited as explanations to the UFO phenomenon. This is just a vague remembrance of psychological theory, but hasn't most of Jung's theories been proven to be incorrect by later psychologists, or is this just my uneducated memory playing tricks on me? Regardless, I'd like to echo RRRGroup's response to purrgurrl's post and point out that UFOs have been spotted on radar and other measuring devices (lets not forget video and photographs) rather than just by humans looking into the night sky. I've seen Venus move and mistook it for a UFO while tripping on psilocybin mushrooms, but that doesn't mean my latent subconscious was creating this: it means I wanted to see that (which I did at the time) so my mind a little more loosely tied to reality at the time helped me to perceive that. Of course, that's more an issue of biology and how our optic system works, but I believe commonly accepted theory is that we have an assumption in the brain, and the brain checks sensory input to see if the assumption is correct, and then the brain sends back either a yay or a nay and the process begins again until the two agree (which doesn't always result in a correct conclusion). Anyway, I think I'm rambling a bit so I'll end this. Oh, great blog btw, good to see there's more to the UFO discussion than arguing lizard people have taken over the oval office...

    By Blogger armakan01, at Friday, May 01, 2009  

  • Armakan01:

    We like your observation(s).

    Jump in to a more recent posting, so we can keep you in our discussions.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 01, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home