Llamas... It's about Llamas.
In fact..
Llamas are bigger than frogs.
If you see a Llama you must shout... "Look out!! There are Llamas!
There... Their is no going back now... I have said it.
In fact..
Llamas are bigger than frogs.
If you see a Llama you must shout... "Look out!! There are Llamas!
There... Their is no going back now... I have said it.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me......
Hal was asking about why no one in the general public seem concerned about the ufo mystery since it's not a big concern to most.
He's right in that no one in my family cares about it and have often asked me why I still bother to look into it.
None of my friends are interested nor have they read anything about it.
I posted the piece by RAWilson to pique interest in other ideas but most of us are very pedestrian in our ideas about things and only look at the ideas right in front of us ...easier that way. It's like the old joke about the guy looking for his lost car keys near the light of the streetlamp and when asked by a person near him did he drop them in that area he said, 'no but the light is better here'.
Or said another way...opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one.
I should have expected that from someone who lives in the country with the World's largest population of camels. Scientists are so busy counting the lamas they tend to ignore the camels.
Meanwhile I still can't work out the connection between rolfing and kangaroos. Sounds like S&M to me. No wonder they arrested him.
LETA, I hope that clears things up.
Dr Wu,
Don't worry, normal service will now be resumed.
I've scanned that article, and am going to re-read it. I can see a tenuous connection to what I was talking about in another thread. But it does get very involved.
Well, just read the Rawlingson article again.
And have to agree with Dundee. It is a collection of name droppings. He drags every pseudo scientific phrase he can fit in onto the page. Included is the 'if I can't see the Moon, does it exist' argument. also used in a Fleetwood Mac song in the form 'When I hang up the phone do you cease to exist'.
Basically he is saying that ufo only exist if someone is there to see them. So if one passed by and no one picked it up visually or on Radar then it can't have exixsted because no one brought it into reality.
All in all, rather badly assembled new-age twaddle.
At the beginning he mentions the human nervous system. He fails to mention that the nervous system id just a conduit for signals to be sent to and from the brain, which does all the processing.
He seems to miss out the fact that UFO refers to objects. And the objects are, as far as we can tell, physical. The actual phenomena nay indeed contain some non physical aspects. But not in the way Rawlingson suggests.
And have to agree with Dundee. It is a collection of name droppings. He drags every pseudo scientific phrase he can fit in onto the page. Included is the 'if I can't see the Moon, does it exist' argument. also used in a Fleetwood Mac song in the form 'When I hang up the phone do you cease to exist'.
Basically he is saying that ufo only exist if someone is there to see them. So if one passed by and no one picked it up visually or on Radar then it can't have exixsted because no one brought it into reality.
All in all, rather badly assembled new-age twaddle.
At the beginning he mentions the human nervous system. He fails to mention that the nervous system id just a conduit for signals to be sent to and from the brain, which does all the processing.
He seems to miss out the fact that UFO refers to objects. And the objects are, as far as we can tell, physical. The actual phenomena nay indeed contain some non physical aspects. But not in the way Rawlingson suggests.
I think he's well aware of the physical aspect to ufos....but many events and personal experiences that witnesses have seem to go beyond that barrier. It's those things I think he's referring to. Many ufologists have commented on this before...like Dr Vallee, Jenny Randles, and Nick Redfern to name a few. Where do we fit that in? Or do we just throw it out because it doesn't fit our physical box?
When you do that you are going more into the paranormal than ufology.
However, even if you widen the goalposts as far as that, there is nothing that shows the paranormal to be anything more than aberrations of the mind.
And I am saying that as a person who has had a few 'paranormal' things happen.
There was, in the final analysis, nothing to indicate that it wasn't all in my mind.
However, even if you widen the goalposts as far as that, there is nothing that shows the paranormal to be anything more than aberrations of the mind.
And I am saying that as a person who has had a few 'paranormal' things happen.
There was, in the final analysis, nothing to indicate that it wasn't all in my mind.
But in the end, ignoring all the twaddle, doesnt the whole idea fall apart the minute there is physical evidence?
Squashed grass, imprintsv in the dirt. Even sound for that matter is a physical manifestation. If three people walk outside of three houses after hearing a noise, and see a UFO, that is a physical manifestation of soundwaves they respond to.
While I am sure there have been people who are delusional and see things that are not there. To bundle it all up like he has seems like nonsense to me.
Squashed grass, imprintsv in the dirt. Even sound for that matter is a physical manifestation. If three people walk outside of three houses after hearing a noise, and see a UFO, that is a physical manifestation of soundwaves they respond to.
While I am sure there have been people who are delusional and see things that are not there. To bundle it all up like he has seems like nonsense to me.
I agree.
There are many multiple witness cases that back this up. Cases where the witness did not know each other and were sometimes miles apart.
Dragging in Jung et al is really a cop-out; rather like claiming 'God did it' simply because one can't come up with a solid reason.
However, you can side step him completely and still be left with the question 'where do 'they' come from'. And that is the frustrating part. There is no logic, at least to our current knowledge, that explains that. Anything that is 'there' physically has to have come from somewhere.
Maybe the objects were electronically sent here and self-assemble when the signal gets here. But that still needs for the signal to have been sent from somewhere.
There are many multiple witness cases that back this up. Cases where the witness did not know each other and were sometimes miles apart.
Dragging in Jung et al is really a cop-out; rather like claiming 'God did it' simply because one can't come up with a solid reason.
However, you can side step him completely and still be left with the question 'where do 'they' come from'. And that is the frustrating part. There is no logic, at least to our current knowledge, that explains that. Anything that is 'there' physically has to have come from somewhere.
Maybe the objects were electronically sent here and self-assemble when the signal gets here. But that still needs for the signal to have been sent from somewhere.
Why do you say there is no logic?
Where do you think they come from?
What is your gut feeling, I know you don't know. Knowing would require proof which we don't have. It seems by the previous comment your at least willing to admit there is something buzzing about our skies. You agreed that not all are imagined. So, in the absence of proof, what's your opinion about what they are.
Where do you think they come from?
What is your gut feeling, I know you don't know. Knowing would require proof which we don't have. It seems by the previous comment your at least willing to admit there is something buzzing about our skies. You agreed that not all are imagined. So, in the absence of proof, what's your opinion about what they are.
I have no opinion as to what they are. I do accept that there are things buzzing about; always have done. But everything that we do know about that flies, be it birds, balloons or Boeings, we do know about. And we know where they come from and to where they go.
The lack of logic is that we simply can't apply this thinking to ufo.
They don't appear to come and go from anywhere we can identify. So there seems to be a serious lack of understanding in some branch of physics.
I have no gut feeling simply because I can't support such without some evidence. And there doesn't appear to be much evidence to be had for the more esoteric views. Just speculation.
The lack of logic is that we simply can't apply this thinking to ufo.
They don't appear to come and go from anywhere we can identify. So there seems to be a serious lack of understanding in some branch of physics.
I have no gut feeling simply because I can't support such without some evidence. And there doesn't appear to be much evidence to be had for the more esoteric views. Just speculation.
OK. Fair. But I think there is a lot of evidence. Looking at the stranger UFOs. It's not likely to be atmospheric. Balloons or birds due to speed. Is not conventional craft such as known jes or planes. Some are clearly not flares.. I could go on with what some sightings are not.
That eliminates much.
Then we have abilities beyond what we know. Hovering. High speed turns. Ctreme speeds. Seemingly able too appear and dissappear of radar at will. Seemingly intelligently controlled at least some are. All that seems to pnt to technology beyond a lot of the physics we know of.
Some are seen in space so we have that.
Isn't all that and more evidence?
No it's not proof of anything. But it in many case likely eliminates a lot. And hints at more.
Why isn't that evidence?
That eliminates much.
Then we have abilities beyond what we know. Hovering. High speed turns. Ctreme speeds. Seemingly able too appear and dissappear of radar at will. Seemingly intelligently controlled at least some are. All that seems to pnt to technology beyond a lot of the physics we know of.
Some are seen in space so we have that.
Isn't all that and more evidence?
No it's not proof of anything. But it in many case likely eliminates a lot. And hints at more.
Why isn't that evidence?
It's evidence, at least it is acceptable evidence to me, that there is something out there.
But it misses the point that we don't have any place of origin. A place of origin would open up whole new vistas. It would tell us that there is somewhere else that is technologically active. Somewhere with a life form capable of producing flying objects.
That on it's own would be an existential change for our society.
Without a place of origin they can't exist; yet they do.
So, to reiterate. They have to come from somewhere.
But it misses the point that we don't have any place of origin. A place of origin would open up whole new vistas. It would tell us that there is somewhere else that is technologically active. Somewhere with a life form capable of producing flying objects.
That on it's own would be an existential change for our society.
Without a place of origin they can't exist; yet they do.
So, to reiterate. They have to come from somewhere.
When you buy a car and on close inspection you see the best paint job you have ever seen. The motor developed more power than anything known and the restoration is utterly meticulous. You might be able to say well I don't know who did this but it is superior to anything you have ever seen in your town. It is clear evidence of a superior builder but you don't know the origin.
You still know it's a superior builder.
Given all we know or think we know about science. Don't some UFOs hint at a superior tech such as you might expect from an ET?
You still know it's a superior builder.
Given all we know or think we know about science. Don't some UFOs hint at a superior tech such as you might expect from an ET?
A false analogy.
We would know that the car is superior to the run of the mill cars. But we would also know that it was just the product of more than the usual amount of care and attention.
You can't equate ufo with Extra-Terrestrial beings because you don't have evidence (see my 'place of origin' remarks above) that ET actually exists.
The logic says that we didn't make those things that do what they do. That much is agreed. But we can't go so far as to attribute the construction of such to anyone (thing). We simply don't know.
And it they do turn out to be some kind of trick that is being played on our minds.....well, that's another game altogether.
Now get to sleep, soon be morning.
But that's my whole point. In my opinion The advanced nature of some of these ufo sightings is the very thing that suggests ET might be an option. We have seemingly intelligently controlled craft seemingly beyond our science that by all accounts the majority of our government and military can't identify. How is ET not a strong option here?
The whole thing reeks of an advanced intelligence beyond our capabilities.
The whole thing reeks of an advanced intelligence beyond our capabilities.
ET is an option for those who want to believe it's ET and will accept no other explanation..Especially if it comes from any government..No matter what the government or science says the UFO'ers will not accept rational explanations....I believe they are UFOs out there but I am no where convinced they are machines from another planet....
And as far as no one being bothered? I think there is a simple answer to that..It's called "Scams"...It's like all these years you hear people calling the end of the world on this or that date...No one pays these loony bins any attention...And until all the scammers and money grubbers are taken out of the equation in eschatology as well as ufology the general public along with the media will continue to ignore it...
I don't think it's become a question of no one believes they exist..It's become a question of what scam comes next.
And as far as no one being bothered? I think there is a simple answer to that..It's called "Scams"...It's like all these years you hear people calling the end of the world on this or that date...No one pays these loony bins any attention...And until all the scammers and money grubbers are taken out of the equation in eschatology as well as ufology the general public along with the media will continue to ignore it...
I don't think it's become a question of no one believes they exist..It's become a question of what scam comes next.
Last edited by a moderator:
The ufo problem is complex in that some ufo sightings have a physicality or we assume it does. There are actually very few cases where any physical evidence is retrieved. In those rare cases there is sometimes burn marks and indentations but radar , film, and video of air objects is not an indication that the object is merely physical since concentrated energy can cause similar effects on film and video.
There has always been several levels to the ufo enigma which is why Dr Hynek came up with the Close Encounter 1, 2, and 3 nomenclature. (abductions have been called no 4). The point is that simply seeing an 'object' in the sky and getting a picture/video tells us little to nothing about the nature of the phenomenon. The close encounter cases are another matter entirely. Some witnesses claim to see the ufo land and affect the environment and others claim even more unusal things about the 'objects' and even seeing entities.This is where the ufo enigma often can turn into a paranormal experience for some witnesses.
Do we dismiss these cases because we don't like them? Do we only keep the ones where we get a picture or radar blip?
Is that good science to ignore that data? Or do we need to address both aspects to the ufo phenomenon?
Should we only be interested in the cases where we can 'kick the tires' as Dr Vallee once asked?
There has always been several levels to the ufo enigma which is why Dr Hynek came up with the Close Encounter 1, 2, and 3 nomenclature. (abductions have been called no 4). The point is that simply seeing an 'object' in the sky and getting a picture/video tells us little to nothing about the nature of the phenomenon. The close encounter cases are another matter entirely. Some witnesses claim to see the ufo land and affect the environment and others claim even more unusal things about the 'objects' and even seeing entities.This is where the ufo enigma often can turn into a paranormal experience for some witnesses.
Do we dismiss these cases because we don't like them? Do we only keep the ones where we get a picture or radar blip?
Is that good science to ignore that data? Or do we need to address both aspects to the ufo phenomenon?
Should we only be interested in the cases where we can 'kick the tires' as Dr Vallee once asked?
The ET hypothesis only lacks one ingredient, Actual ETs.
It would make sense for ufo to be ET related if we knew there actually are such entities.
The whole thing is centred around this.
It would make sense for ufo to be ET related if we knew there actually are such entities.
The whole thing is centred around this.