ETs would be advanced beings wouldn't they?

While reading Marvin Minsky’s The Society of Mind [Simon and Schuster, NY, 1985/1986] to offer the view that machines can evolve to produce “damage,” I ended up inside the book shown here, essays from cognitive scientists about the evolution of the mind.

This caused me to reflect on the UFO events I like: sightings where beings are seen and interacting with the observer or the environment.

If an advanced species have arrived and continue to arrive here at Earth, one would not expect them to engage in the activities that witnesses have outlined or reported.

One has to presume that a species able to navigate interstellar space to reach Earth would have mental abilities of an advanced kind.

This would seem to intercept the idea(s) that UFO travelers would pick up flora and fauna in such a haphazard way or mingle with this planet’s population is such silly manners as reported by witnesses.

An advanced mind would behave in ways that appear rational and not in the often clownish or mischievous ways that witnesses have provided.

Unless the species were inherently defective mentally, which would belie their ability to traverse the galaxy or universe as ET believers propose.

This seems to augment the conjecture that witnesses were projecting their own interpretation of extraterrestrial behavior on an hallucination they had.

Even UFO sightings of lights or things in the sky are irrational, if those lights or things were piloted by advanced beings.

The maneuvers and trajectories (flight patterns) are irrational, even dangerous.

But the creature sightings are what one would not expect from an advanced thinking species, unless created beings, universally, are inherently insane, as seems to be the case here with our own humanity.

RR 

Pythagorean Ufology

It is clear to any sensible (sane) person that the past and current approach to understanding the UFO phenomenon has been and is flawed.

The mystery of UFOs remains unresolved because the persons studying it are not intellectually astute enough (or at all) to give the phenomenon the full inquiry it needs.

Donald Keyhoe was enamored of the military’s alleged cover-ups of sightings, but only that.

Jerry Clark has the best overview of the UFO as a topic but he understands it from the historical perspective particularly.

Stanton Friedman understands it from a physicist’s perspective.

Michael Salla fixates on the deviousness of government agents and agencies.

The accumulation of data (sightings and related reports) continue, but that data (as a singularity) is not being examined by “ufologists; they can barely keep up with the information culled from the past and coming in everyday unabated.

Ruminations over past UFO episodes provide the pretense that some are studying the phenomenon in serious ways.

Martin Shough, Larry Hatch, Wendy Connors, and a multiple of other UFO’s lesser lights regurgitate and re-dice UFO incidents, trying to leave the impression that they are dealing with the enigma scientifically, seriously.

But the inherent deficiencies of the people and the UFO studies aside, what is to be done with the present state of “ufology”?

The study of UFOs has to be conducted in “secrecy” and by that we mean, away from the debunkers, hoaxers, self-aggrandizers, pretenders-to-the-throne, those with an agenda, those who nit-pick errant but non-essential minutiae, those who are moronic, and those who think reality is limited to what the six senses perceive.

Pythagoras created a secret order for the very reasons enumerated above. He wanted to study philosophical/physical reality away from the ignorant mob, which also included those in his society who thought they were erudite about the meaning(s) of it all.

This is what Jacques Vallee has done, and Joe Firmage too.

This what has to be done, just to escape the gathered and gathering garbage under the rubric of “ufology.”

RR [From the RRRGroup blog, 2006]

The Glitch in Historical Methodology

The History Channel continues to run pieces on the UFO alien presence in early historical accounts (The Bible, The Mahabharata, Egyptian hieroglyphics, etc.).

But the Channel’s use of an “historian” (who shall remain nameless here) insists that historical witnesses either misunderstood their experience or elaborated upon them in imaginary ways. That’s the historical glitch.

One can’t attribute to early writers (those who documented various events) the mind-set of contemporary writers (including historians); writers who do infuse accounts with personal spin or imaginary ramblings.

Early writers, devoid of the Machiavellian need to fudge facts, reported what they saw and heard exactly as they saw and heard things.

The Channel’s resident “historian” for example said that Ezekiel (in the Hebrew Bible) didn’t see a strange craft as he, Ezekiel, reported but, rather, came across a strange tribe and mistook their masks and movements for the creatures that manned the wheel-in-a-wheel vehicle described by him (Ezekiel) in Ezekiel 1:4 ff.

Early writers didn’t have an agenda. Ezekiel didn’t take his “vision” and use it to further the Hebrew cause. He merely recounted the strange event, and that was it. Besides, the episode was so bizarre that it couldn’t be used in any practical or propagandistic manner.

Medieval accounts of strange objects seen over Zurich or Europe, apparently in contention or pretending to be so, don’t allow for insertion in any imaginary tale or any purposeful writing. To what end are the accounts due? None. They merely are.

The imputation that early writers lied or were mistaken or had an agenda is applying, anachronistically, motivations that are “modern” in nature.

When the column(s) of light and/or fire guided Moses and the Hebrews in the wilderness, the apparitions were described in Exodus as they appeared, not as they were imagined (as they are hardly imaginary in the literary sense) or mis-visioned. The guiding  manifestations were as they were described. The writer(s) of Exodus made up nothing in their accounts of what they saw or experienced. They may have attributed the guiding elements to God, but the description of that God was as it was, unadorned and rather mundane actually. This makes the documentation appear to be real, not creative or bogus.

Early accounts of unusual events (UFO sightings, monsters, a risen God) have to be taken at face-value, without the imposition of modern attributes: lying, deceit, vivid (neurotic) imagination, and propagandistic thrusts to further a cause.

Historians need to empathize with that and those whom they a studying, and not malign that and those with a modern projection that is marred by the human flaws that have crept in to writing and history, life in general. That’s not how it was way back when…

RR [From the RRRGroup blog, 2005]