The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Thursday, July 05, 2012

NIck Redfern gets it right, again and again...

Nick Redfern's latest musings on UFOs can be read by clicking HERE

Nick always presents a stable, rational view of he UFO phenomenon. And in this Part One piece, he does just that.

Check it out.

9 Comments:

  • From Nick's article: "Of course, the stubborn, mule-like old geezers of Ufology who are forever stuck in that “ET is visiting us in metal ships to steal our DNA” mentality will tell you that the beliefs of the ancients – concerning the perceived nature of the phenomenon: fairies, demons or whatever- was based on their inability to grasp that they were really seeing visitors from the stars."

    This is 'polemic' and indicates the issue is ideological -- an argument among ufologists.

    This is why I avoid ufology, which has developed the academic characteristic of sniping at competing theories. Mostly, this does not involve UFOs at all. It is about UFO beings. The UFO is merely a set or a prop for the encounter.

    Are there any stories from "the beliefs of the ancients" that involve similar sets or props?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, July 05, 2012  

  • Well, of course, I love Nick, Don...

    He dedicated his Pentagon and Pyramids books to me, and he chastises the UFO geezers, just as I do.

    So Nick can do no wrong.

    (My biases are intact but overt.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 05, 2012  

  • In this, we can easily see that all these images are staged from the imagination are composites of variants as that are prosaic to experience in their normal waking context. I suspect this is the connection to the realm of the surrealists in the arts, whether it is literary or non verbal as in a painting. The issue is the defining prosaic nature of the images at the root of the composites. There is something of a neurological trigger that trips a free associative state of disassociation that seeks an architecture of coherence to perception by the closest match which requires these composite images, which then becomes psychological. When I read Krishnamurti's commentaries on thought being an aftereffect, not thought being the source of thought in of itself, I was struck by how we organize anomalous indirect perception that is normally sublimated by internal chatter in relation to stimulus from without. What of within? These images cross borders in relation to contexts. I do not think they are staged anywhere but in the mind, however, what pulls the trigger to produce lucid dreaming in a waking state? That to me is what this is about. A rare but pervasive undocumented, unstudied, non classified state of perception. Should I chase the old woman I saw in a lucid dream to see where she lives, what are her motives? What if I were awake when this occurred? There is no context at all, so the old school dreams them up, chasing effects as though they were the root of the manifestation, which is ass backward to however this is triggered and produced. This is all much stranger than sociology, etc. We cannot seem to unhitch our bedazzlement from the effects of being manipulated by our own minds, so we believe our own b.s. We hide everything in plain sight. No one needs to do what we do everyday in order to achieve this.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, July 05, 2012  

  • I believe Jacque Vallee also suggested what Mac and Nick suggest . . . but it was back in the day before his name became anathema to many in Ufology.

    His view then (and now?) is the events themselves are nonsensical unless they are staged for the witness(s). He suggested the events might be used as a "control" but by whom and for what purpose was never described.

    Everything old is new again.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Thursday, July 05, 2012  

  • Yes, PG is 100% on the money. Not that PG needs any kind of an affirmation, but the truth is the truth. This ufological Confrontations school of thought is Vallee inspired bigtime. Because Vallee possesses such an imaginative intellect with a truly stunning purposeful design orientation, which has been brought to bear in the most intense of focused scrutinies concerning humanoid contact, his schools of original thought are veritable collective wellsprings for our deep consideration concerning the external agent. The external agent of course being the cloaked puppet master, who's induced experience capitulates all manner of strange or foreign composites as interfaced within the experiencer's perceived reality. AKA, the Messengers of Deception. Vallee believes that the human race could possibly in premeditated fashion control it's reactive feedback as we interface with what he refers to as a hypothetical control system. Thereby allowing us communicative access to facilitate a better understanding, and possibly, even direct contact with the responsible force itself. I personally contend something very similar, however, just like the awesome guy MR. Nick, whom I enjoyed thoroughly talking about his new book on the P/Cast recently, my own view is just one more thirst temporarily quenched by the ever inspiring ufological artesian wellspring that Vallee has afforded us. Personally, I don't think there is an external volition intent on deceiving us, or convincing us of anything in a premeditated specific sense. That however is a matter for a different time. But one things for certain, just like Rob Morphy's last tantalizing tidbit dubbed "pt.1" on MU, I look forward with the truest of zeal to Nick's MU "pt. 2".

    Thanks Rich, this is the good/best and most inspiring stuff of ufology IMO. When it comes right down to it, it seems that it's really not about the UFOs, Elves, Fairies, Demons, or Aliens, it's about us.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, July 05, 2012  

  • J. Allen Hynek, in that interview I noted in the Randle/Monster post, also thought, like Jose Caravaca and others, that an external agent is fooling with us.

    Bruce Duensing thinks we are fooling ourselves, if I'm reading him correctly.

    We are immersed in a reality that eludes us, exactly.

    The fun is trying to decipher the real reality...the Platonic reality.

    Let's keep at it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 05, 2012  

  • Jeff/PG:

    Yep, exactly re Vallee - which is why, in the text of the article, I linked to his Messengers of Deception book. That's, for me, the definitive work on the whole "manipulation"/"staged events" issue.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, July 06, 2012  

  • > the stubborn, mule-like old geezers of Ufology who are forever stuck in that “ET is visiting us in metal ships to steal our DNA” mentality

    The magic words! A mule-like geezer reacts:

    "This reads like the sort of thing you write when you're devoid
    of actual insight and so must fill the vacuum with hand-waving,
    unsupportable speculation, declared - naturally - with utter
    certitude."

    http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2012/jul/m06-004.shtml

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Sunday, July 08, 2012  

  • ||The fun is trying to decipher the real reality...the Platonic reality. Let's keep at it.||

    Your "fun" is in irrationally assuming and pretending some extraordinary identity exists, based solely on reports of the failure to identify--UNidentity.

    And any "real reality" is purely the subject of thought so can only subsist in this one world reality.

    You're chasing illusions: both belief in the "UFO" delusion and belief in an ultimate reality are fundamentally irrational.

    We can only speak meaningfully about the facts of the world.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, July 10, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home