UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Nick Redfern reviews what he says is a "significant" book



Click here for Mr. Redfern's review

2 Comments:

  • This looks like an interesting read. I like chronological collections like these (if it is chronological). It gives one a good opportunity for looking at these accounts in context with each other, assuming, of course, that they listed them in order by date reported. Often times, and you may have noted this as well, UFOlogists will point to such-and-such's account of a UFO that preceded another as proof that said sightings are older than previously thought or a particular type of craft was spotted prior to another. But what a lot of these collections fail to do is take into account that someone reporting an earlier sighting is only significant if it occurred BEFORE the general population became aware of the more famous case. Otherwise, who is to say he or she wasn't influenced by the more famous(and later)case?

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • My take on this is to remove the binary approach to the topic, one of many. This being the material aspect of the phenomenon which depends on who is looking, versus the mind's relationship to the material itself.
    One might say the approach is more important than the subject. What or whom is targeting each other and why? The observer and the phenomenon itself may be indicating globally that a new methodology is required to be innovated toward problem solving in a more global application.

    http://materialintangible.blogspot.com/2011/01/minority-report-on-approach.html

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 27, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home