UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Gods can’t die and UFOs can’t contain visiting extraterrestrials

Theologically, Gods are eternal; they can’t die and don’t die.

But Jesus died, for three days. Yet even three seconds would eviscerate theological reasoning.

I have proclaimed my belief that God is dead, but that’s the god beneath God, the demiurge (Yahweh). The Almighty and Eternal intelligence that begot our universe and existence cannot die and is not dead, or so I believe (and my Jesuit teachers taught me in seminary).

Concomitant reasoning, as offensive as it may be to some who visit this blog, forces me to eschew the so-called ETH, the thinking that UFOs contain visitors from outer space or alien worlds.

The crushing account of UFOs, reported over the years (past and present), and the diverse configurations (shapes/nature) of them, and the multiple descriptions of “beings” encountered within or outside crafts that are assume to be landed UFOs, stretches credulity.

The odds against multiple diverse alien civilizations and many kinds of flying vehicles, with a panoply of crews as bizarre or unrelated as evolution should allow are so great that it causes for a dismissal of the UFO ET explanation as I’ve been harping on lately (for which I apologize, but the UFO topic has created a kind of narcolepsy for some of us).

UFOs, like dead Gods, have to be explained by reasons other than those proffered by the so-far exegetical ramblings of ufologists, me included.

There is a lethargy in UFO circles, other than the energetic escapades of Nick Redfern and the morbid insistence by Kevin Randle that Roswell remains pertinent..

The resolute UFO proponents, some who force a yawn or comment here, are few and far between.

New-think is not evident anywhere in the UFO universe; old visions and thoughts are regurgitated, by me too (to the dismay of a few whose discourse is even more putrid that the rehashing I, and others, engage in).

The UFO phenomenon can’t be re-invigorated, admittedly, by such relapses that occur here and all over the UFO landscape, yet what else is there?

Ufologists and UFO buffs are an intellectually lame lot, and attempts by a few to stir them to vigorous thinking about UFOs are undercut by a need to just be recognized, which Facebook, the worst offender, offers. Many one-time UFO enthusiasts are glommed together at Facebook venues where they live in the swill of platitudinous and insipid “likes” and commentary. That satisfies them.

But authentic UFO zealots need more.

Otherwise ufology and the UFO mystery will go the way of the Woolly Mammoth, if it hasn’t already.

God is dead, Jesus too, and UFOs are next? I think so.

RR

13 Comments:

  • So your saying what a lot of people witness all over the world seeing, hearing is all make believe, no aliens? People who come forward with stories about being abducted by ET's...it's not real?

    I'm a Christian woman, I've never experienced anything paranormal or seen a UFO myself, that I know of. But in my heart I truly believe that some people in this world are witnessing exactly what they say they are. I can't explain it, nor understand why certain people experience seeing UFO's and others don't. It's who we are as human beings, we always want to know more, and hopefully that day will be sooner rather than later. :)

    By Blogger Ashley Jenkins, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • Ashley:

    If you've been following me here, at the blog, you know I always write that people report, rather accurately, what they witness.

    The question is "What are they seeing?"

    It's not ET craft....but what?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • People reporting accurately what they witness? Now that is hard to believe...

    By Blogger scherben, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • Scherben:

    I would hope that you and Ashley might see my postings about this, over the years (here and elsewhere).

    People report, rather accurately, what they witness or see, taking into account the vicissitudes of memory and sensory quirks.

    People aren't blind or deaf or mentally disabled, as I see it.

    They report what they perceive and do so with uncommon accuracy. pretty much.

    To disavow that flies in the face of reality and historical records, flawed as they may be some details or minutiae.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • So the whole reams of research that show the unreliability of eyewitness accounts and memory are to be discounted? https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=unreliability+of+eyewitness+testimony&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1u_DvltLLAhWDORQKHXFEDVQQgQMIGjAA

    From the UFO perspective, Kecksberg and Rendlsham are rather good examples of 'reliable' eyewitness testimony.

    By Blogger scherben, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • Witness accounts get murkier and murkier as time goes buy, confabulating takes place and memory intrusions alter accounts, all of which I've covered over and over again, rather thoroughly, earlier here.

    But initial witness testimony can be relied upon with the usual caveats about misperceptions; the core of the accounts intact nonetheless and rather accurate.

    See postings, here, and commentary, a few weeks back about this, regarding the Chiles-Whitted case.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • "The question is "What are they seeing?"

    It's not ET craft....but what?"

    The fact that eye-witness reports from the 1940's differ compared to what people claim to see today raises many questions as to what the phenomenon is. We started with foo fighters, then ghost rockets, and then hard shelled metallic disk like spacecraft complete with landing gear and humanoid looking creatures (or robots), and have passed through the era of abductions, massive triangles and chevron shaped wings to something today that seems more like orbs or translucent ghost lights that blink on and off or skip through the sky.

    No one is reporting the traditional 1950-60's classic UFO's which started the entire discussion in the first place.

    I believe Rich is right when he chastises Ufologists for hanging on to their classic beliefs when the phenomenon clearly has passed that stage and requires new thinking and hypothesis. I don't care what hypotheses people conjecture, but the traditional space fairing alien doesn't seem to fit anymore. Might I suggest a few radical alternatives?

    1) A hitherto misunderstood psychological abnormality that's akin to a rare disease?

    2) Artificial intelligence from beyond or even created by man right here on earth?

    3) Paranormal phenomenon akin to ghosts, spirits, or other such things perhaps even intelligent yet indigenous and unseen?

    4) The fallen angelic spirits referenced in Scripture who seek to torment humankind with unrelenting deception of every kind?

    5) Human covert black budget projects with technology too radical to disclose at this time?

    Perhaps, or maybe not. But the classic study of UFO's is really dead and has run its course. Yet there seems no new concepts offered by traditional proponents who cling to their old notions like a sailor and his crate lost at sea.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger hessdalen lights, at Monday, March 21, 2016  

  • Well, that's quite a gnostic approach to a modernist problem:)

    By Blogger theo paijmans, at Tuesday, March 22, 2016  

  • Taking one example: "and JAL 1628 (1986, 3 pilots, UFO observed during more than 40 mn...)."

    Only pilot Terauchi reported seeing--not a "UFO"--but two unambiguously extraterrestrial "scoutships" and afterwards a "giant mothership." And this was only after landing! At no time during the event did he ever describe what he imagined he was seeing, and never is there any conversation among the three crewmen or ground radar operators about what Terauchi later claimed he saw. When asked, copilot Tamefuji said all he saw was "some lights" far ahead, the colors of normal airplane lights. Navigator Tsukuba said he was not in a position to see much but "might have" seen a light momentarily through a small overhead window.

    So three men did NOT see a "UFO" for forty minutes. One known "flying saucer" obsessed REPEATER imagined "scoutships" out of distant lights ahead and then a "giant mothership" out of darkness behind. And at no time did radar ground clutter coincide with Terauchi's imaginary "spaceships," again, his words.

    And two planes diverted to intercept JAL 1628 reported that there was NOTHING THERE except it, period. And FAA records show nothing but an echo of JAL 1628 itself off of a mountain fifty miles behind.

    "The length of the list of cases whith credible witnesses reporting acurately weird things is quite amazing..."

    So you want to believe anyway, but the case of JAL 1628 does not belong on such a list. My guess is that each and every case on such a list is equally baseless because human perception, conception and reporting is notoriously fallible and because "UFO" reports are made within a culturally defined myth and delusion.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, March 25, 2016  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger hessdalen lights, at Friday, March 25, 2016  

  • He considers it more credible because it's backed up by reams of peer reviewed, repeated scientific data, rather than hackneyed sci-fi tropes that 'curiously' refuse to leave even a shred of evidence behind.

    By Blogger scherben, at Friday, March 25, 2016  

  • "Ok, let's say we don't have the declarations of the two other pilots."

    Not only did the copilot and navigator not support Terauchi's hysterical episode and confabulation, that and all the other evidence proves that none of multi-time repeater Terauchi's flying-saucer fairy tale was real. It never happened.

    Just think about it: A man is flying a multi-million dollar aircraft loaded with French wine halfway around the world. After flying all day and night, somewhere over Alaska he decides to try flying in a circle to shake an imaginary "giant mothership" off his tail.

    He's exhausted and having an hysterical episode; and it expresses itself in the motifs of the culturally supplied "UFO" myth.

    Terauchi was later under a doctor's care and expressed great sadness and regret at ever being a "UFO" believer, calling his belief in "flying saucers" an "illusion."


    Scherben's right; I'm not making any extraordinary claims, the people telling "spaceship" stories are, and the people who believe that the catalogue of sketchy "UFO" anecdotes amount to something extraordinary, even otherworldly, are.

    Your burden, as an advocate for a "UFO" reality, is to show that it's true. Falsify the Null hypothesis, which says that no extraordinary stimulus is required to explain all "UFO" reports. Produce veracious evidence of real "UFOs" of any kind.

    That's the way the world works, advocates must demonstrate the truth of their claims by testing them, attempting to falsify them even if only in theory.

    You're in the unfortunate position of having your hypothesis falsified with every "UFO" report since 1896 since NEVER was any extraordinary stimuli required to explain why people made such reports.

    In other words, you must falsify over a century of historical data which demonstrates conclusively that people have made all kinds of "UFO" reports in the complete absence of extraordinary stimuli of any kind.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 01, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home