UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, July 16, 2012

What are UFOs looking for?


Sensible persons know that flying saucers and/or UFOs have been reconnoitering the Earth for millennia.

But why?

What are UFOs looking for?

Sure, they’ve gathered water and soil samples if witness accounts can be accepted. And some say they’ve accumulated animal parts, even human beings (temporarily it seems).

But there is no definitive proof or indication showing that UFOs are collecting or actually surveilling anything.

Even the scrutiny of military bases and nuclear facilities, amply documented by Robert Hastings, has been benign….for years now.

And Vallee’s conjecture that UFOs may just be seeking attention suggests an alien psychopathology.

UFO researchers – I use the term loosely – and UFO buffs might discern a pattern in UFO sightings and alleged landings if they (the mavens) really put their minds to it.

But UFO followers are attracted to the sensationalized aspects of UFO sightings, with the modus being overlooked pretty much.

There may be or should be a common factor (or two) in UFO sightings but where are the forensics?

Is there a purpose – even an eternal, long, very long, range purpose -- for the UFO surveys of the Earth?

Are UFOs just a bevy of visiting alien constructs, with nothing to do, other than observe a gaudy planet that houses a panoply of beings who live, struggle, and die, with little to show for their existence: a kind of burlesque that UFOs find entertaining or fascinating in some extraterrestrial, obtuse way?

And why don’t obsessed UFO quidnuncs try to find out why their obsessional interest plies us with a mysterious presence, and has done so for all of human history?

Why are UFOs here? What do they want, if anything?

Or are UFOs just a mindless phenomenon – a gross mental aberration of humankind over the years? A collective, imagined figment of mankind?

RR

52 Comments:

  • Playing the devil's advocate against my own suspicions, assuming we are referring to non human sentient creatures, who are seemingly aimless while flying unknown craft, I could say:
    1. Staged Stimulus. This is a long term study of species psychology in relation to critical thought processes and all the measurable behaviorism this entails. All of our psychological weaknesses are exposed handily, thus revealing our behavioral ticks in relation to problem solving. In other words stagecraft as a stimulus.
    2.A Fuel Depot.The planet is a rich fuel depot of abundant hydrogen for long range explorations, and the pesky critters that over run the place have to be kept off balance. A hands off approach is somewhat comparable to "you break it, you own it"
    3. Exobiology. It is simply intellectual curiosity, a form of ecological study in exobiology. We are simply like fish or bacteria.Could be related to #1.
    Perhaps all three.
    Again , idle speculation that I have little enthusiasm for.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Bruce:

    Your Two and Three register with me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • So easy to ask the questions. Far less easy to answer them. Perhaps they have decided we (Homo sapiens) are a crazy species and need watching.

    But that is the sort of answer one gives to an unanswerable question.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • I'm thinking CDA we're more like a zoo, circus, or insane asylum.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • They probably haven't noticed us.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Distracted by the scenery, or fauna?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Scenery would be too human a possibility. My point is if UFOs are alien someway, then they are alien, so who knows?

    I once had a cat that spent lots of time attending to dripping faucets. I have no idea why.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • LOL. Maybe we're just one big petri dish to them.

    But seriously, way back in the day French researcher Aimee Michel attempted an analysis of sightings in France by time and location and found some rudimentary patterns. He was often referred to by Jacques Vallee in his early works.

    What's desperately missing from today's Ufology is the dispassionate collection of dry boring data about sightings (latitude and longitude for starters) and then the dry, boring statistical analysis of that data.

    Instead, we're focused on the anecdotal and sensational (abductions, Roswell, "orbs", psychic projections, hoaxed images, "disclosure", exopolitics) and not on a routine and standardized method of collecting hard, objective data and then analyzing that data to look for patterns of UFO behavior (don't talk to me about MUFON; I know a MUFON "investigator").

    The antics of the UFO fringe, who've focused on wild-eyed, but unprovable hypotheses, have very likely scared away from Ufology more mainstream and objective potential researchers, to Ufology's detriment, I feel. We have forever marginalized ourselves.

    We won't uncover anything on our own (and there's nobody to blame for this but ourselves). We'll just have to wait for those damn aliens to tell us (and all the world's governments, too, by the way) what they're looking for here.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • PG:

    As usual, you've nailed the essence of the researching problem, and the reason(s) that UFOs remain an enigma.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • I was just about to compare Don and his cat reference to Aime Michel and there's PG throwing him in there already.

    I've been reading some of the recently released MOD UFO reports. One of them led, indirectly, to an unconnected, earlier document by the UK Aviation Authority that also lists a series of reports - some with radar. Metallic objects at FL290?

    It's been a welcome grounding in apparently solid objects flying around after I lost my way (a little) in the weirder wilds of the subject.

    I think, given the data we have, any answer can be applied to your question, but it doesn't mean we stop asking it.

    All that activity in the late 40s and early 50s was attention-grabbing although not necessarily attention-seeking. It's maybe a fine hair to split and yet there's a difference worth underlining.

    If we exchanged 'UFO' for foreign technology, all the reports in and around military bases would take on the aspect of espionage, surveillance and expressions of superiority. Such would apply equally to any nation faced with similar reports.

    The chuckling insanity of humanoid reports seems more of an exploratory agenda. In those cases, if we exchanged 'weird humanoid' for foreign anthropologist, we'd be thinking more along the lines of abstract science and psychology tests.

    The legendary Black Triangles remind me of 'Hitchhiker's Guide' and I sincerely hope we aren't scheduled for an interstellar bypass through our Solar System. Maybe somewhere obscure is a tattered statement of intent and the means of appeal?

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • For what it’s worth . . . the triangle sightings began in earnest right around the time of the first decommissioning of the Blackbird intelligence aircraft. The Blackbird was later recomissioned then taken out of service again.

    That history leads me to believe the triangles are the US intelligence community’s latest ultra high tech aircraft and nothing more. Likely, the triangles got off to a rocky start (ala the F-22) which led to the Blackbird’s being put back in service until the kinks were worked out. I, for one, firmly believe the triangles have a purely terrestrial origin. Others are free to disagree.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Triangles have always struck me as too conventional to be listed as a UFO.

    Earthian craft surely account for most, if not all, sightings of triangular vehicles.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Although there were no triangle shaped UFOs reported during the 1947 wave that I'm aware of, a common formation was three UFOs in a V or triangle formation.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • And your point, Don, in the context of my posting's question, or just your point generally?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • No point to your question, Rich, but the discussion about reported triangle-shaped UFOs and what they might be. What was observed in 1947 may have conformed to the public interpretation of the era: that saucers were disk-shaped, and very often seen in formations with others.

    There may not have been a change in observation over about 40 years, but a change in interpretation of what was observed.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Don:

    While I often churn about witness memories, I do think that when someone describes a UFO sighting, they pretty much nail their observation; that is, they describe rather well what they saw.

    U.K. researcher I admire, David Clarke, provided a Facebook link for a sighting that the MoD released and which he remembered from when he was a kid:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18798867

    The Dyfed children in the video are not liars or hoaxers and they describe, as best as they can, what they observed.

    They are articulate and smart kids.

    They saw what they think they saw.

    No interpretation, just a set of observations.

    There are no changes of interpretation over the 40 years you cite.

    The UFOs changed.

    Triangles are misidentified craft, that's all -- not UFOs, then or now.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Rich wrote: Triangles are misidentified craft, that's all -- not UFOs, then or now.

    Ah, yes. Triangles must be an ET landmine. One never knows.

    I'm really tired of it and move on.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Don:

    You can't move on. You're as tethered to the UFO nonsense as I am, and CDA is, and Lance Moody is, and Jerry Clark, too, among many others.

    UFOs are an idee fixe for you and the rest of us.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 16, 2012  

  • Kandinsky wrote: "I was just about to compare Don and his cat reference to Aime Michel..."

    My cat didn't seem beyond my comprehension. She was just inscrutable sometimes.

    Ufology defines its task as identifying UFOs. It is in the business of separating the sheep from the goats, as PG wrote.

    This is behavior learned from the AF. I see no reason I should follow that path. What has it achieved in 65 years?

    According to Kevin Randle (and apparently all advocates and skeptics), Maury Island was a hoax, therefore case closed and lets move on folks. But I linger over it despite the guides telling me to "Stay with the group".

    Who was Mr Mitchell, I ask. Did any of you guys find out?

    No answer.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • The (visiting) Maury Island Mitchells:

    Mitchell, Catherine A., 144 Fairbank Rd., Riverside, Ill.

    Mitchell, Dr. Walton I., Paonia, Delta County, Colo.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • My mistake Rich, Matthews, not Mitchell.

    "At the noon luncheon of the Advertising Club, in Boise, Idaho, I was asked to recount my original observation of flying discs. I mentioned what I'd heard concerning the men in Tacoma, and Mr Matthews, one of the members, told me after the luncheon that he knew Mr. Dahl personally, knew he was reliable, and had worked with him for several years on the Harbor Patrol. Until then I had not put any real credence into the report." (Fate, Spring, 1948. Page 32. The Mystery Of The Flying Disks)

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Geez, Don...

    You can't suggest a name that isn't the one you're interested in.

    Trying to get information ends up being a waste of effort and time.

    It discourages further aid.

    (Sloppy thought processes are not your usual procedure.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • I broke my rule: don't post a comment until you've finished your first cup of coffee.

    Maury Island is a hoax, and two boys wrapping a piece of cardboard in foil, gluing a radio tube and a 4th of July sparkler onto it, and sailing it into the neighbor's garden is a hoax.

    Ufology sees no difference. They aren't real UFOs (you know, a 'Trufo'), therefore case closed.

    Neither is ufology interested in crazy-sounding stuff like salt intolerant Italian leprechauns who serve up pancakes in their flying saucer.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Don...

    You and I (and a few others who visit here) have got to eschew the ufology milieu.

    Those who dwell inside that milieu, the UFO old-guard (the geezers), are locked in their own botched template.

    And that said (again), let me suggest a New Yorker piece in the current (July 9th/16th) issue: Listen and Learn (about the TED -- ted.com -- Conferences).

    The article notes, as Jerry Clark has at UpDates, that precedents should not be overlooked or discounted.

    The difference is that Clark and the UFO geezers see their precedental work as sacred and unflawed.

    It is neither.

    But those old cases harbor clues and truths about UFOs that can still be mined.

    Taking the cases, shorn of the geezer interpretations, may lead us to new-thinking about what UFOs were or are.

    Stripping the biases of the geezers, who have never been objective, one can find, I think, grist to work with.

    As the New Yorker article points out but doesn't demand -- "The most vibrant ideas...depend on precedent for structure: in order to understand...C...,you must be aware of A and B." {Page 76]

    But that means "precedent" has to be pure -- or nearly so.

    The geezer crowd worked with and bolstered muddy precedents, as one can see by reading the early work of Clark, Randle, et al.

    But we shouldn't scrap those early UFO accounts because they are tainted.

    We should dig at them until we find what nuggets they hold....Maury Island among them, and Roswell, Socorro, and others too.

    You don't want to fool with such things so you keep calling for everyone to move on or away.

    That reminds me of a guy who sat with our group at a coffee shop years ago, who at a designated hour, had to get home to his wife.

    He wanted us all to disperse, because he had to.

    He didn't want the discussions and camaraderie to go on since he couldn't participate.

    Therefore, we, you suggest, should give up our crazy hypothesizing.

    That's not going to happen.

    UFOs are a fecund field for discussion, silly and otherwise.

    Minus the geezers and move-aways, it can be worthwhile, perhaps. Not essential, but worthwhile in some small way.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • RRR et al.

    I feel I must point out here that both young Vallee and young Clark, while laying about the northern suburbs of Chicago in the early 1970s (perhaps influenced by association with the ex Blue Book consultant/NU Prof. J. Allen Hynek) pointed out the occurrence of 'UFO' reports throughout history.

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Rich, I do not want to do anything in ufology, or change how ufologists think or what they do. What I want is information, and the information I want is not something they've collected, afaict. So, I have to look elsewhere, find it myself.

    Ufology wants to identify "Trufos" and, usually, signs of ETishness. In fact, I think by definition a "Trufo" means "ET".

    Other kinds of Ufology have their own narrow-beam goals.

    What these ufologies have in common is a lack of context -- real world, historical context. Ufologists are only interested in UFOs. If there is any historical contextualization it is generated by the UFO (that technology, agency, person did/didn't exist then). Roswell could have happened in 1977, and Socorro in 1954 for all one can tell from their articles and books.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Don,

    As my former History professor, Mr. Rudesill at WSU, pounded into us -- Context is everything -- your point is well-taken.

    But I see UFOs as universal phenomena -- context is total, not limited to human time-frames.

    The Socorro sighting needs context because we see it as a misinterpreted lunar landing test.

    Roswell doesn't need context. It was a non-other-worldly accident or event.

    It's perspective that's required for such sightings not context.

    You want to overlay an historical patina or reference. And I don't that applies in UFO cases,

    Yes, the time period may influence how witnesses address or explain what they experienced, but the thing or things seen transcend that context, or should.

    UFOs lie outside context, outside history, even those that impacted early religious ideologies.

    You write: Roswell could have happened in 1977, and Socorro in 1954 for all one can tell from their articles and books.

    Your point makes my point.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Rich wrote: "But I see UFOs as universal phenomena -- context is total, not limited to human time-frames."

    Yes, that is an interest in UFOs. My interest is in how did it become possible for you to express such a concept. That begins with Kenneth Arnold.

    No Arnold and what you would be doing is collecting Forteana.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • UFOs or flying saucers are a subset of Fortean phenomena.

    One makes an intellectual or thoughtful extrapolation of that subset, without a need for Arnold.

    Media merely did the work for me/us.

    The subset blossomed, but that was bound to happen, whether Arnold's sobriquet was employed or not.

    As a matter of fact, Arnold's tag was replaced by the letters UFO.

    So I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

    UFOs sprang forth, as if from the head of Zeus.....Arnold, Rhoades, et al. played minor roles,

    No one was the progenitor of the phenomenon.....not even Fort.

    UFOs were and are, like God, omnipresent.

    Context is a hoary thing you've gotten yourself trapped in, as I've noted many times before.

    You've created a straw man or, rather, a tar baby, from which you can't extricate yourself.

    Like the ET enthusiasts, you've created your own dilemma.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Rich wrote: "UFOs or flying saucers are a subset of Fortean phenomena."

    In 1947, Fort is content. I wish he weren't. It would make understanding the relationships easier, as in A influenced B. Instead, it turns out both A and B were influenced by C -- Charles Fort.

    Who, among the major players in those early saucer days, hadn't read Fort? Thus, I agree with you, at least that the saucers are 'Fortean'. Of course, they were.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Fort, Don, was an arcane author; that is, he was a writer, like Lovecraft, who was read by Sci-Fi cognoscenti, not the general public -- as is the case even today.

    Flying saucers didn't come forth from Fort's writings, which were not part of the reading majority's book choices.

    You are projecting your mind-set on the masses, and even those who became interested in flying saucers.

    I started a Flying Saucer Club at my high school, which became a credited school activity.

    Neither I nor anyone else ever read Fort then or knew about his oeuvre.

    For researchers Fort is a gold-mine of odd things, some of which may be seen as UFOs.

    Aubeck and Vallee's book, Wonders in the Sky, show that UFOs were plentiful over the vast history of mankind.

    1947 was favorable for a public interest: Cold War jitters and a plethora of sightings that caught the public's eye(s), and media's too.

    The confluence of society's war nerves and the actual appearance of strange things in the sky made flying disks what they were and what they've become: not Fort's minutiae, or Arnold's bizarre sighting.

    UFOs have a life of their own, whatever they are.

    There is no need for context or historical reference or ufological interest which was lame early on.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • "Flying saucers didn't come forth from Fort's writings, which were not part of the reading majority's book choices.

    You are projecting your mind-set on the masses, and even those who became interested in flying saucers."

    Just about every source for the timeframe I study (1947-1952, more or less) mentions Charles Fort. If any writer refers to the existence of UFOs previous to the 1947 Wave, they reference Fort. Keyhoe, Scully, Palmer, Layne, Arnold, not to mention Project Saucer's reports, which probably got Fort from the CIC.

    And who were Palmer, Keyhoe (and his editor, Ken Purdy), and Scully but writers of pop fiction and faction?

    For that matter weren't Desmond Leslie and Tiffany Thayer, Hollywood scriptwriters?

    I think it possible Silas Newton read Fort, and might have known him.

    "Neither I nor anyone else ever read Fort then or knew about his oeuvre."

    That's because you weren't professionals. The pros did.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Don, you're a history maven. You know that the "pros" don't determine the cultural milieu.

    That's why I specifically used the term cognoscenti.

    And your pros weren't writing for the great unwashed. Gabriel Heater, Walter Winchell, Dorothy Kilgallen, Hedda Hopper et al. were the writers being read....not Fort, not Keyhoe.

    You are creating giants from the persons you read or find interesting.

    You re projecting your values on the hoi polloi.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Rich, the very concept of a flying saucer club could not exist if it weren't for the people I named.

    I haven't made a list of syndicated columnists who referred to Fort. I wonder if Murrow did.

    Besides 'context', the historian considers 'directionality'.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • I'm missing what you're trying to say, Don.

    A Flying Saucer Club or flying saucers sprung from the media coverage of what was being seen.

    That the things being seen were called flying saucers doesn't matter.

    If they had been called "Things in the Sky," I would have called the club The Things in the Sky Club.

    And Keyhoe would have called his book, The Things in the Sky Are Real.

    I don't get your insistence that Arnold and the writers who noted the Things in the Sky were responsible for the Things themselves.

    That's ludicrous.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Rich wrote: "I don't get your insistence that Arnold and the writers who noted the Things in the Sky were responsible for the Things themselves.

    That's ludicrous."

    Yes, it is. It is really baffling that that's what you think I mean.

    After four years of attempting to communicate with the ufo community (I include sketics), I give up.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • Don,

    Don't give up. Just clarify.

    You have a tautology that just doesn't make sense to those of us with thick heads.

    Your view or views are lost in a fixation that no one else can see.

    Your obligation is to make us see or understand your view.

    You can't expect me (or others) to make sense of your views.

    That's your job.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 17, 2012  

  • "Your obligation is to make us see or understand your view."

    Nope.

    Quote what I wrote that needs clarifying. In which case I would be happy to do so. Your alternative appears to be thinking I was insisting "that Arnold and the writers who noted the Things in the Sky were responsible for the Things themselves."

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, July 18, 2012  

  • Don:

    When I worked with psychiatric patients at Eloise Hospital in Michigan (Wayne County), they often (usually) spoke gibberish.

    Out of compassion I and others tried to decipher their needs and crazy talk.

    Is that what we have to do with your views?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 18, 2012  

  • Rich wrote: "Is that what we have to do with your views?"

    No. As I wrote, if something I've written is unclear and you want me to clarify it, then quote it and I will clarify it for you.

    You want me to guess what you find unclear. Why should I do that when all you have to do is what I just wrote in the preceding sentence?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, July 18, 2012  

  • "What these ufologies have in common is a lack of context -- real world, historical context. Ufologists are only interested in UFOs. If there is any historical contextualization it is generated by the UFO (that technology, agency, person did/didn't exist then). Roswell could have happened in 1977, and Socorro in 1954 for all one can tell from their articles and books."

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 18, 2012  

  • Triangular UFOs aren't UFOs. They are aircraft. There is no connection between triangular UFOs and triangular or V formations of UFOs because triangular UFOs aren't UFOs. They are aircraft.

    "Ufologists are only interested in UFOs."

    No founders or members of a Flying Saucer Club in, I'd guess, the late 1950s, ever read or even heard of Charles Fort.

    But nearly every source about the saucers available to the public came from people who had heard of or read Charles Fort. Founders of saucer clubs in, say 1957, were immersed in Forteana before they knew it existed or what it meant.

    Roswell: Two examples of historical context in Roswell witness statements that strongly indicate the summer of 1947 are Bill Brazel's, that his father went to Roswell to buy a Jeep pickup truck, and Loretta Proctor's, that she and her husband didn't visit Brazel because they were concerned about tires and gasoline. There's not much else, I think.

    People our age may not notice the absence of historical context in UFO books and boilerplate opinion on blogs because we fill in what we know has to be there. Today's 30 year old UFO enthusiast was born in the early 1980s. Giving them an historical perspective would help them evaluate the incidents. It is something I've suggested you do regarding the press. Just how did newspapers go about reporting a UFO story in 1947? 1957? 1967? Can you recommend some recondite autobiography, 'My 40 years As A Small Town Newspaper Science And Aviation Editor'?

    For the 30 year old those three years might as well be 1847, 1857, 1867 -- and in time and soon enough they will be that long past. What is written about is always 'the past' to those who read it.

    I don't think there is a good excuse for you to misunderstand me except that communication between people via computer encourages discontinuity. After three years of email and blog posting, you should have a pretty good idea what I mean by 'historical context'. Online, if archive replaces memory, then it is up to us to access the archive and achieve continuity.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, July 18, 2012  

  • Holy Cheese, Don...

    I get your fixation on historical context, but it is meaningless.

    You are zeroing in on gnats, when elephants are running amok in the UFO community.

    The daily minutiae of Brazel and Proctor -- tires and gasoline -- merely muddies the waters.

    Some small clues may be pertinent but your examples are not.

    That you think the writings of Fort impacted the general public and journalists of the day is just screwy.

    Your interest in such and your perception the Pros were well versed in Foteana is an errant projection.

    Again, I see your lock on such trivia as keeping you from the big picture.

    You've fixated not even on the trees in the forest but rather a few dandelions.

    I respect your accumulation of important, unseen items from the 1947/50s time-frame, but your thinking that the social history impacts the UFO phenomenon is just loopy.

    And I say that in the context of our ongoing "friendship."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, July 18, 2012  

  • They aren't looking for anything. The phenomenon bheind it all is staging events to perpetuate a "UFO/ET meme."

    That's the point of the "aliens taking soil samples" type stories that were once so prevalent.

    Aliens weren't taking soil samples. The phenomenon staged the events and the whole point was to have the witnesses see the event - thus reinforcing the ET angle.

    The point of encounters and events in Ufology is that the phenomenon wants to be seen and interpreted in a particular fashion according to the people of the era (aliens, goblins, demons etc).

    Why? That's the big question...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, July 18, 2012  

  • "Your Two and Three register with me."

    Rich,
    Ask yourself why. Be brutally honest. Ultimately, IMO, it can be summed up in one word, which as a catalyst in and of itself, acts as a basic well spring for perception based conjecture.

    "What's desperately missing from today's Ufology is the dispassionate collection of dry boring data about sightings (latitude and longitude for starters) and then the dry, boring statistical analysis of that data."

    PG
    Ask yourself why you perceive this approach as a "desperately missing". Honestly, and indeed sincerely, I believe the root impetus is again this one word summary in projected motive/s.


    cda,
    Is it not logical to assume that if the question is one that cannot be answered, maybe it's the premise that's utterly misunderstood?

    "They aren't looking for anything. The phenomenon behind it all is staging events to perpetuate a "UFO/ET meme."

    Nick,
    Please allow me the liberty to ask you a question with the greatest of respect:

    Apart from any hypothetical motives, what evidence can you point to that supports the notion that there is an external deceptive volition responsible for that which human beings observe in relation to the overall UFO phenomena?

    To understand where I am coming from here, read cda's initial response in this thread. Then, please refer to my standing on basic premise.

    Jeff

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Jeff:

    The question in the title suggests motivation.

    If there is none, we are dealing with an alien psychopathology, or our own projected pathology.

    To move aimlessly for millennia is psychotic, even without a clear idea of an alien mind-set.

    To interpret such aimlessness as scenario is also psychotic.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Jeff:

    Evidence? There's not a single bit of it. If there was (and that goes for any theory) none of us would be debating these things because there would be no need.

    I think (and, granted, thinking is not proving) that there is a strong body of evidence that is highly suggestive that many cases are staged and "set up" for the witness, rather than being random events.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Almost everyone knows how much I love Nick Redfern...

    But if UFO encounters are staged events, those staging are dangerously psychotic, even taking into account a lacuna of understanding when it comes to the alien mind-set....if there is a mind.

    (Staging and vehicular travel hint at a mind and a mind-set so I think I'm on solid ground in broaching the psychotic mental condition of the UFO progenitors.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Rich and all Iconoclasts

    That one word which I believe to be the greatest stumbling block with respect to the UFO mystery is ego.

    Certainly not in the slang "arrogance" sense of the term, but rather in an ideal center sense of the meaning. Human ego, centric to a distinguished identity and this being projected outward as a part of our complex interpretive survival mechanism.

    In short, with respect to anomalous phenomena:

    ego = personification in both the single sense (characteristic)and the group sense, (the human institution) on which we depend for interpretation's sake in accordance with basic id based survival insticts. A descriptive survival mechanism. I contend that the basic premise of the phenomena is confused as a result of this type of projective analysis.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Perhaps, Jeff...

    Or UFOs are an objective, Cartesian reality -- with motivations, an agenda, or purpose -- alien purpose but purpose nonetheless.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 19, 2012  

  • Rich,
    Nothing I have eluded to here negates an objective reality. Possibly a far and away previously misunderstood reality, but that doesn't do away with the notion of an absolute objectivity. Dualism, and indeed René Descartes' philosophical basics would seem, and are in fact, supportive rather than a detraction for the notion of a flawed premise based within our interpretive personification. At least it is IMO.

    Your question was an utterly fascinating one Rich. What are UFOs looking for? Or, just as importantly, what are UFOs not looking for?

    If they were looking for attention, they're certainly playing "hard to get".

    If they're looking to convince humankind of something, they'd certainly go broke in the used car business, and politics is utterly out of the question.

    In fact, as you so aptly point out, if they had the slightest inkling of what might be likened to our human understanding or motive oriented systematics, the planet Earth itself must be their personal insane asylum because they don't make one damn bit of sense.

    Thus, and quite logically, it's OUR PREMISE with respect to basic human perception THAT'S FLAWED. This is precisely why one cannot limit "Ufology" to the dry and mundane notion of statistical uptake. Has it not proved itself AMPLY, to be an absolute and unequivocal waste of time? Iconoclastically speaking, you bet! :-)

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

  • Jeff...

    I'm of the school that doesn't think human perception is (generally) flawed.

    It may be misinterpreted sometimes, but, over all, what we discern with our senses is what is real.

    Why ufology has failed, comes from the desire of ufologists to make a mark, to become "famous" or noted, as it were, thus they resort to hyperbole and sensationalizing to get noticed, screwing up sightings and UFO events accordingly.

    Have you noticed the propensity for UFO mavens and researchers to don cowboy hats and western gear?

    They think that gives them wholesome credibility.

    It's those goofs that have ruined UFO research, not human perception.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 20, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home