It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Non-Extraterrestrial UFO Hypotheses

page: 27
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear

originally posted by: Tangerine
UFOlogy is becoming a religion. At least the literalists are turning it into a religion.


Definitely.

But it's a NEW type of religion; and it's nailed to the hip with
the confusion over black aircraft projects and all sorts of
yummy stuff. It's much more enjoyable than the prior
variants.


No doubt but I'm waiting for non-believers to be accused of being agents of the Reptoids (ala Satan). It is interesting to watch the development of a new religion.


Interested but depressing.

The last religions genocided away nearly everything beautiful
in the world, even destroying the human mind and planting
the seeds insanity that may will lead to our extinction in the
coming hundreds of years.

I shudder to think what the new religions will do.

Kev




posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear






If someone was very reckless and created a new
'skinwalker ranch' under monitored conditions,
making life a living hell for thousands of people
for hundreds of years.. then maybe someone
would 'believe' enough to 'do it right'. But I
don't know anyone capable of doing that, who
would be that reckless.
Maybe a small sale test in the lab could be done..
but it would be rough.. you'd need a super duper
mana personality and the lab would have to be
setup with precision. And again, I don't know
anyone capable of doing that, who would be
that reckless


I think a lot of people 'believe' it enough to 'do it right' and I also would say that I don't know anyone capable. Reckless, well maybe yes. I am not sure that anything could be accomplished in the lab. The precision and the test environment in itself is anathema to the trickster. That is not to say that the trickster cannot enter the lab environment and alter results and perceptions and screw up whatever we're trying to do there.

I had other thoughts that elude me now because it's getting late, I'll have to look at this thread fresh again tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: wtbengineer

Well as most people deep into this subject know, this experiment has been
tried a few times over the years; but getting someone to talk about their
results who was present almost never happens.

I'd like to hear any of your thoughts on this after you come back to it.

But I leave you for the evening with this my favorite story:

"THE PRINCE AND THE MAGICIAN
from The Magus by John Fowles

Once upon a time there was a young prince, who believed in all things but three. He did not believe in princesses, he did not believe in islands, he did not believe in God. His father, the king, told him that such things did not exist. As there were no princesses or islands in his father's domaines, and no sign of God, the young prince believed his father.

But then, one day, the prince ran away from his palace. He came to the next land. There, to his astonishment, from every coast he saw islands, and on these islands, strange and troubling creatures whom he dared not name. As he was searching for a boat, a man in full evening dress approached him along the shore.

"Are those real islands?" asked the young prince.

"Of course they are real islands," said the man in evening dress.

"And those strange and troubling creatures?"

"They are all genuine and authentic princesses."

"Then God also must exist!" cried the prince.

"I am God," replied the man in full evening dress, with a bow.

The young prince returned home as quickly as he could.

"So you are back," said his father, the king.

"I have seen islands, I have seen princesses, I have seen God," said the prince reproachfully.

The king was unmoved. "Neither real islands, nor real princesses, nor a real God, exist."

"I saw them!"

"Tell me how God was dressed."

"God was in full evening dress."

"Were the sleeves of his coat rolled back?"

The prince remembered that they had been. The king smiled. "That is the uniform of a magician. You have been deceived."

At this, the prince returned to the next land, and went to the same shore, where once again he came upon the man in full evening dress. "My father the king has told me who you are," said the young prince indignantly. "You deceived me last time, but not again. Now I know that those are not real islands and real princesses, because you are a magician."

The man on the shore smiled. "It is you who are deceived, my boy. In your father's kingdom there are many islands and many princesses. But you are under your father’s spell, so you cannot see them."

The prince returned pensively home. When he saw his father, he looked him in the eyes. "Father, is it true that you are not a real king, but only a magician?"

The king smiled, and rolled back his sleeves. "Yes, my son, I am only a magician."

"Then the man on the shore was God."

"The man on the shore was another magician."

"I must know the real truth, the truth beyond magic."

"There is no truth beyond magic," said the king.

The prince was full of sadness. He said, "I will kill myself."

The king by magic caused death to appear. Death stood in the door and beckoned to the prince. The prince shuddered. He remembered the beautiful but unreal islands and the unreal but beautiful princesses "Very well," he said. "I can bear it."

"You see, my son," said the king, "you too now begin to be a magician." "

Kev



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: wtbengineer

If someone was very reckless and created a new
'skinwalker ranch' under monitored conditions,
making life a living hell for thousands of people
for hundreds of years.. then maybe someone
would 'believe' enough to 'do it right'. But I
don't know anyone capable of doing that, who
would be that reckless.

Maybe a small sale test in the lab could be done..
but it would be rough.. you'd need a super duper
mana personality and the lab would have to be
setup with precision. And again, I don't know
anyone capable of doing that, who would be
that reckless.

Kev


A Jack Parsons.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
What are the chances that things 'in the sky' have a subtly different cause/focus/result with our species than say, poltergeists?

What if combining everything anomalous, UFOs and ghosts and precog dreams, is actually making it impossibly chaotic to make any sense of, rather than giving us a larger spectrum look?

We see in this thread what happened: a discussion about various possible causative factors behind UFOs seen was had, but the moment the thread turned to experiential stuff that was about anything but seeing something in the sky, it was unworkable. And I agree, it's kind of unworkable to mix the two approaches, because there is no model, no matter how interesting or even potentially valid, that could possibly answer to all these genre of experience let alone the outlier stats of the individual testimonies.

It may be that a theory like parasites is highly related to seeing things in the sky, but not to feeling you had psychic rapport with and then were probed by a grey for example, or not to some lunatic ghost cursing in spanish on a broken celfon or whatever. And there may be 101 ways and reasons to see things in the sky that have other causes. That doesn't mean the original theory doesn't have merit though or might not apply to one or more -- or a variable % -- of "anomalous experiences."

I think we get to a point where eventually one has to say, what element is actually part of the genre? Can it be anything that anyone in the world could come up with? Are fairies and angels and aliens and light beings and demons all "part of this" whatever-this-is that we are considering? 'Must' they be?

What if all those things had some physics-translated-into-neural-archetypes validity but a common parasite (including symbiotes at the cellular level) caused the "subjective experiential part" to vary between being blessed by an angel vs. raped by a lizard-demon? And the rest was a genuine and sometimes physically manifest experience (as someone in this thread said, "it starts in your head and ends up on the floor" which I loved), like the infinite variations on a theme that is every individual human experience. And yet. And yet maybe the underlying archetypes theory has merit, and maybe the parasites theory has merit, but not until combined does it start to make sense for the larger spectrum of things.

I'm rambling. Very sleep, must get up early for work, must go.

RC



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I posted a reply to Tangerine in another thread, but maybe it is more on-topic for this thread.

It is regarding sth I posted earlier on in this thread: are there any scientific studies that prove that people who experience UFOs start experiencing other phenomena also.

A hypothesis



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agnost
I posted a reply to Tangerine in another thread, but maybe it is more on-topic for this thread.

It is regarding sth I posted earlier on in this thread: are there any scientific studies that prove that people who experience UFOs start experiencing other phenomena also.

A hypothesis


I'm unaware of any scientific studies that prove that people who experience UFOs experience other strange phenomena, too, but those who do research have noticed it. Others posting here may recall studies or researchers who've noted this. The problem is that the nuts and bolts literalists have not asked people who report UFO sightings about other strange experiences or have discarded any reports from those people that do not fit in with their nuts and bolts hypothesis. I have heard (although I can't state it as fact) that MUFON has (or had) a policy of not recording anything that was reported that seemed paranormal (to MUFON, UFOs are nuts and bolts craft). I notice that you asked if people who experience UFOs START experiencing other phenomena, as though the UFO sighting/encounter is the kick-off to other strange experiences. Although that may be the case for some people, I'm not aware that it is the case for all.

In the other thread, you said, "What I mean is: may it be that it is not a UFO sighting that causes other phenomena to occur, but that we are predisposed to interprete what we see/hear but don't understand as a UFO and e.g. plasma beings?

So not: UFO -> other phenomena ; But: believe system -> UFO + other phenomena. "

That's entirely possible. Perhaps it's because the UFO is archetypal. Plasma beings? I don't know. This idea is worth exploring. Could you expand on it? Welcome to the thread!



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I just used "plasma being" as an example of the whole list of unidentified phenomena, I could as well have used the term "ghost", or "angel", or ... .

I was just intrigued by the affirmation (allthough not confirmed scientifically) that a lot of people who experience UFOs also experience other phenomena. And I wondered whether some people, because of their believe system and their world of reference, are more prone to identify things as extraterrestrial/paranormal?

E.g. person A sees a kite and person B sees a UFO, but they are both observing the same physical object.
If they would walk at night and see a shirt on a clothing line: would person B be more prone to interpret it as a ghost?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: Tangerine

I just used "plasma being" as an example of the whole list of unidentified phenomena, I could as well have used the term "ghost", or "angel", or ... .

I was just intrigued by the affirmation (allthough not confirmed scientifically) that a lot of people who experience UFOs also experience other phenomena. And I wondered whether some people, because of their believe system and their world of reference, are more prone to identify things as extraterrestrial/paranormal?

E.g. person A sees a kite and person B sees a UFO, but they are both observing the same physical object.
If they would walk at night and see a shirt on a clothing line: would person B be more prone to interpret it as a ghost?


Certainly, people's belief systems and catalogs of experiences incline them to interpret things they see in different ways. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Now, as for whether they're biologically or psychologically "programmed" to view things differently, that's another matter. I don't know.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

That was the first.

The second is not so well documented.

Kev



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Well I summoned the close-up, huge, beautiful, perfectly detailed
black triangle UFO with a yoga procedure. (or at least the Trickster
let me BELIEVE that I did; it could have 'flown by' regardless, but
it was quite the synchronicity). If that doesn't prove the dual
hypothesis, I don't know what does.

When MUFON investigated, I left that part out of course.. and as
Vallee says many times in his various books, witnesses nearly
always leave out such parts and/or MUFON (etc) does.

Kev



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RedCairo

Well there's no doubt that different 'power sources' are most
amenable to certain kinds of imprinting.

For example semi-permanent electromagnetic terrain features are more likely
to manifest as 'skin walkers' or even faeries of various kinds.

Now what best manifests as 'UFOs' is an interesting topic.

I'd say that those 'black op planes' with plasma coatings to confuse radar
or arrays to produce false radar signatures are probably helping to
manifest at least half of all UAP sightings.

Yes, it's highly ironic and trickster-like, that the governments fake ufo
devices are being used by the trickster to create other 'real' (but fake)
ufo sightings.

Your point is valid it would seem, but where we can go with it would
take more thought.

Kev



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
A general thought created from earlier in the thread... good thread, btw...

For the hypothesis that the phenomena is tied to larger conscious complexes... like sentient planets... I'd wonder if this could be tested by locale... does the paranormal happen in deep space, for instance?

The UFO sightings by astronauts would inform us it does... but I wonder if that could be a way to differentiate between nuts and bolts craft and tulpas (if any such division exists at all, ultimately). I'd wonder if ghost or poltergeist effects happen on the ISS, for instance... not that we'd ever hear about it if it did.

Anyway, it's difficult to pin down as consciousness might well be the alpha and omega for this phenomena and everything else we experience... and geography might not really exist... but I've found that geography is a factor, or at least some of the time, it is... pfft

Chasing ghosts...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma


Anyway, it's difficult to pin down as consciousness might well be the alpha and omega for this phenomena and everything else we experience...


Was wondering when you would show up...

I think it has everything to do with consciousness but since consciousness hasn't really been defined, that doesn't say much. Neither consciousness nor intelligence have clear definitions.

If a paranormal event happened in the woods and nobody was there, would there still be a paranormal event? How about if someone WAS there and they didn't notice anything paranormal or otherwise really cared? For me, just walking in the woods is paranormal enough. I mean the trees are supposed to talk. right?
(I never really experienced talking trees)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

The 'consciousness' that matters is not
'conscious rational thought'; that actually has
no direct value when it comes to the
'paranormal'.

Our bodies are like wave guides for
EM/plasma effects.

What does matter is how we expose our
'creativity and intent' to either ambient
fields or to 'symbiotic plasmas' which
live in our bodies.

When 'plasmas' interact with humans
they become more sentient. We are
part of their lifecycle.

But humans don't really pay attention
to them anymore like before the dark
ages of monotheism began...so we
do not benefit from the symbiosis
just suffer due to it.

Kev



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

If you, like me, have some experience with the stuff given that guru, then you not having talked with a tree... at least in passing... surprises me.

Let's just say I have had an involved interaction with Dr. Leary's unpopular (to some) step child and have at least seemed to interact with the plant kingdom ... and it had some interesting things to say... but no real way to gauge any reality.

Anyway, I have a few more pages to read... and will possibly add something, but I've said it all before and am loathe to take a shower, remove my robe, and be presentable to the general public... so I may just lurk as I have been doing.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
Darn... okay I'll close my robe and smooth down my hair and interact a bit... hiya KPB...

Then that means we are mobile gestation bags...uteri (is that the plural form of uterus?) for plasma babies? Are we even a viable separate species then? Would we be the same humans without them... in your hypothesis?

Being mindful of what we eat and excrete is only wise...no?

eta and wanted to add that being spirit wombs isn't so bad... in fact having a greater purpose than eating, sleeping, excreting and occasionally being clever, is rather comforting.

edit on 3/5/2015 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma


If you, like me, have some experience with the stuff given that guru, then you not having talked with a tree... at least in passing... surprises me.

Well, as far as them sprouting mouths or something similar and saying something, no. But have they talked to me by putting thoughts and images in my head? Sure. God, Jesus and various molecular structures too. Synchronicity was my most profound experience and still is without any aid....just need to be unemployed. Or sometimes I just need only to go to my kids soccer game.

But how much of what we experience as odd or even "paranormal" is just what we project onto the normal variance of experience? I'm thinking of that guy in Atlantic city at the poker table that beat me with some odd hand. He apologized and said that "eights" were working for him that night. Magically? I have analyzed the game many times and its about 90% math and about 10% psychology. At any rate, its repetitive and predictable but "magical" streaks are still perceived. Math beats magic pretty much every time...but after a lot of hands though.

Perhaps some are really just more aware when the "magic" is happening and can take advantage.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RedCairo



What are the chances that things 'in the sky' have a subtly different cause/focus/result with our species than say, poltergeists?


Because the brain provides one neural network for the experience of these things. Not one for poltergeists, one for UAPs, one for Bigfoot etc.

PEBUAK


edit on 5-3-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

That (as outlined in your poker tale) is a real enigma that's been tickling me for awhile... why does mental effort (or simply attention) create change and when does plain ol' math and stats negate it (or opposing mental effort, for that matter)?

I had an improbable streak rolling double sixes in a Risk game when I was nine or so... rolled something like 50 double sixes and felt like I could do it forever... in an effortless mental 'zone' of some sort.

I also watched my father melt clouds with real effort .. .but wondered why there weren't more sculpted clouds if people could all do it... and decided most were just unaware they could... if it was a common ability, anyway.

But, I've been shown again and again, by something (or things, or self, etc), that our reality is more malleable than most would think.

But why cartoon characters and lottery winners aren't common (in my neighborhood anyway) is the conundrum.

eta in answer to my own query...perhaps there is a governing board for reality? Or a governing principle? Maybe we sign agreements before entering? Contractual reality parameters... I need a reality lawyer, if so...




edit on 3/5/2015 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/5/2015 by Baddogma because: add



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join