UFO Conjectures

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

A 1967 UFO sighting in Canada

Here's the story in brief:

23 August 1967 04:00 Joyceville, Ontario, Canada...

4' white suit helmet. Driving home witness saw green light in field off road. Huge lens-shaped craft. two humanoids 4' tall white uniforms, helmets, repair activity.

The story, as compiled by Donald A. Johnson HERE...

1967, Joyceville, Ontario - While driving from his home in Toronto at four o'clock in the morning Stanley Moxon, age 20, saw a green light in a field ahead of him, not far from the road. He turned off his headlights and swung onto a side road to get closer. Turning his lights on again, he saw a huge greenish colored lens-shaped craft, and two somewhat bulky human-like entities about four feet tall, wearing white uniforms and helmets. They "seemed to be at work around the machine." When they were discovered, they quickly jumped into the craft, which took off silently at tremendous speed.

(Sources: Toronto Telegram, August 23, 1967; Kingston Whig Standard, August 24, 1967; APRO Bulletin, September-October 1967, p. 14; David F. Webb & Ted Bloecher, HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports, case 1967-81, citing APRO and police reports; Richard H. Hall, The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report, pp. 264, 473).

23 August 1967 04:00


  • The common thread of humanoids doing repairs ( fixing) goes back to the airship flap and was a phase of experiential reports that were reported in a variety of descriptive perceptions as reported. One school of thought is that all sorts of various interstellar, inter-dimension even anomalous airship vehicles have a common denominator of being prone to mechanical issues on what to them is an alien planet. In each circumstance there is what I would call "a naive behaviorism" that is counter-intuitive to a superior technology matched by a superior sentience
    1.What was fixed or adjusted or inspected in these "breakdowns"was always done successfully without the materials being available similar to that of their point of origin, or carrying spare parts for everything.
    2. The landing required to make the adjustment does not demonstrate any attempt to conceal their presence. In the context of "their" overall behaviorism, this aspect of an encounter appears to be contradictory in of itself.
    3.The enormous variability of types in dress, in physical description, in behavior ( passive, aggressive, friendly) in the larger context of close encounters beyond the breakdown scenario "suggest" we are visited by a proverbial zoo of humanoids from a variety of biological environments in a variety of originating planets which is counter-intuitive to say the least.
    4. Any intent of perceptual deception placed toward the observer whether it is termed staging, demonstrative to create confusion misses the originating point of deception in that they or that was seen. An unnecessary, overly complex end run that only would draw more curiosity than less.
    This may be due that:
    1. What was described is what was seen or more accurately "perceived"
    2. What was stated in 1. is more probable to be not an accurate assessment of what was seen.
    3. That the accounts appear to be individuated by predisposition of the observer.
    4. The predisposition is a butterfly effect arising from several contaminants such as cultural stereotypes of alien "activity", further individuated by what one imagines such an alien should appear to be ( air breathing, helmeted in a spacesuit, dressed in military garb, or variations in between.

    Jungian conceptual models are simply handy and I suspect that the nature of these "breakdowns" are perceptual anomalies due to an unknown relationship(s) arising from physics, that are likely in the future to link inner and outer environments though one another in a unique manner, prone to the correct local and favorable circumstances.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • BTW..another predisposing bias in analysis is a critical assumption that "life forms" have to require a cellular biology as we understand what life is from our own experience locally.
    1.The "if" is if "they" are or not similar in their orientation in biology.
    2. If not they may be toxic to us in terms of proximity. The the closer in physical proximity we have to "them" the more effects we encounter that are dissociative in relation to their field which if the reported high radiant background that is associated with many of these experiences is true, we may have to redefine our categorical and critical assumptions as to what constitutes a presence that has a physicality of an unknown nature.
    3. If #2 is true then what constitutes a vehicle may have to be rethought in terms of the requirements of transiting a lifeform that is a mismatch to our own "biology" as a means of "conveyance"

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Your conjectures are always interesting and erudite in a complex (abstruse) way.

    And I accept the possibility that your views are correct.

    However, isn't it possible (also) that what was seen is what was seen, an objectively perceived event, marred only by the minute vicissitudes of observational error in such a startling scenario?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • 1. It has demonstratively been proven that eyewitness accounts are more often than not inaccurate. Recently these experiments with memory has been taken to a practical level in terms of how a range of "suspects" are presented to the witness for verification. A secondary arbiter of accuracy is the interviewer capability to extract specifics rather than either A. inadvertently contaminating the witness by inferences in their questioning or B. Not fully examining the context in which the environment in which the recalled event took place.
    2. At the root of this issue is not obtuse as you suggest and has been verified by recent developments in studying human cognition in relation to all perception being a simulation that is edited, transcribed and processed by the intermediaries of brain mechanisms that have a finite range. For example the presence of afterimages arising from vision were once thought to be originated in the biology of the eye, whereas it has been shown these arise in the brain as a simulation. There is no such creature as direct experience. This is not philosophy it is science.
    3. Inferences created by the witness themselves in how they interprit the experience by the post editorial act recalling it which depends on:
    A. elapsed time since the observation.
    B. The scientific evidence that memories can be created as well as experienced in relation to A. This is known in variability in relation to potential accuracy as The Rashomon Effect, where five people witness the same event and recall five variations of what occurred.

    So, it may be a direct and accurate representation as you suggest, but the odds are not favorable to taking them at face value. You appearing to be a pragmatic somewhat skeptical sort I am surprised you sound in this context, you sound like Joesph Capp, who I am not intending to disparage.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • P.S
    Another consideration is I doubt we can take a comparatively small sample of events such as presented in relation to their overall number and make an accurate analysis of the overall phenomenon from them.
    I am for a variety of reasons skeptical of human perception as well as cognition in terms of accuracy. I am no Ambrose Bierce but I suppose it is a variation of cynicism.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • Bruce...

    As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

    You are digging deeper into the sighting (here) more than is necessary.

    What was seen is what was seen.

    One can attribute it to the sensory parameters you cite, and that will stand among many cognitive psychologists.

    But there is the option, for some of us, even some of us pyschologists, that what is recounted presents a fairly accurate account of what took place.

    I've raved about witness memory, but memory changes over time.

    The account here, and some others I've posted, are not elements of memory; they are accounts in situ usually, and almost immediate after the observation.

    Memory plays a minimal part.

    You are lathering the incidents with psychological accretions that do not necessarily -- and I accent "necessarily" -- fit.

    Not all sightings are projections of the psyche -- a damaged psyche or a normal psyche. Take your pick.

    Common elements in the sightings I'm presenting are the white uniforms and the getting into the perceived craft, after making, ostensibly, repairs.

    That's what we should be looking at.

    Are there pyschological archetypes that allow for such similarities?

    Perhaps. I'll leave you to present them.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • '1.What was fixed or adjusted or inspected in these "breakdowns"was always done successfully without the materials being available similar to that of their point of origin, or carrying spare parts for everything.'

    This is a point I hadn't thought of before and is intriguing as it, once more, suggests something orchestrated or contrived. If the physical traces left by some encounters are genuine, it implies the witnesses saw what they say they saw.

    The distinction may be that whereas they *thought* they were seeing a repair, they were seeing a set-piece take place for motivations unknown.

    One idea that I keep returning to is the possibility that these incidents were distractions designed to mislead whilst generating information for the intelligence behind them.

    I'm not as certain as you that it is counter-intuitive to suspect a superior technology at work. The physical leftovers, eye irritation, skin redness or disturbed earth, indicates that something material occurred although we can't know if the physical plane was the only level being explored by whatever hypothetical intelligence we can imagine.

    In this scenario, physical objects and figures could be present, but their presence would be for more sophisticated reasons than were assumed.

    In terms of an advanced technology, it wasn't long ago that we could only assess criminal mental illness from observations of behaviour and reactions to stimuli. A couple of decades ago, we began to go deeper and look at genetics. Now, we can identify specific codes in a family genome to see how predisposed to violence an individual might be. Zimbardo has detailed these advances on one of the TED talks.

    Before I go off-topic, it's possible a superior technology could stage these encounters as a diversion to study the observers. I'm only speculating that an advanced tech might use these scenarios to study us in greater depth than MRIs or genomes.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • Or the craft(s), Kandinsky and Bruce, merely broke down and the entities inside were checking out the problem.

    A cigar is sometimes just a cigar.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • Kandinsky,
    "it's possible a superior technology could stage these encounters as a diversion to study the observers."
    I thought of this too and yet the act of observation as well as being observed changes what is observed. This is not a problem if you are measuring change in parameters of measurement, but what do you select to measure? More importantly, why? Measurement is comparison so what is being compared by making a change? Of course this takes the scenario in a sense from covert activity prone to accident to planned intention. If there is a comparison between A and B in measurement in relation to change, we are stuck with the arrow of time or perhaps not. I have often thought that what is being measured if it is, could be in terms of entropy, order versus disorder, a simple stimulus or repeated of chaotic information compared to the environment of the subject to observe how we organize this into concepts as the three of us can be observed participating in, which then imply s to me a naivete, a strangeness we represent as a comparison to them. However my concern is that this seems like a simplification, although it is possible.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • "But there is the option, for some of us, even some of us pyschologists, that what is recounted presents a fairly accurate account of what took place."
    I am not disputing this as a possibility but looking at the event from several perspectives. If this is true, that what was seen was seen accurately described, or as Kandinsky suggested perhaps as a staged event, or, as you seem to indicate, it was what was seen and interpreted as a "breakdown" was a mechanical breakdown, that does not answer why this event was a cigar and not a cigarette, to play on your parlance. Robotic humanoids that are simply task driven? Lol, the cynic in me sees this as a satirical twist on prosaic life in the U.S. I suppose what I am asking is what is the task behind this, the larger task, the context of this being simply a cigar being a cigar, not a small portion of that event which was observed.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    You provide an interpretation that is possible certainly; i.e., that the event is a purposeful deceivement by some senient force or set of beings.

    I choose to think that what was recounted represented an actual event, during which the witness saw entities checking out their craft -- possibly a repair or any number of other things.

    Perhaps, sneaking through the universal membrane to get here, something went awry.

    Or a minor mechanical malfunction occurred because this environment is not (was not) conducive to the structure or innards of the craft.

    Tony Bragalia's find about malleable metal in Roswell indicates the possibility of a flaw in the chemical/physical structure of craft coming here through portals from a totally different physical milieu or even from a galactic system where metal of a kind isn't suited to the Earth's environs.

    There are a plethora of conjectural possibilities.

    But you aren't, nor is Kandinsky, tying together the similar elements I'm trying to point out, elements that keep showing up in sightings listed here earlier from ancient times as listed in the Aubeck/Vallee book and the many sightings I've input here recently: Socorro is one, as is the Wilcox sighting, among others.

    You'll say the staging was repeated for all those sightings, and that might be possible but it's the tail wagging the dog.

    The similar elements -- white uniforms, two entities (usually), and the appearance or simulation, if you will, of repair work -- are clues you keep thrusting forward as mechanisms of a convoluted staging for some obtuse reason that we cannot fathom.

    I'd rather accept the events as they are and try to tackle the meaning from a simpler format or mind-set.

    You, Bruce, are, as I keep saying, making the topic more complex than it needs to be.

    The waters are so muddied by your erudite but abstruse(!) evaluation that one can't deal with the topic without getting an intellectual migraine.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, November 09, 2011  

  • No offense taken nor none intended in my view of your view of this non throw back or as a non responsive dead zone, which is a fallback to when aliens were aliens.A tired stereotype.
    I will leave you to your beloved "Martians" until a topic becomes interesting again to me. I think like a cigar that is a cigar, the prosaic is never prosaic and to ignore complexities you must smoke this cigar as your want to your hearts content. Or the cigar must be smoking you. It is not my concern, nor is it what you chose to smoke as a habit, this naivete... from my point of view is not interesting or provocative. It is nostalgia for simplicity's sake. A dead marker in a desert.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • I consider a sophisticated ETH to be reasonable when looking at the evidence. I think that some witnesses described what they say they saw and I think trace evidence and radars strengthens the case. The fact that humanoid encounters occurred particularly in certain periods suggests a cause other than astronomical misidentifications or social fears being rendered as hallucinatory experience. It's also difficult to accept that 1954 had more copycat hoaxers than any other year. In considering the SETH, it doesn't mean it's my conclusion, but I'm willing to speculate from that premise.

    We do have a gamut of reports of little guys in light-coloured suits and they suggest real folk with real craft. Others from the 70s, including the Moreland guy with the technical suit, likewise suggest physical encounters. On the other hand, we have a menagerie of other folk who differ in appearance so much that even witness fallibility is a stretch to account for them. For these, it's possibly just a cigar, but perhaps a funny-shaped cigar?

    If we can feel comfortable speculating that 'Folk from Elsewhere' have visited, it's barely a shuffle from that point to ask if any would have been interested in the flora and fauna of Earth? It would appear so from Wilcox to Valensole to Simonton. Minot 68, Tehran and Jafari's experience (multiple witnesses, radar) show something with a curiosity, as does Smit's Beaufort Farm antics (multiple witnesses, physical traces) and Higdon's experience (physical traces).

    Assuming some of them have a superior technology would go hand-in-hand with superior knowledge and greater experience of other worlds - two at least; ours and theirs. So it isn't too convuluted a notion to *speculate* that *some* of these encounters were testing what the natives are like. The mention of MRIs was to highlight the probability that analyses could be somewhat exotic and that technology moves on apace. In our own future, 5-ton contraptions like the MRI scanner will be replaced by smaller, portable and more effective technology.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    I know you want to dialogue about some esoteric explanations for the sighting cited.

    But I would like someone to address the common elements in the sighting which, even, in your "far-out" scenario may have meaning, if Joseph Campbell's or a Jungian view counts for anything.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • Kandinsky...

    Now that I can understand, and it is succinctly presented.

    Bruce's views are always at the fringe of understanding, but his views are imaginatively presented and have to be considered; they are just too complex for the topic at hand, I think.

    The problem, as you see it, and I do too, is to understand why those similar elements keep showing up, along with similar behaviors -- and they have for millennia.

    What's the message or symbolism being proffered?

    If an advanced or insane subset of reality is messing with us humans, how can we get meaning from their overt "pranks" or "teaching aids"?

    Nothing makes sense when taken in a totality, so I think breaking down the component parts might help us to get at the meaning or explanation.

    Bruce is studying the phenomenon in a gestaltian way but that, for me, invites confusion.

    I prefer a forensic approach.

    That is, we take one element at a time and view it in comparison to other elements.

    It's an archeological approach: shards that may explain a missing whole.

    And I think that if there are other species, tangible or not, checking us humans out, they might be doing the same; that is they may be looking at parts of our civilization or physicality to get a grasp of the whole, which is a bit complex and confusing, even for us.

    Studying an ant hill in total makes the chore of understanding the social structure of ant society harder than if one studies the hill, up close and piece by piece.

    I hope this explains by "grief" with Bruce's and some other approaches to the UFO topic.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • None of what I wrote was exotic esoteric, etc and the gist of it is simple is that the fallacy is editorial in relation to analysis. In other words if you only look at evidence that reinforces a single theory, you will derive a self fulfilling portrait. The other issue is what constitutes evidence. Nothing is new about this issue. Many a homicide case has been bungled in pragmatic terms due to this. This is very much like a homicide case and it is appropriate you use the term forensic, while I strongly disagree that this is what the entire body of evidence is telling us. We all pick and choose citations although all are interelated in the larger body of theories.
    That being said, it is not as if I have not been down and examined this road several decades ago and
    I looked at the insignias of the uniforms of the occupants, when reported. There was a phase where witnesses reported the same insignia, the similarity of landing gear, both in impressions and reports, the similarities in the chemical composition of the trace evidence in several landing sites, the reports of pursuits by terrestrial aircraft are fairly common, and quite a few are well documented. The list is too lengthy to place here in sum total.
    Yet these move forward in phasing similar types. One can very nearly trace a progression of a set, to have it metamorphose into another set, very dissimilar in comparative types. Do we ignore this? If we only look at similarities, is this an objective analysis? Pattern analysis and chaos theory. Just because you have a pattern does not mean it signify the result is correct in relation to the conclusion. This is not "esoteric".
    Like Kandinsky, but somewhat dissimilar in nature, has to do with intent toward a progression of types that show entropy, (IE from simple to complex in variation.Then the type is jumped up a step in sophistication. I looked into childhood developmental theories for an insight into this pattern about a decade ago. Look at how children are taught concepts. Your example is in one set that was followed by another. Look at the Belgium wave, and compare it to this era you study. So here is another pattern, and so forth. Our minds seek repetitions, patterns etc. A good example of this is a clock. Yes it is a measurement. Yes it reflects experience that can be documented. The problem is that time does not operate this way. Nothing esoteric complex or difficult about that.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Pattern analysis and chaos theory?


    Childhood developmental theories?

    The intrusions of those topics, relevant as they may turn out to be, merely make a discussion more complex than it has to be.

    The clotted suggestions you bring to the table are terrific and I appreciate them, but in this venue they merely confuse.

    You've included everything but the kitchen sink.

    Let me ask what explanation you are proposing, in as few words as possible, please.

    The 1954 sightings, all those included in my newer post above, have similar ingredients.

    If there is a pattern, what is it?

    What is the prima causa of the incidents?

    Is there one thing that brings about the sightings?

    Is there a confluence of things, but not so many as to confuse the issue?

    You say our minds seek repetitions, patterns, et cetera.

    Some minds do, but not all minds.

    And rural folk, the rabble, are not inclined to seek patterns or repetitions.

    Your observation is a generality that doesn't apply.

    In the pursuit of an explanation, somethings have to be ignored.

    It's a matter of discernment and intellectual acumen that allow us to shrug off some information and focus on others.

    Should that not work, we can always go back and re-evaluate.

    You make too much of the sightings.

    You accrete them to the point of obfuscation.

    Hemingway is not one of your favorite authors I bet.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • Your theory on Hemingway is wrong. The inference on style. No offense, and I am not mixing the person with the methodology but your methodology appears to be provincially simplistic and naive. Anyone who reads you comments will be struck by that your methodology is running in reverse. You have a conclusion and seek evidence to support it. I think a hard craft theory goes nowhere now nor in the future, but time will tell in any circumstance, yes?
    I will make a prediction for you. The next wave of type will be nothing like the one before it. Where are your while jacketed little men today? Did they go home, have insurmountable engine problems like a Chevy Vega? Yet sightings persist. They do not resemble your citations. How do you explain this. You explain your theory and I will then explain mine.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    I've ranted here, at this blog and at our RRRGoup blog about how sightings have gone from those in 1954 to the plasma-like UFOs you prefer.

    Yes, my methodology is simplistic.

    I don't pretend it is otherwise.

    I have no theory, and I haven't promoted the idea that the 1954 sightings involve hard craft, nuts and bolts vehicles.

    What I'm striving for, and have not made clear apparently, is some ideas about what the recurring similarities mean.

    Your thick prose hides meaning for me.

    I'm not sure what you're proposing as an explanation for UFOs, old or new.

    The impression I get is that you think the phenomenon is interactive; an exchange between the intigators and the percipients.

    That may be so, but I don't care about that.

    I'm looking for meaning, hidden in the actions, the unifroms, any insignia, any interaction.

    Locale, time, and date may be important too.

    I understand that you know lots of things and throw out that knowledge at your blog(s) and here.

    And I appreciate your effort to educate me and other who stop by here.

    But I'm only looking for a simplistic -- not simple -- idea or two as to the symbolic activity in the 1954 sightings (or other early sightings).

    Because sightings today, generally, don't include such bizarre elements, we can't use today's incident to fathom the inherent UFO mystery.

    I'm merely flailing about for some kind of understanding but I don't hang my hat on the phenomenon.

    I find the topic somewhat amusing; a curiosity, that's all....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • When pressed, you retreat, and yet in these comments and others in the past you state you prefer the hard craft theory while denying it simultaneously. Read what you wrote.
    Hard craft broke down, a cigar is a cigar..etc..etc..You don't answer questions directly that contradict your theory. You more often than not hide behind a acerbic style. This does not equate with your contradictory "washing your hands of your own statements paraphrased as "it's only a passing hobby, a lark.."
    This lends insight to others but perhaps not to you in your operand
    contradictions, loaded comments etc. I thought there was more to you, yet you persist in stereotyping me..read your own comments. That aside, the theory I hold is simple. There is a outside world and a inside world that follow different laws and are in different states. You cannot imagine a tree and it will appear on the outside. You cannot see thoughts with your eyes. There is a third state where these laws do not apply. This third state appears random just as weather did before we had surveillance satellites. It's distribution if dependent on predisposing factors that act like the tumbler on a safe that separates the inside from the outside while within it is a third. Outside states and internal states must coincide. How do they coincide to create interaction? The connection is decoherence between the observed and commonly held concepts. Inside does match the outside on a density aspect that is global.not local World War 2, The Holocaust, Atomic Weapons, Cold War, etc. This third state encompasses physical effects and internal anomalies, meaning that it is similar to particulars in each that are separated in a resting state but is incommensurable to either. This is the riddle Valle posed in his paper on the incommensurable that framed this phenomenon not as a theory but the sum total of the evidence. I thought further on this frame. Whether anyone else concurs is immaterial to me. You simply confuse me and I confuse you.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • If there is a pattern, what is it?

    The pattern is the coinciding of the predisposition of the observer, the observed and the environment. The more chaotic the relationship the more it opens a window to these events.

    What's the message or symbolism being proffered?

    There is none in our terms. It is a composite.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    I grant you the topic is confusing, but life is confusing.

    I do tend to think of UFOs as tangible; with tangibility having a chimera-like essence perhaps.

    As for the outside world intersecting with the inside world, that is a subject for my psychiatric friends, and Vallee aficionados.

    You don't confuse so much as you overwhelm.

    You are anxious to make your points and suffuse them with so much supporting material that I get lost in the intellectual flotsam.

    (I am not alone in that, as you know.)

    UFOs for me are a sidebar. I'm restricted by my obeisance to media criticism.

    The decoherence you find in this existence is not a thing with which I contend.

    Plato's real reality fascinates at the abstract level but his shadows are the domain with which I contend.

    I'm only interested in the aspects of flying saucer events that have a bizarre patina.

    That patina is fun to conjure with.

    As for the deeper meaning of UFOs, that goes to a philosophical inquiry, as science is unable, it seems, to cope with the mystery.

    UFOs are even quirkier than quantum artifacts.

    I hope you don't see my crankiness as personal in nature.

    It's all about the debate, which is a separate reality from friendship in my mind.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • Lets imagine a pond of clear, freshly spring fed water, out in the middle of a somewhat remote field. The pond is teaming with all manner of life from insects to higher forms of aquatic life like fish. The point here is that quite nessecarily, the vast majority of these various forms of life are fully and interdependantly existing naturally within this pond. It is their specific environment.

    Along comes a human being out for a walk on a clear sunny day. He (our human being) decides that it would be most cool to check this pond out as it's just slighty off the beaten pathway of his routine travels. So he strolls on over and stoops over to examine the pond's contents. NO, he does not slip and fall in face first, but rather just hangs out for a few until he becomes somewhat board and thus carries on about his travels. What has just happened has potentially changed a fish's life for good. For that particular fish has just experienced his first USO and cannot wait to get back home and post about as much on the aquanet. It (our friend the fish) is certain that what he just witnessed from just below the pond's glass like surface has to be from some place a LONG way from the pond. He cannot even begin to fathom how such an unidentified swimming object could manage to disapear so fast!

    (remember, all our fish knows with respect for locomotion is to swim as it normally would and as it has observed so many of it's fellow fish do all it's life - can you blame it? Little did the fish realize that it only took the strange object (the man) that it just witnessed, a single step away from the pond's edge to quickly disapear from it's view. Must have left extremely fast eh?)

    What has just happened in our fantasy example is a product of rational sentient perception. Something REALLY happened that our friendly and exuberant fish has both experienced as well as done it's level best to convey as accurately and honestly as possible. The problem is that we are dealing with an observational context for which we (or as I believe, the vast majority of us do not) have no real awareness or comprehension of. That does not mean that it's not 100% real. From our example we can basically determin that such matters of observational perception lay well outside the boudaries of our ability to percieve and define matters as they truly are, outside our realm of pre-established interdependent conciousness.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • The UFO at best is a signet of possibilities. As far as the kitchen sink, you have to know a great deal to know very little. The frames we use do not match the evidence. A force fit on either side of the fence is a recipe for failure as this phenomenon does not obey laws or terms we use. We need a new language.It has similarities to the strictly physical and the strictly internal processes we use and so this binary frame is both true and not true by our present terms which is confusing. It is physical but not simply physical, it is apparitional but not strictly a apparition. What we desire from this phenomenon and what we get is incommensurable to one another.
    That is why it appears to be deconstructive and constructive at once. That is why language in description is a formidable challenge. This third state is ripe for investigation and so looking for bendable metal to me is so far off the issue that from my perspective it seems lunatic. Yet I can respect the axiom, each to their own. That also does not imply that this is fruitless, or demean the hard work of others, rather it is the wrong frame. The only useful aspect to Roswell is to refute it by objective evidence, by following leads so we can move on beyond this case of mistaken identity that is a sinkhole.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • BTW..We have both stepped into a pile of fertilizer and we are trying to grow something from it. You are a friend I have never met. To be frank, sincere, at times being brutally honest is not to be confused with negative intent. I know this and I know you do.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

  • I've enjoyed the thoughtful back-and-forth going on here, especially the fish analogy! Here's another perspective on the original article:

    A 20-year old kid driving somewhere at 4 am doesn't sound like a particularly reliable witness.

    By Blogger Kristofer, at Thursday, November 10, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home