The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, May 10, 2008

UFOs: The “sneak” factor

sneaky.jpg

What keeps science and media rather far from the UFO phenomenon is that the activity of UFOs/flying saucers has always been sneaky.

Sneaky may attract militaries, and some UFO devotees, the brave and/or naïve kind, but sneaky doesn’t attract scientists or media.

Science deals with quantum particles, which are not only sneaky but crazy. Moreover, quantum particles are theoretical and allegedly infinitesimally small, so they can do no harm to the unsuspecting.

Quarks can’t blind-side those who are investigating them. (Or, at least, they haven’t done so thus far.)

And science can play and has played with quantum particles, but only theoretically (mathematically) so fear of the sneakiness is hypothetical, or non-existent in the mind of scientists

However, UFOs are large and appear surreptitiously (and always have).

UFOs that are military prototypical aircraft are cloaked in secrecy, and sneakiness. That’s there essence.

UFOs that are hoaxes are intrinsically sneaky.

But real UFOs are sneaky in a calculating way, intelligently sneaky. And that scares away science and media. (Media doesn’t have the acumen to deal with sneaky; it eludes journalists, who only attack sneakiness after the fact, not head on.)

Ufologists, most of them anyway, are thick-headed so they don’t see UFOs as sneaky, just a phenomenon that is inscrutable.

Even the abduction phenomenon or quasi-hostile actions of UFOs don’t frighten ufologists.

This isn’t because ufologists are brave souls. Most aren’t. But ufologists are a little child-like, and “sneaky” is a behavior that doesn’t register with most UFO researchers; they are in such awe of the phenomenon that the aspects they should be scrutinizing are often (usually) overlooked.

Science. On the other hand, prefers to deal with phenomena that are overt, or abstract. This is safe, and scientists are nothing if not cautious.

But for those who are fearless when it comes to UFOs, and this because stupidity lacks commonsense awareness, the sneakiness of UFOs, aside from the military kind, may be grist for research.

Is the sneakiness of UFOs geared to an agenda, or stems from caution on the part of the UFO progenitors?

Do UFOs elude mankind and ufological measurement because they are fearful of human beings?

This seems unlikely, as UFOs have broached aircraft and humans aggressively, even abducting some human (supposedly) on occasion.

No, UFOs are sneaky for reasons yet to be discerned, and we suggest that UFO researchers, real researchers, try to determine why UFOs are sneaky.

This seems to be an avenue for investigation that the militaries of the world, especially those in The United States, have pursued diligently.

And since ufologists can’t get militaries to open up, and never will get them to, ufologists have to analyze the “sneak factor” on their own, where pay-dirt, about the phenomenon could happen.

Meanwhile, be careful when confronting a UFO. The confrontation might be the last thing you experience in this life….or not.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Metaphysical UFOs

320.jpg

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.

drone.jpg

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.

jung25.jpg

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.

battle.jpg

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.

paulkim.jpg

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

Mike Heiser's Blog

Mike Heiser is PhD who deals with Semitic religions usually, but he also has an interest, surprisingly, in UFOs.

Check out his new blog:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

SETI Zero / UFOs One

seti.jpg

This statement appears on a SETI blog (http://setiradio.blogspot.com):

…we haven’t heard from ET (either via visits or via a signal)…

It’s part of an argument “in response to the article in MIT's Technology Review magazine by Nick Bostrom.”

A discussion has ensued from SETI proponents and others.

SETI is an interesting scientific endeavor, funded privately, hurting no one, and hoping to find other technological civilizations extant in the Universe.

We support SETI, but ufologists get rankled by one premise of the organization, and that’s the idea that ET (extraterrestrials) hasn’t visited the Earth.

SETI hasn’t received a signal from space – we discount the WOW signal – but it has only parsed a small part of galaxy and none of the Universe beyond, so the SETI search isn’t exactly a failure, so far.

But to deny that extraterrestrial visitations haven’t taken place is a statement of hubris, not scientific objectivity.

In the UFO field, there is, among all the possible explanations for the UFO phenomenon, Stanton Friedman’s alien space craft scenario.

(Yes, others posit ETs from outer space but Mr. Friedman is the face of the hypothesis for most UFO aficionados and everyone else.)

SETI hasn’t received a signal from an advanced (or any other kind of) civilization but it holds out hope for that to happen.

Ufologists have mountains of circumstantial and tangible evidence for UFOs, showing the things to be real.

We, and others, pose alternate possibilities for the origin of “flying saucers” and/or UFOs, and one of those alternate possibilities is that the phenomenon is primarily space craft from other worlds, other planets, and other civilizations.

Of all the explanations for UFOs, the alien space craft explanation is the most sensible when the reported sightings, landings, and perceived occupants are taken into account.

(That the sightings may be chimeras from other agencies, supernatural and otherwise, can be allowed, but visitations from other planets is the easiest explanation to swallow.)

SETI disallows the possibility, but ufologists have a lot going for them whereas SETI has nothing going for it, so far anyway.

So the condescending attitude of SETI devotees is really out of place and off-putting to an objective mind.

SETI should not be anathema to UFO confreres, but it is, and only because SETI is so smug.

While we give SETI props for its efforts, we join hands with the UFO community in eschewing the SETI stance about UFOs, even while we explore a slew of other explanations for the elusive enigma that is real, and sometimes touchable.

SETI would do well to try and score a real point. Ufologists have already done so.