UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Maxtrix UFOs? A UFO Stasis? Or something else?

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

The idea that UFOs are the products of an über-reality, not unlike that imagined in the Martrix franchise, cannot be dismissed out-of-hand, as far as some of us are concerned.

The idea of a separate, unique real reality, promulgated by Plato in his Cave analogy and others (philosophers, science fiction writers, physicists, film-makers, et cetera), becomes a viable thesis by virtue of its being thought by us, by humans.
You can pursue the concept yourselves by Googling transcendentalism and philosophical adjuncts, but most of you understand the idea and the Matrix films provide an easy introduction.

That we are being manipulated by a master game-player, that some of us think is God, is not hard to swallow, and allows for UFOs to be part of that game….the Game of God we’ve called it.

But if that is a bit too weird for the pragmatists among you, let me broach the UFO problem with this.

UFOs have been around, provably, since the dawn of thinking man.

The Aubeck/Vallee book, Wonders in the Sky, provides a litany of credible accounts that show the ubiquity of UFOs throughout history.
But the question to ask is why haven’t UFOs evolved in that long time period? (We’ve addressed this issue in an earlier post here.)

Pure UFOs remain pretty much as they have been witnessed over the millennia, despite the attempts to show them changing with the times, as the air-ship aficionados insist, writing that the air-ship (dirigible-like UFOs) were forerunners to the more stylized craft of the late 40s and 50s, right up to the present day.
But early UFO sightings and depictions of them are not different than today’s sightings and depictions, which means, as we see it, that UFOs are a static phenomenon, or many within the UFO genera are static.

That is, UFOs are an archetypal phenomenon – some of them anyway, maybe most of them.

The odd-UFOs are elements one can ascribe to mental aberrations (hysteria/hallucinations) or totally separate phenomena with attributes that mimic (not purposefully!) UFOs.

Jose Caravaca’s “Distortion Theory – delineated at his blog with us (http://caravaca-files.blogspot.com) -- could be put in to the Maxtrix “explanation” as his external agent as the causa essentia is not different than the machine/God of the Maxtrix hypothesis.
Then we have the multiple universe concept where UFOs are insertions from another parallel universe or adjacent, unseen world that sometime intersects with our universe, our reality.
What doesn’t make this idea valid for me is the appearance of machines or craft as part of such hypothetical intrusions.

Why would machines need to traverse the division between us and the others? Why not just step through or come into this reality as one might go from a car or plane into another geographical venue? The craft seems superfluous.

But does the machinery (the UFO artifact) act as a protective device, more than a transporting device?
As for alien visitors from galaxies far, far away, we’ve always eschewed the idea.

For some, the Earth is a Garden of Eden, a wondrous, one-of-a-kind planet which attracts aliens from other worlds because of its beauty, its flora and fauna, its minerals, or its water.
But there are so many other more ravishing places in the known universe that to think Earth is a primary stop for interstellar travelers is the quintessential ego-oriented view projected outward to life-forms who surely have seen better.
The continuing problem when it comes to UFOs is that the sightings have been lumped into a generic category: UFOs. Whereas the things represent phenomena, as we keep writing.

There is not one UFO species, but many, some real some not.

Since ufologists are generalists, no science has developed to cope with the many forms or species that make up the whole UFO panoply.

And does it matter, really?

UFOs are like insects or butterflies – many kinds with many different attributes but ultimately not important to humanity or one’s personal existence
RR

24 Comments:

  • I beg to disagree with one conclusion, the sight of a beautiful butterfly on an equally beautiful spring day is one of the reasons it's a joy to be alive . . . at least for me.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, April 25, 2012  

  • Oh I agree, PG, but butterflies are aesthetic additions to life, not essential elementals.

    One would not sacrifice their job or a child for a butterfly or I would hope they wouldn't.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 25, 2012  

  • On somedays, RR, I gladly would . . . smile.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Wednesday, April 25, 2012  

  • > long-winded ramble alert.

    I’m not as confident that Earth is nothing special. The idea is plausible, but rolled out as a heavy weapon in the argument against the ETH. Space is very big and Earth is distinctly dowdy in the cosmos. Thus it follows that, even if a capable technology could traverse interstellar space they’d surely not bother. Resources should be available all over the place so who’d traipse to poor, plain Earth? They’d be crazy to bother…at least more than a cursory glance as they wiped their pseudo-pod/feet on the way out.

    So it goes, but of the 80+ objects in our peasant-class system, how many have civilisations, culture or perch constantly on the precipice of self-destruction?

    I prefer to walk around that argument and look at it from a different perspective. For example, you mention Aubeck and Vallee’s book. There’s suggestive evidence in there that at least some form of activity has been messing about in the skies with no regard at all for their 20th Century curfew. Likewise, David Clarke unearthed old British reports of structured craft preceding WW1 and Star Trek. All this is stuff we all know about; I’m just decorating the window a little.

    If people have been describing these things as objects, it isn’t unreasonable to assume they aren’t originating in Lockheed. They haven’t all come from Wharton and the Russians aren’t launching Protons every day either. This doesn’t automatically upend the ‘too, big, too bland’ argument against Folk from Elsewhere and neither does it rule them out. It works from the speculative premise (one more maze) that something is here.

    For all we know, the fireworks display of millions killing millions kick started an increase in the interest shown by the ‘anomalous phenomena?’ Sorry Rich, for the clichés. The Kepler Observatory has discerned a good few alien planets so far. Early days, no rush to judgements yet, but still no ideal candidates for cultural whirlpools of societal drama. This is apt to change as our scrying eyes get sharper and we get smarter. Nevertheless, we might still be the most interesting place for a few light years. I mean hell, people go to New York _all_ the time! Surely there’s nothing there they haven’t seen before or done before? The food’s no better and the water is the same as anywhere else. A million visitors with thousands of reasons travelling in hundreds of slightly different vehicles.

    Who knows? You’re probably right about all manner of UFOs representing numerous different phenomena. For instance, Hessdalen seems to have very little in common with something like the Minot AFB incidents of October ’68. Hessdalen lights can look as pretty as butterflies and I’m flat out of certainty about the other.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • Ah, Kandinsky, your perspective always intrigues and enlightens.

    Your book would be Wonders of the Blogosphere.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • I would add to the comment I left previously on this that the reason that UFOs often appear to be reflective of the times in which they are seen (i.e. UFOs seen in the 60s looked “60s-ish) is this:

    They change the appearance of their craft to “fit” or mimic in some way with the era in which they are visiting because to reveal their “true” configuration could compromise and reveal their technology to us. In the same way that new cars developed are test driven with tarps over them to avoid revealing their design too soon, the alien changes up the look of its vehicle to not show us too much before we are ready…

    AJB

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • This still seems to reinforce the idea that the UFO phenomena are mostly instigated by government programs to manipulate mass opinion and encourage consensus thinking. Occam's razor seems to cut all the more cleanly when we consider the possibility that UFOs are reflective of their times because the agency(ies) responsible for their popularization are also reflective of their times. What the real aliens observing us must make of all this is anyone's guess... If they have humor, perhaps we are their version of reality TV - a kind of backwoods hillbilly comedy-drama.

    http://www.thevicarslamp.blogspot.com/

    By Blogger Vicar Lee, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • To bring the topic back to a grounding cable I suspect the fog of the phenomenon is intrinsically tied to the fog of our own backyard.
    The imaging in the psyche called imagination is one of the most mysterious and provocative players in the perception of the human existence, both inwardly and outwardly, and in the isthmus where the twain meets where you are digesting this comment, we imagine reality as both a consensus and as an individuated variant of consensus. There is always normal in paranormal.
    The matrix you speak of I think is reflected in the pseudo coherence of bias projection of imaging that is forever changing with the times. It is the exponential power of literally millions of minds networked by their similarities between chaos and this imaginative coherence that I suspect projects a third state of matter as liminal and as contingent as the environment allows. There seem to be trigger objects in this of an emotional, shared nature that are very subliminal.
    These suspicions in turn lead me to suspect is what has been reported to be seen is a transpersonal and existential representation of ourselves in this third state that drifts in and out of focus. Much like a materialized dream. I suspect we hold the answer to all this, but it may or may not elude us by way of science, but I hope they never catch lightning in a bottle as more than likely we would be enslaved by a relative few by tweaking this to their advantage. Has a more evolved race already accomplished this? Is this the realm of The Demiurge?
    The imagination both propels and locks us into place.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • RR says, "UFOs have been around, provably, since the dawn of thinking man."

    "Provably?" Hardly. The very idea is just another false belief promoted by writers of "UFO" books and a fundamental part of the "UFO" myth and collective delusion.

    Historical, metaphorical, allegorical and fantastical accounts are removed from their true contexts and forced into a present "UFO" context by mere pronouncement. By their sheer ambiguity, transposed burning bushes, flaming shields, chariots of fire and wheels within wheels are reinterpreted as "UFOs." This crude "presentism" is obviously fallacious; and once this false premise is asserted, a false conclusion by circular argument follows: There were "UFOs" before, so there are (real) "UFOs" after. Petitio Principii

    There aren't any real "UFOs" of any kind and there never were. There is no "UFO" phenomenon. There are only "UFO" reports made by individuals in societies affected by a present irrational fiction.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • Zoam, buddy:

    Let's go through this again...

    What I'm saying is that "unidentified flying thingies" have been around for a very long time, as the Aubeck and Vallee book shows, along with other writings.

    I'm not saying that ET craft or flying bogie men have been around.

    I'm saying that things have been seen in the sky (and sometimes on the ground) that were strange and remain unidentified.

    You should check with Frank Warren for the definition of UFO.

    For a guy who presumes to use Noam Chomsky's name as an epithet, you sure are thick-headed when it comes to semantics.

    You have got to quit confusing UFO with flying saucer I think.

    The best to you regardless.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • I can't believe you think insects are ultimately not important! Foodchain, pollenation, aerating the soil... the list of ways they effect our lives as individuals and mankind as a whole goes on and on even microscopic bacteria that live on our bodies in the billions have a purpose, every living thing on the planet has a purpose and effects us in some way whether we know it or not.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • Followers of Hinduism would agree.

    My bad...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • Zoam wrote: " There are only "UFO" reports made by individuals in societies affected by a present irrational fiction."

    You seem to think people make ufo reports, rather than that report collectors (aka ufologists), The Air Force , FBI, editors and writers, categorize the reported observations as "ufo reports".

    Some people do report seeing a ufo, of course. In the catalog of cases that get discussed on ufo forums, there aren't many I can think of in which the observer reported seeing a ufo. Some kids might report seeing a little man appear out of the sky, dressed funny and do strange things. That is not a ufo report. To become a ufo report requires a collector to tag it as such.

    Many of the famous cases are like that...no ufo/disc/saucer report, for example Arnold, Rhodes, and Zamora. And some are reports of ufos such as the Kelly Johnson, Ware, Thoren, Wimmer, and Colman report.

    You are indeed wielding a sword. It's just not very sharp.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, April 26, 2012  

  • "Historical, metaphorical, allegorical and fantastical accounts are removed from their true contexts and forced into a present "UFO" context by mere pronouncement. By their sheer ambiguity, transposed burning bushes, flaming shields, chariots of fire and wheels within wheels are reinterpreted as "UFOs."

    Positivists and sophistry do point out one issue that skews any dialog, the "term" UFO, which is so loaded with dated associations and faux identifications, that the term itself that is narrowed to "objects" that infers an avionic "machine"...and of course, these events more often than not defy this term by their behaviorism as observed, let alone their "purposeless -purpose" etc.
    Games with semantic rationalism are moot points as no one has confirmed or denied the phenomenon with proofs ( with associated theories that are testable) one way or the other.
    Our friend "Noam"has boxed himself into a comfort zone of language over riding observable phenomenon to the point of language itself
    ( UFO)is rather a moot point as far as applying any term to these events.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, April 27, 2012  

  • RR says, "Zoam, buddy: Let's go through this again..."
    Yes, let's, since--if you really believe what you say--you didn't get it before.


    "What I'm saying is that "unidentified flying thingies" have been around for a very long time,"
    Not true, you're still assuming the answer, Petitio Principii , the most that one could say is that there are REPORTS, or in this instance, historical, metaphorical, allegorical and fantastical accounts, the stimuli for which you can't possibly have knowledge.

    "as the Aubeck and Vallee book shows, along with other writings."
    They've shown nothing of the sort, and neither did earlier such misconceived catalogues, as I explained:
    Historical, metaphorical, allegorical and fantastical accounts are removed from their true contexts and forced into a present "UFO" context by mere pronouncement. By their sheer ambiguity, transposed burning bushes, flaming shields, chariots of fire and wheels within wheels, etc, are reinterpreted as "UFOs." This crude "presentism" is obviously fallacious; and once this false premise is asserted, a false conclusion by circular argument follows: "There were "UFOs" before, so there are (real) "UFOs" after." Petitio Principii

    "I'm not saying that ET craft or flying bogie men have been around. I'm saying that things have been seen in the sky (and sometimes on the ground) that were strange and remain unidentified."
    But it's impossible for you to know that since there are only REPORTS of failure to identify, and human perceptions, narrative creation and transmission are notoriously error and fantasy prone.
    Again, there is no "UFO" phenomenon(a). There aren't any "strange anomalous things seen in the sky." There are only "UFO" reports; but irrational Believers in the myth would rather ignore that fundamental point and fallaciously assume that the subjects of "UNidentified" reports have an extraordinary "identity" by the mere act of failure to identify. See the problem? It's not semantics; it's the difference between skeptics and Believers.
    People report seeing things in the sky that they can't identify. That doesn't mean they've seen something other than what is known to exist in the world. The mere failure to identify does not create some extraordinary other. That's the inherent conceptual absurdity of the idea of "UFOs." Check the definition of "UFO." Unless it means imaginary "flying saucer," there's nothing that can be said about a universal "UFO" since there are no "UFO" facts--the minimum requirement for things said to exist in the world.


    "You should check with Frank Warren for the definition of UFO."
    (LOL) I doubt very much that some self-styled "UFO" historical revisionist who thinks the BOLA was something more than a false alarm is capable of saying anything of the slightest interest to me.


    "For a guy who presumes to use Noam Chomsky's name as an epithet, you sure are thick-headed when it comes to semantics."
    As much as you want to think or pretend to think so, it's absolutely nothing to do with semantics, it's a very real fundamental point of logic: It's the difference between skeptics and Believers.
    || The cornerstone of the [pseudoscience of ufology] is invalid: it is clearly not logical to base the existence of a positive ("true UFOs exist") on the grounds of a hypothetical negative [innumerable, insubstantial and utterly inconsequential REPORTS of failure to identify ambiguous visual stimuli.]|| -- James Oberg, 1979

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 27, 2012  

  • Zoam wrote: " There are only "UFO" reports made by individuals in societies affected by a present irrational fiction."

    The credulous Don writes, "You seem to think people make ufo reports,"
    That, they do! From where do you think "UFO" reports originate?

    "rather than that report collectors (aka ufologists), The Air Force , FBI, editors and writers, categorize the reported observations as "ufo reports"."
    The process of observation, narrative creation and transmission occurs prior to all that, if any of that occurs at all. In over a century, there have been innumerable, insubstantial and inconsequential "UFO" reports. Are all those not made into official or "famous cases" not "UFO" reports, Don?

    "To become a ufo report requires a collector to tag it as such."
    If you really think that, then you have a very strange and limited view of what constitutes a "UFO" report.

    "Many of the famous cases are like that...no ufo/disc/saucer report, for example Arnold, Rhodes, and Zamora. And some are reports of ufos such as the Kelly Johnson, Ware, Thoren, Wimmer, and Colman report."
    Gee, Don, maybe if your point didn't depend on some arbitary division you're imagined....

    "You are indeed wielding a sword. It's just not very sharp."
    And you, Don, are obviously living... well, let's just say, not in the real world.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 27, 2012  

  • Zoam...

    You're quite mad you know.

    Your argument is so debased by goofy thinking that I choose to ignore it.

    You can respond but I doubt we'll enter that response, as to do so would enable your craziness, and the UFO topic is crazy enough already.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 27, 2012  

  • Zoam, You work so hard at being a stereotype. I recognize you are a troll.

    You wrote: "The credulous Don writes..."

    Nice. A trolling flame. Thanks, sonny. You are such a toughy.

    ***

    The distinction between observers making a ufo report of their observation or, a report of their observation, is lost on many people, I've found.

    The moment of perception of the observer is of interest to me...their impression at first glance.

    However, that sort of interest often leads to tedious work. It requires research and reading of faint and incomplete documentation. It requires some street smarts about the psychology of the collectors official, skeptical, or advocate. It is much easier to simply have a belief, skeptical or advocate, about "ufos" and pontificate on that in forums.

    Bruce, I think, draws a distinction. I understand it this way. There are people for whom reality is inside their minds -- in language, and then there are people who live in the world of external relations.

    Skeptics who make a ufo report always have available the Menzel Exemption "but there was nothing about it that suggested interplanetary!"



    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, April 27, 2012  

  • Bruce writes: "Our friend "Noam"has boxed himself into a comfort zone of language over riding observable phenomenon to the point of language itself / (UFO) is rather a moot point as far as applying any term to these events."

    Thank you, Bruce.

    "When there are as yet no objects."

    When there are as yet no REAL "unidentifieds."

    When there are as yet no "phenomena."

    So far there are only REPORTS (observations of ambiguous stimuli; narrative creations; and their transmission) of events whose most defining common aspect is the mere failure to identify. There's no basis on which to posit a physical hypothesis of any kind, and every reason to explore the Psychosocial origins, history and pathology of the "UFO" delusion.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 27, 2012  

  • I approve of this essay ;)

    Srsly now, pointing out the lack of 'advance' in the external appearance of these objects is great food for thought. We could definitely find many alternative explanations that would no doubt suit our particular perceptions of the reality behind the UFO phenomenon. In the end, as Nick Redfern pointed out in one of his latest contributions to Mysterious Universe, the answer tells more about the person answering the question, than about UFOs themselves.

    Whenever I'm not journeying down the rabbit hole I work as a designer for a living. When you study design you become acutely aware that where in some cases you can find products where a great deal of improvement and innovation are introduced with each passing year --e.g. automobiles or televisions-- while there are those in which the level of improvement is almost negligible, or at the very least a reflection of the time's aesthetics --e.g. chairs and hand-tools like hammers.

    Could it be that after you find the ideal configuration for a flying saucer that you simply can't improve upon perfection?

    Why do we keep observing objects which reflect light in a manner consistent with a metallic structure, when our own modern technology will soon give us advanced composite materials that would surpass the mechanical properties of metals?

    Could it be that these entities are not as obsessed with progress as our current civilization, since progress is just the carrot that keeps the bandwagon of consumerism rolling?

    Could it be that in reality UFOs are closer to the avatars and virtual accessories accessible to players of MMORPGs, and the silver saucer is the Pleiadian equivalent of a sweet epic ride in Worlds of Warcraft?

    Like I said, it's pretty certain these speculations have nothing to do with the ontology of UFOs, which certainly is a catch-all phrase for any kind of unexplained aerial phenomena.

    But it's certainly entertaining to think of the possibilities ;)

    By Blogger Red Pill Junkie, at Monday, April 30, 2012  

  • @ RPJ - The argument about design reaching a peak is one I've made several times. As you say, not all shapes can evolve in design forever.

    For example, I've got a US imported Estwing claw-hammer and it's damn near the design pinnacle for a tool that's been used for hundreds of thousands of years. Balance, utility and aesthetics are all there. In future, the material will change but the design itself will alter very little.

    As for what the alleged disc-craft would be constructed from? Well, *looking* metallic might not mean that were made of metal. In the next few decades, human tech is moving into exotic polymers - lighter, stronger and less finite than actual metals.

    I like the avatars idea, but it took a shift in technology to have the concept available to apply to the UFO phenomena. In that way, some people argue that UFOs mimic or sneak ahead of our technology. Is that really the case or do we only communicate ideas and concepts that are available already?

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012  

  • "I like the avatars idea, but it took a shift in technology to have the concept available to apply to the UFO phenomena. In that way, some people argue that UFOs mimic or sneak ahead of our technology. Is that really the case or do we only communicate ideas and concepts that are available already?"

    Probably the latter. It's the same conundrum that happens when trying to explain the mechanics of magic with the available scientific concepts of a given era; that's why we went from concepts like 'ethereal' to using 'quantum' as the de-facto prefix in New Age speech ;)

    Getting back to the possibility that some UFOs are indeed structured craft, I remember David Biedny at the Paracast making interesting questions about how we like to transfer our concepts of industry and technology to the phenomenon. Skeptics like to point out the great diversity in the shapes and configuration of the objects --domed, flat, oval, ringed, triangular, etc-- as the reason why UFOs couldn't possibly be real, since the logic is that is we're being visited then we would only see a mere handful of given shapes repeated all over the reports. But that's an example of how we assume other civilizations need to follow our exact developing steps, and rely in things like production lines and standardization.

    Using an example taken from pop culture, what if aliens like to construct their own flying saucer, the same way a Jedi knight is required to build its own light saber? ;)

    By Blogger Red Pill Junkie, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012  

  • 'But that's an example of how we assume other civilizations need to follow our exact developing steps, and rely in things like production lines and standardization'

    True. At the same time, I'm guilty of following the same assumption because I think it's reasonable to base ideas on a working rationale. As such, *if* there are unknown exotic craft, it's probable they'd follow some conventions of development based on resource availability and improving standards of design.

    Where I differ with the *exact* view is regarding longevity and time-lines. For instance, an object that retained its functionality might still be used when other models had superseded it. Is that a fair point?

    To extend that notion, a technology spanning hundreds of years could could see current designs in use alongside those from a relatively distant past. In principle, a Model-T Ford could venture down a highway in 200 years from now and a Lancaster bomber could still take to the air.

    The fact that they would be wholly different to other land and air vehicles in year 2200 wouldn't render them figments of imagination or improbable.

    I'm just thinking out loud...

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012  

  • "To extend that notion, a technology spanning hundreds of years could could see current designs in use alongside those from a relatively distant past. In principle, a Model-T Ford could venture down a highway in 200 years from now and a Lancaster bomber could still take to the air.

    The fact that they would be wholly different to other land and air vehicles in year 2200 wouldn't render them figments of imagination or improbable.

    I'm just thinking out loud..."


    It's a valid argument. It reminds me of 'Left At East Gate', and how Larry Warren felt that the pyramidal object he saw materializing in that field was both incredibly advanced and also incredibly ancient :)

    By Blogger Red Pill Junkie, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home