It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“UFOs are real but they are not physical. They are messengers of deception”Jacques Vallee
The UFOs do not seem to exist as tangible, manufactured objects. They do not conform to the natural laws of our environment. They seem to be nothing more than transmogrifications tailoring themselves to our abilities to understand. The thousands of contacts with the entities indicate that they are liars and put-on artists. (John Keel - Operation Trojan Horse p. 266)
Forbidden Secret - www.scribd.com...
"We got a coverup among the researchers themselves that people are relying on for the truth" ~ Joe Jordan
"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships." - Arthur C. Clarke
"We are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon which is largely indigenous to planet earth." - Brad Steiger
"I personally believe that the reptilian stuff is actually the demonic at work" Svali
I initially ignored the Vallee/Hynek Interdimensional Hypothesis in lieu of E.T.
However, if we include all aspects of the UFO phenomena--including the close encounters--then there is no other theory extant that explains and demonstrates the nature of these "beings" so thoroughly.
It's the Occam answer. Either that or "they" don't exist at all except in our mind.
"those little stinking, lying buggers ARE demons..." ~ "The GUT"
Originally posted by Wertdagf
Kant and Schopenhauer both thought that the underlying reality from which we are screened off by the inconstant surface of our contingent and ephemeral experiences exist in itself, independent of minds, of perception or experience. The naive realist assumes that reality consists of perception and experience alone, and concludes it is possible to encompass it exhaustively in perception and experience and know it thoroughly.
The transcendental idealists like Kant and Schopenhauer realize that we perceive or experience or think only in categories that are determined by our own apparatus, yet whatever exists in itself cannot exist in the terms of those categories, because existence as such cannot be in categories at all. Therefore, in an unfathomable way, whatever exists independently of experience must be in and throughout its entire nature different from the world of our representations.
I realize that it is next to impossible not to take the world of representations as the world tout court, reality, what there is, the world as it is in itself. This is the common sense view of things, and only in reflection of a profound character can free us from it.
Most already think that whatever we perceive and conceive is something that exists in terms of sense-dependent and mind-dependent categories. This is a tautology, but the real question is whether there is anything else other than our perceptions and our conceptions. The realist says, yes, there is an independently existing world to which our perceptions and conceptions correspond. The Bishop Berkeley says there are only our perceptions and conceptions, and God's. Both Kant and Schopenhauer insist that our perceptions and conceptions cannot be all there is, yet, nor can they be 'like' what exist independently of them, then whatever else there is cannot consist of an independently existing world which corresponds to them. Since perceptions and conceptions constitute the limits of what we can envisage, we cannot form any notion of what there is besides.
The transcendental idealist's insistences are analytic truths, that the entire conception of the world is in mind-dependent categories and those categories couldn't possibly apply to anything independently of awareness. The realist thinks he hears the TI say "nothing has any existence independently of our minds." This myth is reinforced by the fact that TIs use terms like "empirical world" and "physical object" in accordance with their own presuppositions, not the empiricist's.
Therefore, there is no intelligible sense in which our system of the world can be said to be 'like' the world as it is in itself, because the former exists only in terms of mind-dependent and sense-dependent categories, and there are no other kinds of category in terms of which any comparison between those and the world could be made by us.
The comparison is impossible: categories are applicable only to experience, for they are forms of experience - they categorize perceptions, conceptions, and etcetera in consciousness or awareness. Consequently, that reality itself cannot be what we all grew up taking it to be, but that whatever it is independently of what we take it to be is something radically unconceptualizable by us, is an inescapable truth, but one that hasn't been grasped by realists.