Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by The Shrike
Hiya Shrike, by trace evidence I meant radar recordings that confirmed eye-witness reports. There's a few out there. Can a conscious perception of an underlying intelligence be seen by different people in different places and be registered on different radars? We don't know the answer to that, but perhaps their accounts of structured craft were the most accurate?
There are a few accounts of physical trace evidence in the Ted Phillips' sense that are worth being open-minded to in my opinion. Dechtmont Woods maybe? At the same time, part of me agrees with you that Ted Philips' recent activities leave a lot of questions. A mod on Paracast, Ron, is working on a new website for Ted and I'm suspending judgement until it goes live.
One of the reasons I don't get into arguments about this subject is for the same reason you pointed out...not enough evidence and we just don't know. Why bother to fall out with folk when none of us have the answers?
Originally posted by FireMoon
For what it's worth i will add this. I have friend who had a CE3 some years ago and has photos of the *craft* that would send some on here into a flat spin. he told me that the *craft* in the picture he has is what we would term a * thought projection* but was told there are others who use craft we would understand as technology if totally alien (sic0 to us. Now he has no proof and just the photos (snip) Again the whole perception thing comes into this. His partner, who was present, saw similar to him, but remembers virtually nothing else save a vague recollection of a presence. On the one hand, they are happy to back up his photos but they really can;t when it comes to his *meeting*.
That is a classic case where the sceptics would have a total field day, based on the evidence being wholly intangible save the photos and stories not being consistent. I suspect Vallee would love it, as it encapsulates so many of the complete paradox's UFOs so often present us.
There are times i sigh when i see the vitriol aimed at people for reporting something that seems outlandish. The truth is, to us as humans the very idea of UFOs is outlandish and here lies my beef with many debunkers. They don't exist, but if they did, i know what they would be, seems to sum so many people's attitude. They wouldn't make stupid phone calls to people etc etc.
I think this thread clearly shows there is a school of thought who think,not believe they exist, but as to exactly what they are? Well buckle up folks cos you think you think Alice in Wonderland was fiction?
edit on 10-11-2010 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)edit on 10-11-2010 by FireMoon because: grammar
Originally posted by jritzmann
Originally posted by Kandinsky
At the same time, there are plenty of descriptions of structured craft and various physical traces. At the very least, it suggests that some component of the enigma may well be physical. If so, structured craft require manufacturing and that requires a society/culture/civilisation.
See, that's the problem. No physical trace, radar report, nor sighted object can be qualified as coming from an "extraterrestrial" source. That's an interpretation - not based upon the data. That kind of "evidence" is ultimately open ended and vague - even if accompanied by a sighting account by sober, credible people.
Those objects, and their effects, could every bit be military projects. I love it when UFO researchers and others state, "we don't have technology that can do that", when in fact they don't have any idea. They are not privy to every project on military black boards. That's the fact. So they don't know, and they can't know. So their statement is nullified the minute it leaves their lips.
In the end? That kind of evidence can't even be remotely drawn to the enigma we're discussing - because there's no way to qualify that.
Make any sense?edit on 10-11-2010 by jritzmann because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm almost afraid to ask........,
but here goes......
what are some opinions on Philip Imbrogno & Peter Sturrock?
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Originally posted by jritzmann
Hence, why it might be that there is no definitive physical evidence. It can't exist here. I've said on many occasions (based only on my direct experience), that this phenomena seems to bring part of it's own environment with it as part of "being" here. A portion of it's localized reality, if you wanna call it that.
I know it's kind of out of left field, but it's interesting how much this resonates with the stuff Phil Corso, Jr., (the son of the guy who wrote the book) has said in public appearances about the "Roswell" stuff, which may or may not have anything to actually do with Roswell, New Mexico. These are available on the Internet. His speech is very disorganized, and a lot of different information comes up randomly, but that makes it more interesting in some ways.
Anyway, one thing he says that human beings will never travel to Mars because long-distance space travel somehow separates people too far from their "reality," and they can't survive. An interesting notion, if nothing else. It also reminds me of the "silver strings" thing that Robert Monroe would talk about with his OBEs. Silver strings attached to your "soul" that keep you in place and alive in the world, and will stretch if you fly around out of the body. Different thing, but I'm reminded of it.
The Shrike: I don't know Corso, Jr., but I don't think he knows what he's talking about regarding traveling to Mars or any other celestial body. A crew has each other for support. They're professionals. They're traveling in a home away from home. Their reality is their surroundings and their mental states. While Monroe mentions the "silver strings" also known as the "astral cord", and I'm a Monroe follower and have been since his first book, I don't know about the "strings" because all humans would have these "strings" and if you think a photo of contrails from space is mindblowing, then all of those billions of strings would just have to untangle instantly, so tangle/untangle constantly! And what happened to the "strings" of those who passed on?
Corso also mentions that he understood that a lot of the Roswell stuff (artifacts, etc.) is no longer "here," like it went back -- or was taken back -- to wherever it came from. Also that a lot of the stuff was analyzed but couldn't realistically work. Ships that were baffling, with no logically workable propulsion systems, that sort of thing.
The Shrike: When it comes to Roswell "debris" I don't accept anything Corso Sr. and Jr. say 'cause they weren't there and are not speaking from first-hand experience. Also, in 2003 I accompanied my brother-in-law, a professional photographer commissioned by Popular Mechanics to photograph the Roswell debris kept in the archives at College Park, Maryland. My brother-in-law had an assistant but I came along for the ride and saw and handled what is left of the Roswell debris which consists of a balloon train remnants.
Popular Mechanics ROSWELL COVER
Popular Mechanics article
It's just an interesting thought that reality could so dependent on individual perceptions, observations and expectations that physical objects and even people could only partially or temporarily exist someplace they're not intended to be. But I've always said about UFO evidence that after a while, the strange and consistent way good proof always hangs just out of reach becomes a piece of evidence, itself.
Originally posted by The Shrike
Peter Sturrock? See my book review from 2000 at amazon.com:
The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Hardcover)
Originally posted by jritzmann
I'm just wondering how many of you have read Jacques Vallee's new book co-authored with Chris Aubeck called "Wonders in the Sky". It's a pretty amazing piece of work, detailing 500 aerial phenomena events before in the industrial revolution. It puts a serious counterpoint to anyone thinking UFOs started with the 1940's - and shows that these objects have been seen for a lot longer than we'd think - and I don't refer to "might have been" cases or misinterpretations. These are well qualified and well documented events throughout history and are brought together under a strict methodology of inclusion in the book.
Great read that again turns this field on it's collective ear. About halfway through the book you stop looking at the question "what are UFOs?" and start asking "what are UFOs actually doing?"..or...what do we attribute them to doing based on our own perceptions (which is even more interesting).
Jeremy and I interviewed Dr. Vallee this past weekend on Paratopia, and it'll air this Friday, November 12th. He is as far as I'm concerned, one of the very few people to truly push the boundaries on this subject.
Originally posted by keithb
For those who want to read more on Vallee and his current thinking, see the new (2010) book "Authors of the Impossible" by Jeffrey J Kripal. Published by the University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45386-6. My co-blogger has just reviewed the book at:
Originally posted by jritzmannBetween Jacques Vallee, George Hansen and Terence McKenna - if you read what they've put forth, have pushed this subject past the nonsense and offered sober reflections on many potentials and interesting connections. That's what this subject demands.