UFO Conjectures

Sunday, January 08, 2017

UFOs not UAP

I’m a “UFO theorist” (in my mind).

And I’m agnostic about the phenomenon, but you know that.

But, for me, the UFOs I’m interested in are Unidentified Flying Objects not Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

The latter consists of atmospheric anomalies or other amorphous entities of a non-intelligent kind.

Then there are the things that are hallucinogenic in nature; that is, they are products of the mind, real in that sense, and worthy of neurological and/or psychological study, which I also find fascinating.

Yet, it’s those seemingly tangible artifacts that have shown up often and sometimes eject “creatures” or beings who act with apparent intent.

Many of those “sightings” or incidents are psychologically produced also, but there are a few which, from an evidence standpoint, aren’t, such as the 1967 Stephan Michalak/Falcon Lake episode, dismissed by Zoam Chomsky, [http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm] or the 1979 Robert Taylor “assault” in Scotland set aside by the Wikipedia account as “an isolated attack of temporal lobe epilepsy.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_incident]
Of course the 1964 Socorro sighting by Police Officer Lonnie Zamora was not an hallucinatory episode or a UAP product.
There are others, which I see as intrusions of AI machines or insertions from another dimension or time.

These are the sightings, among a few others, that intrigue (me).

They can be “explained away” as UFO buffs used to say but that is disingenuous and a superficial approach to such UFO events.

The sloth and apathy of “ufologists” have marginalized intriguing cases that seem to involve tangible (material), intelligently operated “things” that fly or land on Earth.

One can play around with such sightings but that is not “scientific” or imaginative.

One can debunk or be skeptical about such sightings or events but that would be stupid, until such efforts erase all possibilities of tangibility or apparent intelligence on the part of the “things” experienced.

Spanish UFO researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca’s “Distortion Theory” like Jacques Vallee’s “Control System” theory could answer some of the sightings I’ve noted here, except of the fact that there are remnants of reality (hard evidence) that something solid was involved, something palpable and corporeal.

Yes, some UFOs are “objects.” They are not Unidentified Phenomena.



  • Perhaps the possibilty of entanglement of the tangible and the intangible can create conditions of superposition, given certain conditions.

    Perhaps the timelike and the spacelike merge, reform, and trade places in ways that scale to macro.

    Interesting that a UAP and a UFO tend to create nonlinear feedback loops.

    By Blogger neal, at Monday, January 09, 2017  

  • neal...

    You sound like a physicist....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2017  

  • Rich - I think I understand what you are getting at here, but there are underlying issues at work. The term Unidentified Flying Object presumes firstly, that the thing in the sky is "flying," which assumes it is operating under the limited human understanding of aerodynamics and has "bernoullis" keeping it in the air. Most legitimate "UFO" reports that aren't easily explained away, describe some "thing" in the air that doesn't behave the way any of our aircraft behave and do not require "aerodynamics" as we humans describe them, to operate. They float, skid, rise, fall, dash, hover, at little/no speed or impossible speeds without the movement of air over a winged surface, which IS NOT FLYING by our accepted scientific definitions. Secondly, every unidentified light, mist, shape, shadow, or whatever, is assumed to be a third dimensional nuts and bolts (or seamless metallic) "space ship." This limits our perception of whats possible regarding the movement intelligent beings in and around our planet/third dimensional human experience. A light, the size of a basketball, may actually be a craft, but its not perceived that way to humans. On the flip side, an advanced group of beings may be able to transport their consciousness to our dimensional perception/experience without the use of a warp drive propelled nuts and bots craft and we might never perceive them, or perceive them as energy, light, a cloud, or some other "non nuts and bolts" phenomenon. I expect it is only the "slightly advanced" beings that would actually require a ship/craft as humans would to transport themselves across vast expanses of space. What if beings could manifest right here and now, in our third dimensional experience, and manifest a craft once they get here, just of ease of exploring our planet? What would that look like? How would it appear when it manifested/de-manifested? I don't think it serves us to limit our perceptions or expectations of how non earthly intelligence might manifest. And, if we are being observed/visited by many different beings, it may appear in many different ways. Let's not throw out the baby, just because we don't like the woo woo ness of the bathwater. Let's be discerning. To just be interested in the nuts and bolts craft is fine (but limited), but don't disparage that which you can't/don't want to get your own awareness around. Enjoy the pursuit and curiosity!

    By Blogger Rossome, at Monday, January 09, 2017  

  • Rossome:

    I'm not averse to your interpretation, however....

    I accept some of your views but my point here was to indicate that I see a few UFOs as "tangible craft" -- AI machines as I've been promoting here for a while now. (See many previous postings.)

    I do not think Earth has been inundated by alien space craft, as regulars here know.

    And I don't see an esoteric explanation for the UFO events (sightings/incidents) I've cited above.

    I'm merely speculating about a few UFO cases that I see as possibly embracing the idea of von Neumann-like probes, that's all.

    There re many possible "explanations" such as the Caravaca Distortion theory or Vallee's Control group, and other valid speculations, but ETs coming here in droves, isn't one I'm inclined to accept, and have made that abundantly clear at this blog.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2017  

Post a Comment

<< Home