UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, July 03, 2008

UFOs are things….not human created projections but things!

5things.jpg

While UFOs are evaporating into the ether, what they’ve been and what they are is more than creations of the human psyche.

How they’re perceived may be affected by human observation, in the quantum sense, but that doesn’t mean they’re not tangible artifacts.

(Neutrinos are “tangible artifacts” albeit of an immaterial kind.)

This goes to Platonic Forms, as we’ve noted here earlier.

5plato.jpg

The problem, as we see it, and hope to get more than a few to understand, is that the UFO mystery consists of phenomena; that is, UFOs are many things, not just nuts-and-bolts craft (which they have been in some instances), nor just ephemeral images, created by the psychic aberrations of man (or woman).

UFOs run a gamut of possibilities, and are not limited to the various explanations extant for them.

Stanton Friedman’s flying saucers exist.

Jacques Vallee’s amorphous, demonic (?) messengers exist also. (There are too many written references to them to invalidate the possibility.)

5vallee.jpg

Secret military aircraft and weird atmospheric conditions account for many UFO sightings surely.

But beside all the mundane or even esoteric explanations lie a core enigmatic phenomenon that wipes away all the other phenomena, and it’s that phenomenon which ufologists (a term that really needs to be dispensed with) must address.

Jung’s psychic projections as an explanation is valid for some UFO accounts, accounts that, when validated, can be discarded.

5mandala.jpg

Those accounts are the province of psychiatry, not ufological science.

Friedman’s “saucers” intrigue, more than most UFO explanations, and provide titillation for SciFi advocates, and should provoke science to check into the extraterrestrial possibility.

5mcminn.jpg

But as we’ve noted here, many times, science isn’t about to recapitulate and take on the UFO conundrum. It has always been and remains a scientific bête noire.

So where do we go from here?

Newbies to the UFO phenomenon must (and will we hope) pursue, without obsession, the core elements of UFO sightings that have been ignored or passed over by former and present ufologists.

And new sightings, of which there are a dearth, should be investigated with methodologies that have never been part of the present ufological arsenal.

UFOs are not created by mankind. They come from elsewhere, space or time, as Friedman posits or Goldberg suggests.

Some UFOs have been mistaken observations of Skyhook balloons and/or prototypical military aircraft.

5military.jpg

And a few UFO accounts ring from meteorological phenomena that is so infrequent as to invite misperception.

5japan.jpg

But aside from these prosaic explanations, there is a residue of something strange and wondrous, in a poetic sense, or an ominous sense.

It’s nothing to get worked up about, in light of the world’s woes perhaps, but as a quasi-profound curiosity, UFOs should be investigated or researched by those who have the time and wherewithal to do so.

Those who’ve spent sixty unproductive years trying to fathom the UFO riddle should step aside, and let a new crowd of UFO devotees take over.

They won’t of course, but some will force them to, but the sheer power of new insight(s) and hypotheses that have substance.

We can barely wait for the UFO new-age….whatever it’s called.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The Failure(s) of Ufology

1system.jpg

For 60 years some persons have studied the flying saucer phenomenon, a few even making a career out of the thing called ufology.

In science many accomplishments have been achieved during the same 60 year period.

As examples, the following links touch upon a few of those accomplishments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_United_States

http://www.scidacreview.org/0602/pdf/science.pdf

http://www.er.doe.gov/accomplishments_awards/index.htm

Now what are the ufological accomplishments we might list?

There aren’t any.

The study of UFOs, the research and investigation(s) have produced nothing, nothing at all that provides an inkling as to what UFOs are or even if they truly exist in tangible form.

Ufology hasn’t even come up with a working hypothesis which might lead to some kind explanation for the UFO phenomena.

This is shameful, considering the effort(s) that have gone into the study and ruminations about the elusive but palpable objects or images that have appeared in all the skies of the Earth, supposedly in numbers that indicate a UFO pandemic.

Taking all the materials about flying saucers and UFOs which have appeared since 1947, it is pathetically surprising that no one has made a dent in the UFO enigma.

Methodologies have been suggested, but have never been instigated in any viable way.

And while reams of “explanations” have been proffered, none – not one – has come close to resolving even one aspect of the UFO riddle.

Data accumulation about flying saucers and/or UFOs is rife, and some persons have done yeoman work in gathering that data, along with anecdotal accounts of sightings, even so-called abductions of humans by UFO entities.

Where does the problem lie? In the mystery itself: UFOs just can’t be explained or understood by humankind?

Are ufologists ill-equipped to fathom the UFO mystery, inept as it were?

Is a scientific, academic discipline needed and ufologists haven’t come up with one?

Nick Redfern gives voice to ufology’s premiere statesman, Stanton Friedman at one of his blogs:

http://www.ufomystic.com/the-redfern-files/saucer-reality/

But Mr. Friedman offers nothing concrete, just conjecture; interesting conjecture perhaps but containing a litany of UFO clichés that no longer provoke even a smidgen of response from UFO devotees.

Mr. Friedman’s analyses are old-hat, and lead ufologists nowhere unfortunately.

Redfern, along with persons like Mac Tonnies and Greg Bishop, also offer suggestions about what UFOs might be or where they may come from, but their suggestions, while intriguing, lack Friedman’s cachet, and only resonate with desperate UFO hobbyists who would love any kind of solution to the thing (UFOs) that gnaws at their curiosity gene.

The ufological dance has to come to an end, or has to take a new tack.

Paul Kimball’s idea that today’s ufologists must build upon (stand on the shoulders of) the work of old-guard ufologists like Jerry Clark doesn’t work for us.

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2008/06/jerome-clark-on-anomalous-phenomena.html

That is a prescription for further failure. As old-timer Richard Hall, a logician of sorts, might have it: If the premise is wrong, everything that follows will be wrong.

And the premises of ufologists have been wrong, otherwise the UFO mystery would have been solved by now, as science has solved some of the issues it deals with.

Perhaps, as we state again, the UFO phenomenon is unsolvable, essentially so, like the mystery that is God.

1einstein.jpg

But since we think UFOs are phenomena [sic], it seems to us that some element – one or two – could be resolved, at least.

And that might leave the core UFO mystery open to some brilliant person or group of persons of an Einsteinian bend who will uncloak the damnable things which remain unidentified.

We can hope….