UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Narrow thinking [redux]

Let me re-iterate my grumpiness with how ufologists, UFO buffs think (some of them)…

When I suggest – half-heartedly – that insects (bees, ants, et cetera) or plants may have evolved into intelligent, space or time traveling species, I make the supposition based upon premises that are untied to how evolution has worked here, on Earth, the Darwinian theory.

If other living, intelligent entities – elsewhere (in time or another dimension or universe) – arose, and were able to maneuver in and out of their existent framework, they would very likely have evolved to do so along different lines than what species here did.

So, countering my speculations (and those of others, like Gerald Heard) with sidebars about the vicissitudes of evolution on planet Earth are unimaginative and intellectually febrile.

The course of advancement by possible – possible! – species off Earth would not be dictated by the factors involved with evolution here.

To bring in commentary here, that is constrained by the environmental circumstances of Earth is non-think. Quit it.

I’m hoping for really out-of-the-box comments and thinking, not a showcase for what readers here think is relevant, based upon information and learning that is old-school and moribund.

For AI, read everything you can, not just a few things that narrow your focus to the point of intellectual idiocy.

And do that with everything else: work around narrow, uncreative mind-sets. UFO study, and a lot of other things deserve the effort(s).



  • RR,

    If you look too far out of the box you may find yourself in the absurd.

    This blog has already gone out of box but more commonly in a thoughtful way:

    UFOs being time travelers, other space time/worm hole travel possibilities, relating to thus unknown dimensions, to quantum issues (or relating to unknown aspects thereof that may lead back to dimensional aspects), dark matter, the matrix thoughts (I find absurd), and the recent AI considerations...all nonsense if you want to believe some but conjecture worth its consideration by those of us who have had their own observations.

    But then again, unlike some, I'm certainly not suggesting that there is nothing else to be learned. Oh, and while you apparently don't, I'm still interested hopeful with SETI's efforts.


    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Monday, May 30, 2016  

  • Rich: "To bring in commentary here, that is constrained by the environmental circumstances of Earth is non-think. Quit it."

    I understand what your asking, but some of us, primarily me, require some sort of frame of reference if we are to hypothesize about something that is basically unknowable. So looking at species on our planet and past evolutionary pathways provides that needed frame of reference.

    The concept of species adaptation is most relevant in this area of conjecture. For example, how does an advanced insect-like species adapt with or without an exoskeleton? What constitutes or defines insect-like species on another world? Perhaps advanced use of pheromones as a means of communication is feasible, similar to what we see in bees (as well as purposeful body movements, ie, bee dance.)

    Despite my examples, this all comes from reviewing what we have on our planet...as a frame of reference...a starting point. Otherwise we get foolish thoughts of space faring hamsters or gold fish merely from pulling such thoughts out of our asses.

    That would make you grumpier...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, May 30, 2016  

  • Bryan and Tim:

    You fellows are fecund with imagination, I'm thinking (hoping).

    You need a sci-fi like creativity to offer suppositions that can derive a credible possibility for UFOs and those creatures or humanoids often provided with them.

    Those dumb Science, Destination America, and History channels do that all the time, using "writers" who aren't half as smart as most of the readers here.

    It doesn't seem difficult to me that someone can come up with a scenario or scenarios that provide possible explanation for some of the oddities that are rife in UFO and paranormal lore, explanations that don't rely on the parameters of Earth's Darwinian Theory of Quantum's goofy but well-defined machinations.

    UFOs remain an enigma because they are outside the realm of reality as we know it.

    Thus, we have to pursue an explanation also outside the reality as we know it.

    The frame of reference has to be new, outrageous, and unique.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 30, 2016  

  • Good evening,

    I am following these various threads about Ai, intelligent plants, contradicting eyewitness descriptions of the same scene and so on.

    It is very surprising that nobody ever mentioned an instrumental observation project. I mentioned this several times in the past
    and some merely concluded that such a project would fail.

    Just speculating about eyewitness descriptions will lead us to nothing as such descriptions will be always questionable.

    So for me "thinking out of the box" is a field observation project. If we consider the UFO subject "unstudiable" scientifically,
    it is time to give up and switch to more productive hobbies.

    Let's make a few observations:

    What we call the "UFO phenomenon" is in reality a vast amount of different phenomena, most of them well known, that we
    lump together. The only common denominator is that they were not properly identified by the witnesses or investigator.

    A few of these reports are really very intriguing and these deserve serious scrutiny. Are these describing the same phenomenon ? Probably not.

    Now, the tough part. How can we prove the AI hypothesis ? By studying eyewitness reports? This has already be done to death
    for "proving" the ETH hypothesis and nothing that withstand scientific scrutiny has come from that. The main reason is the
    reliability of eyewitness testimony.

    For my own earth light research project, I am waiting that sightings where the description are balls of light or other luminous phenomena seen near the ground. I then go to the sighting locations to do field observation. Granted, that may take several years before success as pure luck is involved here.

    Best regards,


    By Blogger Rare phenomena lover, at Monday, May 30, 2016  

  • @ Rich

    I don't think we can easily conclude the truly unexplainable incidents are the result of just a single phenomenon or agent (intelligent or otherwise).

    I won't repeat everything I mentioned in prior posts, but clearly the phenomenon is a combination of several things yet unknown to us.

    We know that three people who experience the same event can describe it differently. This doesn't help matters.

    No doubt the people describing the event are influenced by something they have previously experienced or for which they hold a strong belief.

    For example, if three people see the same object and each describes it differently, what are we to make of that?

    One witness is an aviation buff and describes a metallic flying machine with small oddly shaped wings.

    One witness who recently lost a loved one claims the object was shaped like a stereotypical angel complete with robe and wings.

    One witness who watches too many Ghost Hunters reruns claims the object was a floating transparent orb that displayed intelligent spirit-like characteristics.

    I don't think we can rule out the psychological when it comes to these sightings. I don't mean the witnesses are deluded, schitzophrenic, or suffering from chronic mental disease, but rather the explanation for what they see can vary to such a degree that it's hard to get a handle on exactly what they saw.

    This limits our "outside the box" thinking.

    All things being equal, I doubt what people have seen originates from another planet in some other part of the Milky Way.

    And since our planetary explorations have not proven these objects originate within our own solar system, I'm inclined to believe the phenomenon is more indigenous with a myriad of earthly explanations.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Tuesday, May 31, 2016  

  • I pretty much agree with your view(s) Brian....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 31, 2016  

  • Just because you asked, here's more outside the box thinking. Found it on Anomalist this morning.


    Which leads to this:



    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Wednesday, June 01, 2016  

  • Bryan...

    You miss one of my points which is that UFO buffs should be well-read and not just rely upon internet links.

    I use links myself but make sure to supplement the information with substantive magazine and book content.

    I also read critical reviews of the ideas presented here and elsewhere.

    One has to be well-read or scholarly to some extent, not just skilled at finding internet links.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 01, 2016  

  • "clearly the phenomenon is a combination of several things yet unknown to us."

    >> There is no "UFO" phenomenon there are only "UFO" reports made by individuals living within societies affected by the media-manufactured "UFO" collective delusion. This delusion's origin, history and pathology are completely documented and very well understood, as are dozens of similar collective delusions experienced worldwide. The Psychosocial hypothesis isn't about "UFO" reports, it's about the widespread false belief that there are "UFOs" of any kind at all, it is the very idea--"UFO"--that is the delusion.<<


    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, June 01, 2016  

  • RR,

    I see your opinion but it is the net that allowed me to see the white paper by the Stanford PhD that I might never have encountered. Note that I abhor Facebook.

    And some of the books you've mentioned, like college textbooks, are shockingly expensive.

    Quite some time ago you referenced Nonlocality in Quantum Physics, by Grib and Rodrigues. The title and subject turned me on. Then selling for $100+ and now used (just checked on the net, of course) at $60, and at those prices, understandably not in our library system or even at the university -I almost asked if I could borrow it back then.

    For nonprofessionals and beleaguered grandparents it makes such books just unobtainable. Now industry advertising filled magazines, Flying for example(!), are essentially cheap.

    -And I must mention that this nice blog is free on the net...


    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Thursday, June 02, 2016  

  • I understand, fully, Bryan....

    Just yesterday I sought out Vanity Fair magazine online to read a piece about Twitter and its CEO Dorsey.

    I get a bunch of magazines each day and have a lot of books, as you know, but even then I seek out Wikipedia (which is dismissed by many) for footnoting some of my postings here.

    The internet is a god-send, and a place where one can access materials they otherwise could not obtain.

    And if this blog spot needed a subscription fee, I doubt I'd be using it.

    So I get your point(s).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 02, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home