The Hardness (tangible presence) of UFOs.

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

 

In my survey of Jung’s treatise on Ufos [sic], I found that Jung proposed the phenomenon as real, psychically or physically.

He wrote that both or either were a kind of reality.

My leaning towards a psychical explanation for many UFOs doesn’t imply that hard, material UFOs do not exist.

UFOs, whether misidentified prosaic flying devices or something more esoteric (unknown actually), are real in the Jungian sense.

Jung thought the reports of flying saucers (Ufos) were real; the content up for interpretation.

But does a person actually create a UFO sometimes, from his or her mental observation?

Is such a creation possible?

Quantum mechanics allow that things observed are altered by their observation (or measurement), but that isn’t creation of those things; it’s creation of the peripheral elements, such as movement, location, et cetera, that the thing is subject to or beholden to: the vicissitudes of quantum laws or even (rarely) Newtonian laws.

My question is, can a projection produce more than a visual observation?

That is, can one’s mental configuration create a tangible, material artifact?

Common sense tells us, no.

Hinduism’s Maya and Oliver Sacks neurological hypotheses say things seen but not actually there are illusions or delusions.

Yet, Jung told us that such things seen have their own kind of reality.

But is Jung’s “reality” a tangible reality, a you-can-touch-it reality?

It seems not to be.

However, for the person or persons encountering a UFO and/or its “pilots,” such as that which Travis Walton or Betty Hill or, even, perhaps, Steven Michalak (of the 1967 Falcon Lake episode), their UFOs and “crew” (in the Hill/Walton tales) were as real as real could be, assuming that their accounts are not confabulations.

Michalak was burned by his UFO. That’s pretty real. (Chris Rutkowski and others think Michalak came into contact with an exotic test craft of the military.)

Was Lonnie Zamora’s 1964 Socorro sighting a total projective “reality”? It has all the earmarks of an hallucinatory episode [See Sack’s book, Hallucinations, for hallucinatory features], but with tangible elements (burning shrubbery and indentations in the ground) that has made it a bona fide “real event” for most UFO aficionados.

The 1959 Reverend Gill group sighting is a “pure” example of a projected reality.

These episodes aside – they are controversial and iffy for many reasons – let me suggest that objects in the sky, those evanescent lights and “objects” that many persons have seen but not touched are as tangible as a cloud or fog patch, real but untouchable in the sensory way.

Yes, clouds and/or fog are made up of physical particles, but so, too, as far as we know, are UFOs.

They leave traces on photographic plates (as Jung noted in his Ufo book).

They have left traces on the ground in some instances. (See Bloecher).

They interact with radar (Paul Kimball’s RB-47 incident for example).

So there is an inferred tangibility, but is that tangibility real or of a nature that hovers between tangible and intangible – a kind of uncertain quantum state, as it were.

For the observer of a UFO or UFOs, the thing(s) seen have a reality, so one has to accept that the reality is palpable, no matter what the essence of that palpability is.

UFOs impinging on the eyes and mind of observers have got to be real if conscious awareness of them is manifest.

Even if they are illusionary, in the sense of imagined, they still have a reality, as Jung indicated: a psychical reality which is just as authentic as a Chopin sonata or a howl in the woods by a wolf or the images on a computer monitor or movie screen.

So, one can say that psychical projections reverberate on the observer(s), the creator(s) of the projection, becoming as real as any kind of reality we, as humans, are familiar with.

The nature of those projections, those created-from-projection UFOs are?

We don’t know yet – new or inscrutable phenomenological entity?

But UFOs are, that’s certain.

Are they worth all the energy spent on them? Jung says, “One can hardly suppose that anything of such worldwide incidence as the Ufo legend [sic] is purely fortuitous and of no importance.” [Page 13 of his book]

RR