Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

Pigsy,

In terms of the defining UFOs precisely within the small framework of common human perception and experience, there is without a doubt a high level of uncertainty…The id of them as ET, ID, and other unconventional definitions are obviously presumptive but presumptive within the framework of the conventional understanding of theoretical possibilities…such as from a religious or science fiction perspective which certainly deals with faith.
But more advance understanding that some unique human beings may have about the UFO phenomenon and because the level of consciousness of these people is not widespread does not detract from these peoples certain knowledge.

So, you are right, faith is a part of any kind of situation where ignorance is in play and certain knowledge is elusive.

To understand this better

There’s an old saying

One can’t teach the attainments of an adult to a child

…Until, of course, that child grows up

a reply to: Willtell

Many UFOs sightings are simply misperceptions due to astronomical or meteorological events, returning or failing space hardware, conventional aircraft and a number of other factors that fool the perception of human beings.

The problem this then causes is a huge resistance by many people to have their own unique UFO story explained away like that. They know what it wasn't they will tell us. They won't accept a prosaic answer because they like telling their mysterious story to other people and/or don't wish to look ignorant and foolish. You see it quite often where someone posts their UFO story on here and other forums. They want their story to remain mysterious and reject evidence to the contrary. Then we have the UFOtaiment industry. Full of people with no intention of solving cases unless it's something mysterious like aliens or time travel or somewhat mystical or spiritual in nature.

How do we sort the wheat from the chaff here? Get rid of the garbage, take out the trash and release the rubbish?

So when you say .....

....But more advance understanding that some unique human beings may have about the UFO phenomenon and because the level of consciousness of these people is not widespread does not detract from these peoples certain knowledge.

Would you care to expand on what you mean here Will?

a reply to: mirageman



Just that there may be people who know what this is all about but can’t explain it is beyond the understanding of the average person of today.

If one doesn’t understand something it likely is that they don’t have the maturity or experience to understand it.

It's like if you went back in time and tried to explain radios or other kinds of what now we consider pedestrian modern technological things to people 300 or 400 years ago. They would say you’re crazy

In other words, one can’t explain the attainments of an adult to a child.

One would have a difficult time explaining sex to a pre-pubescent child.

Not until those hormones kick in will he or she really understand sex

That's not to say at all that people are dumb. We're evolving.

So, because what one considers logical in a lot of regards is based on time and cultural perspectives, not objective reality.

So, we can now look at any illogical (outside of our cultural and timely experience) and judge it on its own merit. Though, we have every right to reject it based on our cultural and time-based information. BUT that isn't objective truth. It's as subjective as anything else.

That’s not a prescription for accepting any old crazy theory. It's about learning to be objective. If a person is lying or full of crap or crazy it will likely be exposed and usually is.

You bring up a good point about people only peddling their personal vanity and not seeking objective truth. But that’s human nature and is the reason, in theory, metaphysical systems seek to tame the beast before seeking objective truth or tame the beast during the seeking.

If one is actually seeking entertainment, vanity pursuits, or just something to do that is a huge veil blocking any real truth getting through.

But ufology is not comparable to any genuine system of scientific truth-seeking. Any old person can join this mob and espouse any old theory. So, what can we expect but mostly chaff?

a reply to: Willtell

I know where you're coming from, Will. I often think of the analogy of another intelligent race being one billion years (or call it half a billion, or even a million - hell, fill yer boots) ahead of us in technological advancement - a literally unimaginable scenario at our current rate of advancement - where physical form may be a primitive concept and the nature of interstellar travel may be as easy as a number 10 bus, despite our current native laws of nature.

Yet there is no positive proof of such, however seductive and entirely logical the theory. So I have to draw a personal line until a modicum of proof surfaces - not only for the everyday practicality of discussing UFOs, but also because it could potentially lead down some mighty strange rabbit-holes that are simply not healthy, including the prospect of no firm evidence at the bottom of them anyway. So we need to be careful.

Great for campfire chats, though.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

some mighty strange rabbit-holes that are simply no

The rabbit holes are already here

Some of the most bizarre ideas imaginable have come out of ufology...and even science itself. Just look at the movies from Star Trek to Star Wars, which BTW I hate them all. And look at TTSAs BS about warp drives they don't know a dam thing about that and probably never will.

In fact I was watching today a very ridiculous mainstream movie in which they piled every Sci-Fi cliché they could think of and I'm glad I stopped watching it. 4 hours of crap
Its called Interstellar.

But to the point.

You are actually missing the point...

I am using technology and other examples to illustrate thinking patterns not possibilities of high technology of the future which one can justifiably deduce logically will occur.

The best way to understand me is to look at the puberty analogy. Where the point is that objective reality has elements to it that are very sometimes intangible...and not always "logical"

But to deal with your point we can extrapolate future technology possibilities but only as a concept, not a literal eventuality unless we're involved in the particular technology.

I completely understand the point Willtell is making, and yet I also appreciate the agnostic approach of pigsy and Phage. One can only work with the information given, and whatever the Phenomena is, one thing it is not is forthcoming.

To provide an alternate analogy:

If you've never taken ayahuasca you can't explain the experience to an outside party.
If you've taken ayahuasca you can't explain the experience to an outside party.

Ideas/paradigms/symbology/psychology all fall short of explaining it in any understandable fashion.

The "search" for answers in ufology is quite synonymous with the religious pursuit; both foster belief based either on a personal experience or a personal conviction. Both also require a belief that the cosmos is far larger, and far stranger than materialism would have one believe. Any truth to be discovered will be a personal one and not something that can be quantified or canonized.

No one is on the same journey in life, therefore no one is on an equal playing field. Some are close to a truth, relatively speaking, and some are just busy living their life and the pursuit of the intangible isn't appealing.


TL;DR: Everything is subjective. Caveat emptor.

a reply to: ParticleNode

Very thoughtful post.

It’s about trying to get to a position where we can seek objective truth.
That is a herculean task IMO because most of us are already deceived by our own preconceived notions about a lot of things, particularly ourselves.

Self-deception may be our greatest enemy.

My point is to keep an open mind yet maintain logical sobriety. Find a balance.

I think one lesson we can learn from this thread is, to be honest, and forthcoming. Because we see the harm in the deception, and lack of honesty of TTSA.

It’s almost a larcenous thing. I mean if one isn’t basically honest, then how can they be a seeker after truth, how can we trust them?

a reply to: Willtell
Indeed I agree with all of the previous posts, it's also nice to see we can somewhat disagree but come to the same concensus without attacking which is awesome.

Infighting and confirmation bias is what stops progress in my opinion.

Enjoy, endure or ignore....

a reply to: mirageman

This looks like a funky watch MM.

a reply to: pigsy2400



I agree.

Even though I don’t know what we're disagreeing about!

a reply to: mirageman



It’s called plausible deniability...

The government has to have the ability to deny what the crazies are saying and inferring that the Government is associated with what they’re doing. Standard IC operating procedure


Some of this is the sci-fi nonsense I was referring to yesterday in that movie Interstellar.www.imdb.com... All nonsense and the US government has to have plausible deniability in dissociating themselves with this stuff.


We need to denounce the FAKE sci-fi crap as many of us denounce the alien crap

originally posted by: ParticleNode
TL;DR: Everything is subjective. Caveat emptor.

Not everything. Take a simpler example, our perception of temperature. In the offices I've worked in, some people, usually the men think it's a little warm and would like the temperature a little cooler, and some people, usually the women, think it's a little too cool and would like the temperature a little warmer.

So I think that's a perfect example that the perception of a comfortable temperature is subjective, but I also think it's a good example of how science can weigh in and provide non-subjective data, by putting some thermometers in the room and measuring the temperature. You can then make an objective statement that the temperature in the room is "X" degrees from the measurements made, and that is not subjective.

So, I find it a little troublesome when people seem to be arguing that everything is subjective when the whole point of science is to find ways of looking at the world that are objective rather than subjective. Maybe there are some things that science can't objectively quantify and we can say those are beyond the scope of science, for now, though science has a way of figuring out how to measure things it didn't know how to measure in the past so that could change.

We can also see how in the TTSA "Gimbal" video the object appears to be rotating and the pilot even exclaims "it's rotating", but we also have pretty good objective evidence that particular subjective perception, while understandable because it does look that way, is flawed and likely completely wrong. So if you really want to know the truth in that example, you can't settle for the subjective, you have to gain an objective perspective which is not observer dependent, and then you realize it only looks like the object is rotating, but it's really not. So let's not throw that objective truth out and say "everything is subjective", please, because the subjective "truth" (the object is rotating) may not be the real truth (the object is not rotating).

a reply to: Arbitrageur




IMO

The thing is there is a couple of things between subjective and objective:

Time and place and perspective


What they might be able to do is tell you why women like warmth more than men—different constitutions= perspective.

The things science can’t quantify has to do with time and place and perspective.


And with perspective, for example, an advanced alien would have a much broader perspective. Just a hypothetical example…please don’t get into if there is such a thing as an advanced alien.
I could have used the term modern man versus ancient man. Their perspectives are different.

Or someone brought up the shaman when they take ayahuasca that moves them into altered states.
That’s why the IC sent some people to study shamanism, John Alexander, for one.
They want to expand their perspective.

This also has a time and place element to it.

So one can be as objective as possible and still be perplexed.

Objective is merely being impartial and having no biases as mm brought up. People who want to see aliens will likely never find the truth because of their bias, their not objective.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Willtell

Many UFOs sightings are simply misperceptions due to astronomical or meteorological events, returning or failing space hardware, conventional aircraft and a number of other factors that fool the perception of human beings.

The problem this then causes is a huge resistance by many people to have their own unique UFO story explained away like that. They know what it wasn't they will tell us. They won't accept a prosaic answer because they like telling their mysterious story to other people and/or don't wish to look ignorant and foolish. You see it quite often where someone posts their UFO story on here and other forums. They want their story to remain mysterious and reject evidence to the contrary.

I see you not only know what is it that people actually saw, but also what they think, how they think it and why.

Must be a useful skill.

And a miserable life to lead to think of others in that way.

a reply to: Sublant

I see you not only know what is it that people actually saw, but also what they think, how they think it and why.

Must be a useful skill.

And a miserable life to lead to think of others in that way.

Here's one take on why people believe anything they want and it doesn't just apply to America.....




But I see you also "know" how this leads to miserable life.

Can you detail your thought processes as to how you've arrived at that conclusion and cite your sources for such psychological analysis?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You've made some very excellent points. Please don't take my closing remark as a flippant dismissal of science/observation. I agree that data and applied testing are absolutely needed in the study, but...

I think material science has it's limits in that it can only better define the questions, but not provide understanding. As Willtell pointed out, bias is ever-present in ways we never thought possible before, from the issue of entangled quanta all the way to species selection bias. Again though, the data has value; it has a place.

We can discuss neurochemical processes that occur when your brain releases oxytocin, but it would help neither of us define love.

We can say that 57° F is 25° warmer than freezing, but does that make it warm or cold out?

I think the point I was failing at making earlier with my statement is that we live in a world of facts, but truth is something only each individual can define for themselves. It's entirely a subjective undertaking. Some folks are chasing the "how", and I hope they get answers. Others want to know "what", and I think some of the answers they seek lay with the "how" group. I'm in the "why" crowd; it's a lot more solitary in its research.

originally posted by: ParticleNode
One can only work with the information given, and whatever the Phenomena is, one thing it is not is forthcoming.

To provide an alternate analogy:

If you've never taken ayahuasca you can't explain the experience to an outside party.
If you've taken ayahuasca you can't explain the experience to an outside party.

Ideas/paradigms/symbology/psychology all fall short of explaining it in any understandable fashion.

It may remain outside human understanding for generations and centuries to come, if not millenia. As I rather clumsily was saying to Will, if ET is indeed interacting with us, I imagine (if I were forced to choose an option) it would be a complex form of consciousness without the necessity for hardware as we understand it. In that sense, if it communicates with any one individual, presumably via pure thought, such an experience WOULD be beyond the realms of explanation to a third party. And the comparison with religion is an understandable progression from that point.

I have no idea if ETs or IDs are visiting, and I cannot explain the complex experiences of abductees who fall outside the bracket of 'obvious' BS artists (although that is subjective to some extent). Very respected members of ATS have 'come out of the closet' over the years to publicly relate personal visitations in the hope of seeking answers rather than seeking attention (indeed that is their last intention), doing so in a manner that is mesmerising, perplexing, and ultimately inexplicable. But not disposable. In one sense, it could easily become an exclusive personal belief akin to a religious experience, although many experiencers will resist such a description.

The 'rabbit-holes' I mentioned to Will are perhaps more accessible to those who are lucky/unlucky (delete as applicable) enough to have had such inexplicable experiences because they have already begun lowering themselves into them, albeit involuntarily. Indeed, many experiencers themselves will not want to delve further, and that's entirely understandable, too.

In the long term (present knowledge vs future knowledge, in the spirit of Will's points), science may provide natural explanations for all things Phenomena-related. Or not. In the meantime, it's a fascinating philosophical discussion that deserves its own thread rather than stepping too much on the toes of this one.

PS: Not sure if I'm making much sense with this waffle - it's late here and my eyes are closing as I type, so apologies in advance.

Well, we're coming up to the second anniversary of the launch of TTSA, I think 10/12.

In two years what have they disclosed? What have they contributed to ufology

I say nothing of much substance.


The phony videos and some rocks the call metamaterials. Dishonesty and deceptive communications.

At this point, I'm really wondering is this a confidence game.


Maybe the FBI or the bunco squad




should look into TTSA or maybe the SEC




They have absolutely done nothing