Generally Overlooked (but Critical Clues) about "UFOs" - Part I

a reply to: nexotop

Thanks for your contribution.

Yes.. little signs like that are the "we love you, but we must delude you"
high fives you get, if the "Phenomenon loves you".

I think that quite often it's people with native american blood.. or other
indigenous blood that get those.. but i could be wrong.. some families
with a long exposure might get them too.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

"Patuxent River Naval Air Station Radar Incident
Dec. 19, 1964, Patuxent River NAS, Maryland (BBU)

3:30 a.m. USN control tower operator Benard Sujka and 2 other CTO's tracked 2 large targets 10 miles apart heading directly toward the radar station at about 7,000 mph, swerving off at 15 miles range, the approaching again to 10 miles, then one target returned to 8 miles range and made a high speed 160 degree turn."

Source: NICAP

www.nicap.org...

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


"Bethune/Gander UFO Incident, Newfoundland, Canada 1951"

a reply to: Erno86

yes.. the phenonemon does create radar traces, even though there is nothing
actually physically there.

Also.. more importantly in the usual case.. the US had "radar trace fakery tech"
it started to use around this time.. it's documented. If you want more info on it,
either MirageMan or The Gut could dig up the post/link.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Project Palladium.

Link on MM's post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

That is certainly a positive outlook on delusion and I appreciate it. Funny, I left this particular experience alone, intentionally or not who knows, but recently it's been coming to the surface consistently. Seems the more I ponder on it, the more curious it becomes.

Interesting on the Native American heritage - I have not done any in depth genealogy, but not aware of any such in my 'family tree', but I've identified with the culture and traditions strongly for a long time.

My Pop was a serious scientist and I have often wondered about his experience- seems I recall a period of many nose bleeds for him when I was quite young.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


Patuxent River NAS incident:

"CTO Chief Pinkerton called out something to the effect: 'Look at those' UAP's 'go.' "

"Coast Guard - possibly from Cape May, he wasn't sure --- had called to inquire about sightings of bright objects. National Airport had no sightings."

www.nicap.org...

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


"Actual CIA documents on the Patuxent River NAS incident"

www.nicap.org...

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


"Actual CIA documents on the Patuxent River NAS incident"

www.nicap.org...

I wouldn't trust the CIA to walk my dog.

But even if it was a real UAP, that has nothing to do with it being
an alien, physical craft, as no educated person (that I know personally),
"insiders included" believe that any of those have ever visited us.

But I'm not omniscient.

Maybe your Lord alien guy who you talked about, who you hold in
worshipful regard really IS coming to visit us from the galactic
empire you talk about.

But there's no evidence for that.. none .. zero... zip.. unless
you trust the CIA to be 100% forthcoming and to have never
deceived anyone (or stuck radioactive rods up their noses..
etc).

Believe what you want. That's what everyone does.

Kev

Regarding the cyclic nature of the phenomenon Vallée describes a sort of reinforcement learning cycle, but couldn't this be something else?

For instance avoiding too much adaptive stress on 'the organism' (us) to prevent killing the 'specimen'. You can say to learn is to adapt but still...

Now you can asume awareness of the phenomenon of how this works and where 'the line' is, but it can also je a natural cycle of some kind of you look at it this way.

Just brainstorming and throwing out ideas.

originally posted by: zeroPointOneQ
Regarding the cyclic nature of the phenomenon Vallée describes a sort of reinforcement learning cycle, but couldn't this be something else?

For instance avoiding too much adaptive stress on 'the organism' (us) to prevent killing the 'specimen'. You can say to learn is to adapt but still...

Now you can asume awareness of the phenomenon of how this works and where 'the line' is, but it can also je a natural cycle of some kind of you look at it this way.

Just brainstorming and throwing out ideas.

Sure.. love brainstorming.

So let me ask you.. why does the phenomenon lie to us and act completely
insane? Almost never helpful. Almost always hurtful.

After we discuss that.. would be happy to discuss possible reasons for
theorized cyclic interaction.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The idea is to 'stimulate' the recovery phase after the adaptive stress, basically to keep us alive. I'm not talking about what the adaptation is yet.

To provide a bit of context:
www.sciencedirect.com... (Evolution of adaptation mechanisms: Adaptation energy, stress, and oscillating death)

This made me question, is the phenomenon like an 'adaptor', a 'recoverer' (or to put it differently a mechanism that initiates us to recover), both or none (had to include none there).

I want to step away from people thinking it's a learning cycle, it may be an adaptation cycle. Yes, to learn is to adapt, but that's only keeping it to a knowledge level. After this the question remains the same (within a broader context): what is the role of the phenomenon? Are our assumptions correct?

It's a thin line between coming up with new ideas (though I see this as just a nuance on what allready is) and inventing the wheel again so I don't mind people bringing the sledge hammer.

mt

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Better link to the same paper (not behind a paywall):
arxiv.org...

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Nice!

You make a good point in differentiating between learning and adapting.

Ok, let's examine a potential fallacy here..

People assume that the "Phenomenon" is this stand-alone thing... some
immense almost divine thing..

But what if the Phenonemon is colored by it's container.. and we are
the container..

then our unconscious minds would be a part of "IT's" mind as well..

perhaps all biological brain in the Universe are executing some of
the "code" of these 'boltzmann brains".

And since the link between "us" and "IT" is relatively tenuous at present
(not that many people have antenna..)

then perhaps what we see in terms of the behavior of the Phenonemon

is mostly due to it filtering through our own imbalanced minds?

But one would think that SOMETHING true should still come through...
that not every last dot is a lie.

Two questions for you:

1) What is your response to the previous?

2) Do you think the Phenomenon is 100% lying.. poor link or no poor link?

If we grant my earlier points.. that has massive explanatory power.


Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I need to let that sink in a bit. To be honest with you I still need to do some brain crunching to understand what a boltzmann brain is. I prefer to make that clear, some of these things are still over my head, so I'll try to explain/theorise from where I'm currently at though it's still a bridge too far.

But let's go on your assumption.

My first reaction would be that it isn't lying, that would be too deliberate, too intelligent. It's more like a shifting focus between adaptation/non adaptation. That would rarely be 100%. How would you measure this?

As for the link. Why does it matter? If there is a link the strength doesn't make it difference as the result is the same in the long run. I would need to answer that out of my personal believe that I still have some influence on my own life and can make a difference on some things for me and others (so there you have my personal answer).

Uncomfortable questions since I wasn't approaching it from this side (yet).

Hope I understood your questions right btw.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

We can dance on the head of a pin and count angels if you must..

But to quote Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek:

"It is not a lie to withhold the truth"

The Phenonemon will not educate us in words or concepts.
It lets us back-fill what we think it is from our own mind.

Our own mind is wrong.

It's your choice whether you go with, "It's the evil Borg!"
It's going to consume us!

or

"The most evil thing that a benevolent God could do,
would be to reveal himself"

aka know as

"Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke.

Maybe both.. maybe neither?

But at a minimum, would you agree, that human
"shading" of the "truth" would tend to make the
Phenomenon "evil", whether it was or not?

Almost everything is "evil" to a human, unless it
involves chocolate ice cream, cute little animals,
or sex.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


"Actual CIA documents on the Patuxent River NAS incident"

www.nicap.org...

I wouldn't trust the CIA to walk my dog.

But even if it was a real UAP, that has nothing to do with it being
an alien, physical craft, as no educated person (that I know personally),
"insiders included" believe that any of those have ever visited us.

But I'm not omniscient.

Maybe your Lord alien guy who you talked about, who you hold in
worshipful regard really IS coming to visit us from the galactic
empire you talk about.

But there's no evidence for that.. none .. zero... zip.. unless
you trust the CIA to be 100% forthcoming and to have never
deceived anyone (or stuck radioactive rods up their noses..
etc).

Believe what you want. That's what everyone does.

Kev

Would you like to see my picture of a purported helmeted ET alien, that I photographed in 1972?

a reply to: Erno86

Ya sure why not?

The very famous ignored photo?

You do know however, that if you had a photo signed by
Eisenhower, standing in Wright Patterson Air base,
shaking the hand of a grey alien, next to a crashed
saucer in the back of a large truck,

it would mean exactly zero, right?

Removed as I did something wrong.