Hal Puthoff's musings in ULTRATERRESTRIAL MODELS

a reply to: Direne

The idea behind Geller was he had help from ETs which somehow controlled the early physical manifestations from cloaked spaceships overhead. While this makes for the absurd that you can manipulate materials and enhance mental processes from remotely, many of the abductees claim that local space-time was changed probably through the propulsion system. Of course, the pseudo skeptics consider the afflicted delusional, so there is no rationality with that science fiction. Geller, was proven to be unable to produce physical changes later but there seems to be controversy about what was happening when he was younger or that when he couldn't produce, he cheated. Any idea that you can produce physical changes or manipulations would put one on the signs and wonders of Jesus. Well, at least that's Whitney Striber's idea of what Jesus might have accomplished with the help of ET intervention and I will stay well on that sideline.

Regarding RV, if you are not familiar with McMoneagle, you should be: en.wikipedia.org...

It seems there's lots of hating on Puthoff on ATS. Maligning, and I m not talking about LRon Hubbard cultism.The pseudo skeptics will tell you RV doesn't work because information is does not enter a state of entropy or that consciousness is not something transcievable because it can not be measured. It is a metaphysical idea of nonsense and fools adherents by confusing data for randomness. My only comments on the pseudo skeptical hubris on ATS what is now considered metaphysical will be considered truth in some future manifestation of rational thought. You will see the Black Swann on that day. This was not my knowledge base of expertise , other than to say I have seen some impressive things. RV works and it works well, SOMETIMES. But SOMETIMES makes something unreliable and lose funding, and that's that. Mirageman/ Buck Rodgers, ever witness CRV in action with specially tasked participants? Doubtful.


What I find troubling is not that there is deep skepticism about people like Puthoff (Bigelow, Green, et al). This is important and many times even correct about so many things in UFOlogy. What I find disturbing is the outright dismissal of phenomena (nuts and bolts, conscious comms through multiple dimensions, time manipulation) by protagonists as money grabs or unscientific propagation of untruths, irrationality, and distortions by con artists. Why can't the protagonists, other than Direne, who seems to have the only intellect from understanding the truism that "there is clearly something happening around here and what it is ain't exactly clear?" If you think you have the full story, Im here to tell you - you do not.

a reply to: Direne

Replying to Direne, maragee and mickey green: it is hilarious watching skeptics perform their predictable dance. Have we ever looked at the motivators of skeptic behavior beyond the image of “noble science savage” saving the world from our ignorant human behaviors and beliefs!!! Clearly, in core skepticism there is a distinct avoidance of any “magical thinking”, perhaps in ignorance of every magic that defines all existence…but that is not the point, is it?

What first attracts most internet skeptics to obscure subjects? Maybe interest, experience or belief? NOTE: Few [not all] of our established skeptics have narrow or mediocre science background.

What inevitably happens when foraging in the “theoretical” fields [ufos, consciousness, god, far physics, etc.], is that the skeptic in all of us, in approaching a field of unknowns or interests, for sociological reasons, eventually finds him/herself in an impossible position relative to their personal-rationality. in the case of ufology, the interest in a subject turns quickly into a confrontation with fools, flakes and flim-flam experts.

What refuge does a rational person take when coming to terms with the fact that an entire area of research largely exists solely as words and thoughts of smelly homo-simians? The result is obvious: Rational skepticism verified by a lack of real world evidence produces what we know as “skeptics”. But what makes a skeptic so ardent…always striving forward with the same droll arguments on social media day-in and day-out?

The answer is human nature. Eventually, the interest or experience that brought the “knowledge seeker” into unknown/mysterious subjects, when met with the socially-forceful idiots full of fruitlessly wrong beliefs who dwell in such social-constructs, results in a pattern of bunkering and incredulity among the skeptics. The skeptic says, “where is the proof”? And rightfully so…

But the public response is brutal… They skeptic is met with fierce trolling, entrenched grand masters of arcane idiocy hurling insanity and false examples of “proof”. The skeptic bunkers-in against a swarm of idiot-attacks…standing their ground of rationality…aligning with other skeptics But yet, WHY? How did inquiry turn into concreted incredulity? What exactly is happening here?

The hilarious answer is what in psychology might be called “monkey politics”. The skeptic’s quest for knowledge and perception has now become an obsessive defense of incredulity that is under constant attack by “social-others” and in some cases the skeptics need for rationality conflicts with realities even of life itself. Theirs is a narrowing toward a more effective self-defense of rationality to survive the attacks of “true believers”…the end result is obvious - SCIENCE.

Every argument the skeptic puts forth must eventually become irrefutable…there is only one hill to stand on, and that hill eventually narrows until it is the final stand…science…the penultimate belief system built entirely of posturing a slender learning while hiding a great unknowing.

The skeptic endlessly dances this social game…monkey against monkey…the same dance over and over, as if all quest for knowledge, all science itself, becomes equal folly for the skeptic as it is for the cultish true-believer.

This dance becomes a simple life-metaphor for most human social behavior…simple social groupings with conflict, obstruction, self promotion…addictive… an endless need to perform the skeptic-dance or “believe-dance” itself, when the impulse that birthed the fiasco of both true-believers and skeptics was always the simple impulse of inquiry into unknowns of human perception/consciousness/[and even spirit per-se] and the universe intertwined within it all. When it becomes a routine self-promotion monkey dance, for true-believers or skeptics’-BELIEFS alike, it is in fact, in a circus-like way, hilarious.

a reply to: play4keeps

Direne, when you codify perception and consciousness as meat-biology with some nano-biology resultant perceptive consciousness, and you restrict known reality to a singular physical dimensionality [as you did in an earlier comment in this thread which i am wayyy to mellow to go back and find], i am curious to your take on perception.

You seem to refer to non-ordinary perception as akin to mental illness [i believe you misused the concept of “psychosis” in that concept]. Indeed, arbitureator also refers to “normal personality/behavior” implying the societal norm in a modern corporate capitalist culture is a base point for human consciousness. Sic.

For both you and arby, would you describe our nightly dreams as a “unreal” or “psychotic” experience? Do you believe our perception is no longer perception when reviewing your dreams in a waking state?

You seem to state that Perception is a result of brain-chemistry/biology [according to your bunker on the subject], so therefore with our perceptive organs, translated through brain function, would not ALL OUR PERCEPTIONS sleeping/waking/psychotic/corporate/physical be similarly interpretations of signals within our body to various internal/external stimuli?

Are you stating only :external” stimuli [interpreted and perceived internally, btw] are valid? What about stimuli that our instruments pick up that our sensory organs cannot? We can perceive those instrument readings [internally through brain function]. Those external mechanical perceptions are more real, less real..or? than our interior forming [perceptually] of a perceivable “physical” universe?

The universe itself in physics resembles nothing that our physical perceptive organs translate into physicality. Yet you equate human perception to a psychotic unreality if certain belief/behavior/perceptions are not centered on societal norms. So again, you are arguing there are relevant perceptions of reality - and those are “norms of perception” that are external and not dreamlike? Yet our perceptive organs are limited to meat and small frequency not resembling core reality, and that is NOT dreamlike?

You state that an ant and a human have a different experience in our meat bodies and cannot relate to each other. Do you realize the perceptual experience of shamanic and/or psychedelic experience as also “not real perception” because it is non-normal? How would you specifically codify the differences in perception through brain function between dreams, psychosis, psychoactives, shamanism, beliefs-system driven perceptions [including theoretical science]? Is an ant’s perception less real that ours, more real than our dreams? Less or more real than a bee’s, a dog’s or a shaman experiencing himself as coyote? What world does a compound eyed beetle observe? Is a beetle’ REALITY…it’s DIMENSIONAL PERCEPTION, a perception of a completely differing world than our own, through differing perceptual organs not valid? As valid? Does the beetle dream? Does it dream universes?

Even smart skeptics always end up in perceptual bunkers built by themselves and the assertion of the repetitive monkey dance.

Too many skeptics would sweep consciousness itself, with all its CREATIVE abilities under the rug, and term any perception at all into unknowns of human potential into concreted dry cement limited to the narrowest definitions possible, denying every magic of this magnificent unknown creative universe and of our very physicality to hold tight to what they do not know… to posture that slender learning and forever fight against the inevitability of everything it is to be…ironically…us.

a reply to: mirageman

Whats up miragey? How ya been. I dont visit often as i never remember my login info. Amazingly, this old ipad i forgot about did!

Again, you repeatedly turn to denigrating these guys and hide that denigration behind sound skepticism research. The problem isn't the snide, though. It is entertaining occasionally. The problem in your web-research [ugh] isnt the accuracy, it is completeness. As always, you report partially, but dont ANALYZE.

So things denigrate. Hal is a grifter feeding off public funds. Lue and TTSA and the politicos and vegas idiots are all this and that money grubbing bad thing. Now, what would differ with analysis?

Come on…what would change in your perception [and the perception of ats followers] if you tried anything analytical here rather than one sided conclusions. I have already given all the answers on your other thread. Are you going to say its a psy-op? Again? Or is it just to make money? Anything else? Anything?

What everyone needs to know…to fully understand here…is the UNREFUTABLE AND SIMPLE TRUTH: tom, ingo, hal, lue, mellon, semivan, bigelow, davis, nolan, etc., etc., etc., ALL HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON!!!! What is it? Anyone?

Yes, they all are geared to MAKE MONEY off corporate capitalism via government contracting…BINGO! So do most guys in that arena after retirement. And yes, some retired spooks and narcissistic scientists, like the nerd kid from highschool finally getting narcissistic juice from the public are in a FEEDING FRENZY of public attention. They like being popular and listened to…like high school kids and some skeptics we know. So that is two thigs they have in common. What the third and last? Look at each of the names.

Ok, ill tell you since you cant figure it out even though i already told you 5 times.

THESE GUYS ARE ALL TRUE BELIEVERS!!! They are obsessed with the ufos. Fascinated. It has given them a sense of purpose, popularity, income. Linda isnt grifting! That old gal BELIEVES, and there is a big difference in that, son. Many are experiencers, some are just curious, but essentially, they are all capitalist true believers in the government contractor revolving door and the mystery-science [pseudo science] field…specialists in nothing [but “unknowns”, if you will]. They are Indeed ufo-hobbiests like us, but using professional status to move forward the brand following…doing their social-media thing for Very similar reasons we see the skeptics here every single day. True believrs all, skeptics included…professional hobbiests all… in whatever they believe,

Name ONE OF THE INBRED UFO MEDIA CREW WHO IS NOT A TRUE BELIEVER IN THE UFO BS. If you can’t, then stop accusing them all of being grifters…when actually “true believer” came first before social media star even became a thing. If you dont include “true believer:, capitalist, and interested in the subject [hobbiest], you arent analyzing, you are just being snide and denigrating.

a reply to: Warriorpath1

I feel I did not make myself understood, or that you failed to understand what I said. The net result is the same, though. So let me clarify my position once more.

My problem with Puthoff et al. is their insistence on talking about remote viewing, without ever wondering what happens to the other senses. Why not remote hearers? What about remote tasting? Where are the remote touchers? And finally, why are not there remote sniffers? Puthoff et al. Only care about remote viewing and paranormal phenomena, while I hold the opinion everything can be explained from physics, which includes a yet ill-researched area we call paraphysics with lies in between physics and metaphysics. There is nothing paranormal here, just different domains of Reality, which requires different approaches, length scales, and techniques to be explored.

Puthoff can convince people like Albert Stubblebine, John B. Alexander, and Joseph McMoneagle about the weaponization of the paraphysical, were him to know a little more about the laws of the paraphysical.

The laws of physics remain valid even for conspiracies. And even for dreams. In a dream, you can do things you cannot do in the awake state, yet whatever you do must follow the laws of physics (which include the laws of the paraphysical domain). In a dream, the only thing you can violate is biology. Not physics. You can breath under the water for long periods of time, and you can fly, and you can traverse walls, and whatever your imagination could conceive. You can do that even at will in a lucid dream. Yet, does mean nothing for Physics: you (a life form) means nothing for physics, because in physics there are no life forms, no beings.

Precognition is something totally accepted for both neurobiology and physics. In neurobiology, it is just a survival mechanism. In physics, it is just a pilot wave. OBE and NDE are also accepted today as normal states of consciousness triggered by the brain, sometimes as a defense mechanism, sometimes as a mechanism to trigger pleasure. But whether you OBE, or whether you are going through a NDE, there are things you simply cannot do not because of your biological nature, but rather because physics rules.

Most people having ESP abilities do so at the cost of having other senses totally or severely impaired. Being blind means you should develop an acute sense of hearing; being deaf will certainly push to the limit other senses, and so on. But the limit here is always the one determined by Physics: you can move objects without touching them, you can OBE to distant places, you can hear a conversation being held miles away from where you are, you can do miracles and all kind of poltergeist activities... but you cannot share them with other observers. Any paranormal activity, any OBE, NDE, any UFO sighting is always a personal, intimate, subjective experience. Cannot be shared with others, except if those others are also observers, namely: unless those others do share with you your OBE, your NDE, your remote viewing.

This is why weaponizing the paraphysical does not work: what the remote viewer sees pertains to him and only him. In communicating to a non-experiencer what you experience something is lost, the entire experience is lost. Any exchange, any interaction, means an exchange of energy, must be mediated by something else. No escape.

a reply to: Direne

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Direne. I would postulate that perception and the physics cannot be separated. In any ecology [even the physics of energy/matter/etc. can be modeled as an interconnected “ecology” system without need of any biological form] interpenetration is the core webwork of the “ecological” system. Perception differentiates in amazing ways. You point out that the physics remains the same even if perception literally creates entire subjective realities [and “objectively” measurable realities - note: nothing humans measure through their own perception and instruments is truly “objective” via the nature of perception itself].

Physics postulates a quantum particle/field universe entirely objective to our perception of things, yet physics is a modeling of our measurable [mathematically] perception, and likewise is beginning to acknowledge perception itself impacts quantum particles/waves. Physics is not something out there “objectively” in the first place, since in physics [or in any model of whole-systems] it is literally impossible for an element [humans for example] to remain separate from the broader system, which is interpenetrative.

In your model, you describe paraphysical perceptual feats almost as an objective observer interacting with a screen projecting quantum wavelengths. You state the physics does not change. If a swimmer were to jump in a river, the physics of the river does not change, but both swimmer and river and interpenetrated as it were, and mutually creating the physics of that particular moment in reality in the water. Yet still vast unknowns remain. Even Physics as a human-modeling platform of a falsely projected “objective reality” understands that physics itself is full of unknowns; in fact those UNKNOWNS represent most of the imagined/postulated universe.

As I alluded to earlier, if an insect with compound eyes, sees entire spectrums of our physical universe outside our perceptive range or what our math or instruments can detect or model, one interpretation would be that the insect is perceiving an alternative universe…something entirely different from everything known, perceivable or measurable to us. How can perception be separated from known universes?

If you put forth physics as an objective model of the universe intact outside of human perception/projection, you must also put forward subjectivity as the nature of all physics and perception down to the smallest quantum particle as far as humans are concerned…and none of it is separated according to physics’ own modeling. In that model, perception is the core point of known and speculative physics, not a biological outlayer.

a reply to: Warriorpath1

Warriorpath1, I think we essentially agree on the basic idea that it is at the interface where the amazing and the unknown occurs. It is indeed the interpenetrative nature of observer and the observed what makes perception take a new form that cannot be tamed neither by physics, nor by the non-physical realm. Both worlds meet at the interface, and there only the paraphysical rules.

At this side of the wall everything is physics; at the other side of the wall, everything is metaphysical. It is at the wall where the paraphysical emerges. Both the physical observer (say, a trembling kid) and the metaphysical observer (say, a demon) look at each other with amazed eyes. Both the casual driver in the middle of a deserted road and the alien in his UFO are certainly perplexed during the encounter. In that few seconds, the paraphysical rules. The system becomes out of equilibrium, oscillates, trembles, sways, until it returns to equilibrium.

When that happens, both observers (the kid and the demon, the casual driver and the alien, the radar operator and the uncorrelated target) make the same face that a child makes when her balloon pops. It lasts a few seconds, because that what takes the system to return to equilibrium: at that moment the wall that separates the two worlds reappears.

And both observers are speechless, wondering what has happened. It is a terrifying experience, sometimes mystical, but in any case it is a truly otherworldly experience. For both of them: the kid and the demon. Observers are changed by what they have observed. And they try to describe the experience in their own terms: the kid, using physics. He fails. And the demon using his own rules. He fails to understand, too. They conclude exactly the way you described it: that nothing humans, aliens, angels, or demons measure through their own perception and instruments is truly “objective” via the nature of perception itself.

That's why is so difficult to describe the experience and the encounter: there is no language fit to describe the paraphysical world. So yes, perception differentiates in amazing ways.

"Dreams come from dreams. The conscious mind simply picks a reflection. Events are just meaningless dreams. Events represent whole reactions. The easiest dream is awareness. Symbols own insights."

And until Mr. Puthoff understands this, he and the others will fail time and again.

a reply to: Direne

One minute there is no such thing as a UFO then yet elsewhere you state -

What was the F-22 before being known but a UFO?

hypocrisy much.

a reply to: Direne

Why not remote hearers? What about remote tasting? Where are the remote touchers? And finally, why are not there remote sniffers?

ROFL -- the sexual inuendo would not be far behind.

How about armchair sight-seers? But as you say Direne; what about the remote tasters, sniffers and touchers.

The body has five senses and one can use them all. The sense of taste is said to be better than sight and hearing, I would agree.

It is difficult enough to say you've seen a "alien" let alone that you can tell her from the other ones by how she tastes.

a reply to: chunder

chunder, I was referring to the public. There are no UFO for those who have to deal with them on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year. For the rest of mortals there are a lot of UFO, not because they are stupid, but because they have no access to the required data and information gathered through a wide spectrum of sensors.

But if you ask for my personal view here it is: there is only one and just one UFO, the one for which we have reliable data gathered through different reliable sensors, observed during a period of time long enough to assign to the event a high probability of being truly intelligent and non-terrestrial. Just one. And even then it is just an event which is slightly above the 3-sigma probability threshold. One event is still no event. One alien does not mean there is alien life elsewhere; one human does not mean there is a human civilization; one human does not mean the planet is inhabited. One is just a one-time event. A transient. A glitch.

Given the current situation the statement that there are no UFO is probably the closest to truth.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Yes, it is difficult enough to say you've seen a "alien" because it is difficult to talk, describe, and reason about something/someone who escapes reality. I guess the alien encounter is a personal experience, intimate, unique, impossible to share, vaguely describable using the poor language of words. Everything essential for the experience to be credible even for the one who experiences it is missing.

Hence the despair, the frustration, the isolation, the ridicule by third parties, the anathema, the magic, the Inquisition of Reason against those who have experienced the encounter. The encounter with the inexplicable is in itself inexplicable. But even the strangest world must have boundaries.

Even in the darkest corners of consciousness must shine the light of Reason. To fall asleep is to fall into madness. Ask the seers, the prophets, the witches and wizards. Ask Solomon, Ezekiel, and the shamans. To really be able to remote see is to flirt with madness, not because it is impossible, but because it is still impossible. Biology is still not ready for that exploration. Yet, tomorrow...

a reply to: Direne

Everything essential for the experience to be credible even for the one who experiences it is missing.

Not neccessarily, one can work on a target with independant observer and verify some things. Medicine for instance, the patient improves in a way that is expected.

And "yes" mostly one is 'winging it'.

The encounter with the inexplicable is in itself inexplicable.

Well, that's only untill one gets one's 'sea legs'.

But even the strangest world must have boundaries.

The 'interface' is one of those boundaries. People have a personal interface. To understand the boundaries and navigate them, learn to think in five dimensions.

Even in the darkest corners of consciousness must shine the light of Reason.

That is so to an extent.

To fall asleep is to fall into madness.

Well, that depends . . .

Ask the seers, the prophets, the witches and wizards. Ask Solomon, Ezekiel, and the shamans.

What for? To verify that falling into the asleep state is the equivalent of falling into madness?

How about I say this: all those people who fell into madness probably did so for a very good reason. I'll wager they found something that did not agree with their expectations and education.

I'll give an example for context. I knew a man (not me) who searched for the spiritual all his life and saw things and knew stuff. Eventually he settled into the gnostic thinking and searched for Sophia. He found her, and shortly after went mad spending the rest of his life on lithium. Sophia was not what he expected.

However that is easily dismissed, so let's proceed deeper.

To really be able to remote see is to flirt with madness,

I love your use of the word 'flirt' - to flirt with madness. I think you said something very important there. To flirt is to play a game .

To really be able to remote see is to flirt with madness, not because it is impossible, but because it is still impossible.

I gather you are being optimistic here with the word 'still'.

Biology is still not ready for that exploration.

Biology as in the biological body and all therein? The body can do it naturally until education gets in the way.

However, if you mean the biological sciences is not ready for that exploration. Then that is an entirely different thing, and "yes" I think you are definately correct.

If I were to suggest a way forward it would be for those 'remote viewers' to focus on a certain type of target. The target is the so-called "schizophrenic mind".

I don't mean to view it from outside, take measurements and blood samples, nor the MRIs while on the L, S and D.

What I mean is: to go themselves into that mind itself as the NPC (Non Player Character) NPC as in a gaming term (there's that concept again 'games'). Here's the tip; 5 dimensional thinking: Length X Width X Height X Inside X Outside. The schizophrenic mind has an outside and an inside.

Warriorpath1, I think we essentially agree on the basic idea that it is at the interface where the amazing and the unknown occurs. It is indeed the interpenetrative nature of observer and the observed what makes perception take a new form that cannot be tamed neither by physics, nor by the non-physical realm. Both worlds meet at the interface, and there only the paraphysical rules.

A beautifully simple concept: the interface between the physical and the metaphysical. That is the boundary, the paraphysical.

At this side of the wall everything is physics; at the other side of the wall, everything is metaphysical. It is at the wall where the paraphysical emerges. Both the physical observer (say, a trembling kid) and the metaphysical observer (say, a demon) look at each other with amazed eyes. Both the casual driver in the middle of a deserted road and the alien in his UFO are certainly perplexed during the encounter. In that few seconds, the paraphysical rules. The system becomes out of equilibrium, oscillates, trembles, sways, until it returns to equilibrium.

When that happens, both observers (the kid and the demon, the casual driver and the alien, the radar operator and the uncorrelated target) make the same face that a child makes when her balloon pops. It lasts a few seconds, because that what takes the system to return to equilibrium: at that moment the wall that separates the two worlds reappears.

And both observers are speechless, wondering what has happened. It is a terrifying experience, sometimes mystical, but in any case it is a truly otherworldly experience. For both of them: the kid and the demon. Observers are changed by what they have observed. And they try to describe the experience in their own terms: the kid, using physics. He fails. And the demon using his own rules. He fails to understand, too. They conclude exactly the way you described it: that nothing humans, aliens, angels, or demons measure through their own perception and instruments is truly “objective” via the nature of perception itself.

Wonderfully explained.

When standing at the paraphysical boundary, should something appear, the appropriate thing to do is simply play a game.

originally posted by: Direne
One is just a one-time event. A transient. A glitch.

Given the current situation the statement that there are no UFO is probably the closest to truth.

I personally have been involved in more than one event but only had the sensors I was born with to observe so I guess they don't count. I will get round to putting up the footage taken from my back garden 3 weeks ago with multiple witnesses of what is clearly an Unusual Flying Object and welcome your input in providing a reasonable prosaic explanation when I post it.

I do still think that your final statement is unsustainable as quite clearly something is unidentified until it is positively identified but not that it matters.

a reply to: chunder

It matters, a lot.

I see what's happening here. I think most ufologists used to consider the debate was constrained to just two types of objects: unidentified flying object (UFO) and identified flying object (IFO).

When humans could not fly mechanically, every mechanic object in the sky was clearly a UFO. It was only when mankind learned how to build mechanic flying objects that the debate UFO vs. IFO was meaningful. But when mankind learned how to use IFO as a weapon, they secretly started building IFOs which, for obvious reasons, they wanted to remain unidentified for their enemies. This introduced a third category into the debate: identified unidentified flying objects (I-UFO). Namely, objects which are fully identified by some humans, but not for others.

As sensors became more and more advanced, and the I-UFO became more and more sophisticated the line between real UFO and I-UFO became fuzzy and blurry. Additionally, the divorce between the public and the military, the increasing need for secrecy, made the gap between what can be publicly known and what should not be known at all wider and wider.

To complicate things, the paranoia of secrecy caused the different army corps to develop their secret projects in secret from each other. This led to a fourth category of objects: the identified flying objects which are just known to a very few among those who already know about I-UFO. This fourth category includes those objects from the Navy for which, say, neither the Army nor the Air Force know anything, as well as those objects belonging to either the Army or the Air Force of which no other service has a knowledge. These objects explains those UFO acknowledged by some service within the military.

There is, finally, a fifth category of objects: unidentified flying objects belonging to hostile state and non-state actors. These would include, say, I-UFO of China about which no US military service has a knowledge. These objects are simply called "uncorrelated targets", that is, objects of which we know are man-made, yet we ignore to whom they belong.

The question is whether there is or not a sixth category of objects: the real UFO, objects who are simply non-man-made. My view is all UFO so far are just I-UFO (discounting of course natural phenomena and hoaxes).

Note that I'm here explicitly referring to "flying objects", obviating the more complicated underwater fast-moving objects. The only opportunity for non-man-made objects, in my view, lays precisely there where sensor technology is in its infancy: the underwaters of the oceans. In that underworld most of the advanced sensors are simply useless, therefore the capability to gather reliable information is simply lacking. That environment is a hostile one, cold, dark, populated by creatures some of which are not fully described; a world which only recently has started to be exploited with technological infrastructures. It is there where you might have an opportunity to encounter real unknown objects.

UFOlogy, if something like that exists, has only yesterday learned that UFOs are events that involve a network of elements that interact with each other. A UFO is not just an object, much as an airplane is not just an airplane. There are a complex network of networks acting for any airplane to just fly (communications networks, satellite networks, guidance, navigation, and control systems, ground infrastructures, radars, ATC centers, airports, weather and meteo stations, and so on). For non-man-made objects the same holds. UFOlogy would benefit if it tries a new approach, an approach focusing on the network of events that supports and interact with each other to make a UFO a viable vehicle.

Let's focus on techno-signatures, systems, and signals, if you really wish to understand what you see in your skies and oceans. That is exactly what your visitors do. And that's exactly what you would do when exploring an alien civilization.