We (UFO enthusiasts) are going far afield in trying to explain UFOs
Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.
I got a notification, Thursday night (3/7/19) that my pal, MJ Banias, was airing one of his “shows” on his YouTube channel: Will UFO Disclosure End Capitalism?
Pretty heavy stuff, something that my academic buddy Bryan Sentes might like and do.
(I find myself often slipping into peripheral commentary that has little, if anything, to do with the UFO phenomenon. And that’s a flaw which prevents commentary usually.)
I’m noticing that a lot of UFO buffs are presenting postings that can be made to seemingly impact UFOs: Miguel (Red Pill Junkie) Romero, Jason Colavito, Micah Hanks, et al.
What happened to the idea that UFO fanatics were supposed to get a handle on UFOs; that is, the ufologist purpose for being was to find out what UFOs were or are?
While we find Christopher O’Brien applying technologies to capture UFOs flying over Colorado, that, like smartphone captures of lights in the sky, don’t take us very far.
Once you gather the data, what can you do with it? Data tells us nothing, actually.
That no one has caught a UFO (or odd something in the sky) with a telephoto lens on a real camera – an image that is distinct and up close (and personal) – goes to the heart of what’s missing in the UFO search for meaning.
How is it that non-UFO oriented people capture photos, close-up and detailed, of the most inane objects (and people) all the time, displaying them, “virally,” on social media?
And then there are all those detailed, impish tales of humans doing loony things that permeate society’s vaporous day-to-day activities.
Where are those kinds of “efforts” when it comes to UFOs? It’s not that ufologists are unenthusiastic. Or that UFOs don’t show up when someone has a professional camera in hand, or the ability to describe their experience with élan and clarity?
Do UFOs really have anything to do with capitalism or Marxism or the price of eggs in China? I ask you.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, March 07, 2019
29 Comments:
You make some very good points Rich..
Despairingly, I might add, there ARE, photos of UFO. (Blurred ones!!)
The really clear shots of UFO are "not trusted" any longer, and thought of,
as too good to be true.
You can blame this, on CGIs or photo-shop!!
There is one case I recall. This guy had his camera with him, but he was so overwhelmed by what he saw, that he forgot to take a photo of what he was seeing, before he could gather his thoughts, it quickly vanished on him. And even if he had managed to get a few shots in, would we believe his photos, anyway??..
HOW EVER, there are photos on the net, clear ones at that! But we no longer trust them, on the face of it, and am sure we're not alone on that one.
What strikes me as being difficult to determine, what UFO are, is the speed they are capable of. There one minute, gone the next!! How can anyone get a handle on what they are, let alone where they came from & why they're here!? When our technology is left behind for dead!!..No contest!!!..
On the other hand, the UFO story may be a different one, and not shared with us, for reasons of defence, and considered, we have no need to know..You can't tell your friends, without telling your enemy.You all know that:)..........
By
Daniel, at Friday, March 08, 2019
A brief summer fad of misidentified ballons, birds and planes gone a-wire. Keep calm and, if you wish, observe the misspent energy from a distance,I say.
By
Yvan Defoy, at Friday, March 08, 2019
-> A brief summer fad of misidentified ballons, birds and planes gone a-wire.<-
Absolutely, Claude! Some are! But not all are misidentified, some reports are,
up close, and personal, believe it or not..Those are the ones, we're interested in,
Not the misidentifications, as you point out..........
By
Daniel, at Friday, March 08, 2019
> capture UFOs
Anyone ever propose a plan to lure an alien craft out of the sky? They're crashing all the time; it shouldn't be too hard to bring one down.
By
Terry the Censor, at Saturday, March 09, 2019
Long ago, I believe I read, from some long forgotten author, that disclosure of UFOs (i.e. by the US military, who else?) would spell the end of capitalism. Hence we, the public, would never get to hear the dreaded 'truth'. Capitalism prevailed supreme and had to continue to do so.
I am now expecting someone in the UK to come up with the great idea that disclosure of the truth about UFOs in this country, or in fact anywhere in Europe, would mean the end of the EU. But that is another story.
By
cda, at Saturday, March 09, 2019
Hahahaha, CDA...
That Brexit thing is driving you crazy.
We'll all be glad when it's over, and you Brits will get back to normalcy, no matter which way the coin(s) fall.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, March 09, 2019
The problem is though, Terry, we assume they are all alien craft in our sky, or AIs; when they are not. Some craft are "Earth Manufactured" alien reproduction vehicles, Meaning..Back-engineered!! Ours in other words,if not most of the UFO seen, surprisingly!:)..in understanding the UFO story.To my knowledge, alien craft are not crashing "all the time" but yes, some alien craft, have crashed in the past, obviously!! You might have heard someone jokingly comment, on alien craft traversing the vastness of space, just to come to Earth and crash.That would be a joke on alien technology,and I don't think it works quit in that way.The craft might have been on a reconnaissance of Earth, from a so called; "Mother-Ship" or perhaps, more local, from a nearby base..
When we comment; - What are UFO? - We mean, are they OURS - THIERS or something else intruding in our reality. We don't know for certain, what the intrusion is, but we do know, that our Pilots up there, aren't Happy:)............
By
Daniel, at Saturday, March 09, 2019
I believe UFO "disclosure" would be principally the end of religion. Unless the popes and imams of this world, make us re-believe in gods that would have only an impact on earth, rest of the universe would be out of bounds for them. So long omnipresence
By
Unknown, at Saturday, March 09, 2019
The Vatican, "is very much" aware of the UFO story, and have thier own huge telescope looking for Extraterrestrial life in the cosmos. In fact, a sequence of events that have occured at Vatican City, since and before Pope John Paul's death in 2005 was found to be very interesting..
When the Pope died back on April the 2nd.2005 a Romanian News Channel filmed a UFO over St.Peter's Basilica.The video, taken from a network feed camera, at around 6:00 am. Roman time, was filmed as Pope John Paul II lay in state..Since then the Vatican apparently, has had numerous visits from Ufos.
Do you think the Vatican, & the UFO story, is a hand in glove relation??..
I don't think Disclosure, would be the end of religion at all..........
By
Daniel, at Sunday, March 10, 2019
Well,
From Project Sign the phenomenon has had two sides: the reality of the UFO and potential social effects. Since, a kind of "physical" ufology has developed to investigate the one and a kind of "sociological" ufology to investigate the other.
As the nature of the UFO became increasingly ungraspable and its social effects less threatening, even in official circles (e.g., the Robertson Panel) the concern drifted more to the UFO's social potential (Pilkington's _Mirage Men_ probes this aspect in a lively way). So the UFO Effect (its sociological dimension) has a long and rich pedigree of its own. And it is a theme, I would argue, with vista....
You seem to lament the lack of 1. attention, and 2. results in physical ufology. But, given the recent attention paid the physical phenomenon in the wake of the Nimitz affair, there seems some covert attention: surely, any nation that can reproduce or capture and back engineer the tech UFOs seem to possess would gain an advantage, or so the story goes... As to results, on the one hand, e.g., Eric Davis et al. claim to be in possession of some data (whatever that is worth), and there are the books by Sturrock and Rutledge (though the latter's is hard to get a hold of) that are attempting scientifically-respectable research.
RE: the comments re religion: ETs and UFOs have always had an important religious dimension in their own right. D W Pasulka's _American Cosmic_ is only the latest to argue (from Jung on) that the UFO belief system can be understood as more or less a religious phenomenon....
By
Bryan Sentes, at Sunday, March 10, 2019
Those sightings were bunk and a sham. And 6 am in roman time is VI am...
By
Unknown, at Sunday, March 10, 2019
Yes, Bryan, there has always a patina of concern for the effect UFOs might have on the constructs of society: economy, religion, politics, et cetera.
But those things matter not.
UFOs are a thing unto themselves it seems and to muddy the waters of their explanation seems a bogus enterprise based upon a need to connect everything to everything else.
And while there may be a Buddistic connection, to apply it to the UFO mystery is to miss the point of that elusive enigma.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 10, 2019
Hi, dubious f.
-> And 6 am in roman time is Vl am..<-
YES! and we all know it, but it depends on what part of the world YOUR in, as to your time, in relation to Vl am. roman time at St.Peter's Basilica, Yes?............
By
Daniel, at Sunday, March 10, 2019
I don't recall invoking Buddhism anywhere...
The UFO Effect is real, arguably more than UFOs themselves. There may be no visitors from space, but the belief that there may be can have real effects. I refer you, again, to _Mirage Men_.
Or, given how baseless, pointless, and tiresome debates about UFO reality are, it should come as little surprise interest might shift to matters both more material and informative.
Moreover, a concrete grasp of society and culture must needs grasp just how everything is in fact connected to everything else.
All that being said, it is perfectly understandable how someone gripped by the question of UFO Reality mind take little interest in the UFO effect, regardless of how much, ironically, being gripped in that way is an instance of the Effect.
By
Bryan Sentes, at Sunday, March 10, 2019
It's that digression, Bryan, that distracting digression, which takes us away from the phenomenon into the effects of the phenomenon that bugs me.
The cultural/societal effects may be interesting but not pertinent to the UFO phenomenon itself -- UFOs alone, without those effects that you, MJ, and others find so attractive.
You becloud the enigma.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 10, 2019
Sure, RR, I hear you: probing the UFO Effect might well strike someone fascinated by or concerned with UFO Reality as off-target.
Reflections on the Effect would be a distraction or digression, however, only if the "physical" or "scientific" ufologist became caught up in questions around the Effect, if, for whatever reason, they became important.
The focus on "UFOs alone" has led some away from purely physical or forensic investigation, Vallee or Pilkington, for example. Have their broader researches beclouded the enigma? I'd argue Pilkington's _Mirage Men_ actually clears some of the air.
I'm not arguing that in general "ufology" should abandon or dissolve the question of Reality into Effect.
For myself, I find much of the time spent investigating the Reality tiresome and pointless, nor do my own talents run in the direction of physics (speculative or otherwise), optics, meteorology, forensics, etc. I follow up on the aspects of the phenomenon that intrigue me: why would anyone believe in visitors from space and what does such a belief imply? Why might world civilization be caught up with this phenomenon (whatever it ultimately is and its various manifestations) the way it is and what does that, in turn, imply? How can these infinite stories and their implications, regardless of their truth, be turned to literary or artistic ends?
Surely the phenomenon is rich enough to feed various curiosities without them cancelling each other out.
By
Bryan Sentes, at Monday, March 11, 2019
I understand your polymathic approach Bryan, as you well know.
But to establish credentials for a flawed (false) meme, namely disclosure, does a disservice to reality.
That is, when one puts "disclosure" as the premise for a consideration of the UFO effect on society or culture, they provide meat for those who think that some government agency or group has evidence for an ET presence here on Earth.
I don't think they do, obviously, but should they, the dullards that make up humanity would hardly react to any idea that extraterrestrials showing up or having done so already would destroy the rubrics that disclosure lists as possibly being undermined or destroyed.
I'm just saying that one should examine UFO sightings and UFOs themselves using the favorite methodology that UFO buffs always trot out when push comes to shove: Ockham's Razor.
Keep it simple -- the UFO examination -- and one might bear fruit.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, March 11, 2019
How does merely discussing "disclosure" (an idea that goes back to Keyhoe's first book and is therefore an inescapable aspect of the _history_ of ufology to this day) "establish credentials" for its latest iteration? In the example that heads your post (Banias' and Gittlitz's conversation) Disclosure is never taken seriously.
And, yes, in articulating an explanation for a natural phenomenon, by all means invoke Ockham's Razor, but it doesn't follow that the UFO phenomenon in general doesn't possess all manner of curious aspects, which can be probed independently of each other, each according to its proper method. The object and methods of Theology are not those of Religious Studies.
Let's be clear: my "polymathic approach" doesn't seek to solve the mystery of UFO Reality, the way the Psychosocial Theory or the ETH do, so it doesn't contradict or seek to replace these theories (however much sometimes I can't help but reflect on the suppositions or implications of these theories). I'm not about to attempt to write a Prolegomena to Any Future Ufology (however much one is needed!). And even that would still not touch on whether "the flying saucers are real" or not.
Simply, I have no argument with those who want to investigate the UFO Reality; but by the same token, they can have no grounds to forbid a priori other approaches to other aspects of the phenomenon in general,
Just cuz they like like oranges, why should they look askance at those chawin' down apples?
By
Bryan Sentes, at Monday, March 11, 2019
"Disclosure" has a patina of desired fantasy that has attracted the looniest of UFO fanatics.
There is nothing to disclose, and for the rest of us, semi-fanatics, to indulge in postings that liberate the term and what it means is not conducive to an explanation for UFOs.
They do not come from outer space and there are none having been collected by militaries.
To present ideas, conjecturally, that disclosure might evoke disasters of many kinds is assisting the disclosure lunatics in their mental meltdown.
That you and MJ among others think that an "academic" presentation about UFO disclosure is helpful toward resolving the enigma is startling.
In the absence of anything explaining the phenomenon, you boys, hysterically, conjure up scenarios that are not far from those of Don Quixote.
Sorry to see the vain attempts to make "disclosure" something worthy of discussion, but there it is.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, March 11, 2019
Straw men falling right and left, here. I really fail to see where you are coming from on this. I hardly know where to start.
Your raising the issue of Disclosure is, first, very much a red herring. Your remarks suggest you haven't even listened to the webcast that begins your post, just picking up its title and running with it. Talk about book/cover etc.
That being said, no one familiar with the literature can claim that the idea of disclosure hasn't shadowed the phenomenon since 1949. To acknowledge that fact is not to naively believe the conspiracy theory. To take an interest is much like the doctor curious about the startling symptom of some new disease: the doctor need not suffer from the disease to find it curious. To say the doctor must be sick is like saying all UFOfiles are believers in the ETH and Alien Abductions.
"Disclosure" as believed in by Salla, Greer, et al. is--and Banias and Gittlitz would agree--"loony". No argument there.
Who--quote me or Banias or Gittlitz!--has "indulged in postings that liberate the term from what it means"?
Who--quote!--posits Disclosure "might evoke disasters"?
Why must all discussion of the phenomenon orbit UFO Reality and the determination of its nature? I've observed, twice here, how I can understand that someone concerned with that question will find other questions uninteresting, but said uninterest is no warrant to claim other questions as de facto illegitimate. To persist in that dogmatic behaviour is as startling as it is puzzling.
By
Bryan Sentes, at Monday, March 11, 2019
Let me make this simple for you Bryan:
I'm sitting on a park bench talking on my phone with a friend. I hear two people on the next park bench saying that the History Channel's Project Blue Book is a great show.
I mention to my phone companion the remark but knowing it to lunatic I don't comment further about it, except to reiterate to my phone pal that it's just crazy talk.
This is how I feel about "disclosure."
That MJ and Gittlitz agree that disclosure is loony is fine but that they continue to debate disclosure's possible effect on society's constructs -- religion, politics, the economy, etc. -- makes my point.
They, like you, would instill a credibility for the term (and supposed effort) that it should not be given.
Like History's PBB show, to take time out of one's day to discuss the show is loony, even though my excoriation of the damnable show has been inordinately extensive and itself lunatic.
That I have been "forced" to indulge your excessive defense of "disclosure" as a staple and important UFO factor makes me kinda sick.
There can be no disclosure as there hasn't been anything to disclose, except the fact there is nothing to disclose. (The military hasn't found a crashed UFO or any aliens in their pursuit of the enigma.)
You and MJ, among others are tilting at windmills. Why? I don't know except I think you fellows are bored and incensed that no one has come up with a UFO explanation so you fellows are trying to make legitimate UFO disclosure in order to use it to capitulate your desires to insert topics that interest you in within the UFO community: Marxism, capitalism, social deviances, and things affect human culture.
Talk about loony.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, March 11, 2019
I repeat. If you understand me, here or anywhere, to be defending Disclosure in the sense that Salla, Greer, et al. believe in, then you have misunderstood me.
Nowhere have I ever claimed to believe in the Disclosure narrative; I've actually quite explicitly, on a number of occasions, remarked its being a nefarious fiction, following Vallee in _Revelations_ and Pilkington in _Mirage Men_.
That the disclosure narrative has a longstanding and undeniable function within the beliefs around UFOs is undeniable, but saying so hardly affirms the narrative, no more than observing that Christianity has played an important role in Western Civilization makes one a believer; indeed, the most vociferous critics must posit the influence to examine and attack it.
Your remark about Banias and Gittlitz "continuing to debate disclosure's possible effects" suggests you haven't watched/listened to the webcast in question, which is fine, you don't have to, but don't try to make a mountain out of a molehill webcast episode title whose provocative wording you seem to have fallen for. If you watch the webcast and follow the chat replay you will see one commenter, a believer in Disclosure if there ever was one, become increasingly exasperated with the conversation's eschewing the whole matter....
To write "That MJ and Gittlitz agree that disclosure is loony is fine but that they continue to debate disclosure's possible effect on society's constructs -- religion, politics, the economy, etc. -- makes my point.They, like you, would instill a credibility for the term (and supposed effort) that it should not be given" is to think that discussing a topic somehow legitimates it, as if the scholar Barkun need believe in the conspiracy theories he analyzes sociologically or that such analysis lends them credence, as if writing about QAnon as a social phenomenon with increasingly global effects is the same as those who take it seriously and have mapped it. Your reasoning implies skepticism about vaccines or climate change should not be studied to discover how they work so they might be countered, because paying them serious attention somehow validates their flawed thinking. Please. By the same token every time you complain about PBB you lend it aesthetic or historical validity.
So: neither myself, Banias, nor Gittlitz are "legitimating" UFO Disclosure (you have yet to actually quote any of us in this regard...). The UFO phenomenon in general, because it is unquestionably cultural in the broadest sense, can therefore be related to equally broad, cultural considerations, as has been done since Jung. And, like Jung's, such reflections can, methodologically, suspend the question of UFO Reality, i.e., not even pose the question, which entails nothing about the question itself or those who do pose and work to answer it.
By
Bryan Sentes, at Monday, March 11, 2019
I think I understand your position, but you aren't getting mine maybe.
My permanent peeve with PBB is tiresome for me as well as those who have to see it.
But it's puke I have to get out of my system.
My point about MJ's webcast and other attention to disclosure is similar.
Any time disclosure is brought up, no matter in what context, it gives a legitimacy to it that it shouldn't be granted.
Just the title of MJ's web-cast was deferential to the idea that somewhere there is an ET truth that some are waiting to hear.
One doesn't have to make legitimate something with quotes; they just have to nod approvingly when a topic or matter is presented openly, for instance when someone writes that Mirage Men is an honest book and someone nods in assent.
That nod provides assent for the comment "an honest book." Is it really. Are you sure?
You have a genteel tendency to okay slips of behavior or commentary by those you like: me, MJ, Kant, Paul De Man, et al.
I am less, much less, inclined to approve of intellectual mortal sins.
And bringing the possible demise of capitalism, as a folly or real actuality using UFO disclosure to make a point seems, to me, to be disingenuous -- a scheme to appear scholarly instead of dealing with the root explanation of flying saucers or UFOs.
It's a ploy to provide a patina of intellectualism in place of real research into the UFO enigma all by itself. (I do it all the time, being lazy and not able to pursue the UFO mystery in serious ways that some like Kevin Randle, Stan Friedman, and others do or have done.)
Jung's approach was similar. he looked at UFOs in a somewhat cavalier way, but in such an interesting way that we read him seriously.
(Jung did the same thing with Freud's insightful approaches to sexual maladjustment.)
Again, it's the MJ/Gittlitz premise that I hated: Disclosure may incapacitate Capitalism. (A haha theme.)
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, March 11, 2019
"Any time disclosure is brought up, no matter in what context, it gives a legitimacy to it that it shouldn't be granted."--No. Your claim implies a fortiori that any time X is brought up, X is legitimated, which just isn't so: see my earlier examples re antivaxxers, climate change deniers, or QAnon conspiracists.
"bringing the possible demise of capitalism, as a folly or real actuality using UFO disclosure to make a point seems, to me, to be disingenuous -- a scheme to appear scholarly instead of dealing with the root explanation of flying saucers or UFOs."--MJ's last webcast was unconcerned with seeking a root explanation of flying saucers: why insist he _must_? Moreover, as I noted before, you fall for the clickbait if you reduce the near hour conversation to the question in the clickbait title of the webcast.
"real research into the UFO enigma ... in serious ways that some like Kevin Randle, Stan Friedman, and others do or have done"--again, you arbitrarily restrict ufology to "physical ufology"; following your reasoning, Freud should have kept to psychopathology, exclusively. Arguably, the sociological study of the phenomenon in its various aspects is _more_ intellectually and institutionally legitimate; physical research still faces ridicule.
What's curious is how the "meta-ufologist" (interested in the Effect) hardly disdains the (physical) ufologist, while you seem eager for some reason to diss the meta-ufological perspective....
By
Bryan Sentes, at Monday, March 11, 2019
Your last sentence sums up my position, nicely.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, March 11, 2019
"While we find Christopher O’Brien applying technologies to capture UFOs flying over Colorado, that, like smartphone captures of lights in the sky, don’t take us very far."
I disagree Rich. Traditional blurry optical images alone can only "take us so far," as you point out, but changes in the magnetic field, gravitational data, seperating light in spectra and ELF accoustic recordings can provide a huge amount of information. Triangulated optical data (w/ polorized filters and a blazed grating) of objects backlit by the sun will provide an immense amount of irrefutable diagnostic data. Just because no one (besides Ray Stanford) has done this, doesn't mean it cannot be done, or that successful instrumented captures will not be worth the effort!. This will take us further down the road but your mileage my vary....UFODAP.com
By
Christopher O'Brien, at Thursday, March 14, 2019
Interesting direction re: demise of capitalism due to UFO reality. British philosopher Nick Land has written the exact opposite, i.e., that our current techno-reality is due to the 'winning' of capitalism which he takes to mean that technical acceleration has caused capital to come from the future, due to AI, the Now, in order to facilitate its emergence in the future...a tightening up of the idea of the Eschaton (which has given rise to the saying 'immanentize the eschaton'). UFO reality could perhaps be seen as the event horizon of this drastic and total transformation of the human condition and the speeding up of this densification/numenosity/monstrosity. The idea of a ufo reality is in the process of being opened up in many ways, all technical, chief one being spectacualization/cinema...the hyperreality graham wrote.
By
robert c., at Thursday, March 14, 2019
Robert C.--the title of the webcast that heads RR's post is a question: "Will UFO Disclosure end Capitalism?" (a question answered in the negative by the guest).--Land's speculations, as you present them, seem backwards (however heady and provocative): capitalism is the material condition of the so-called advanced societies and their technologies (see Medede's "How Capitalism Can Explain Why an Encounter with Aliens Is Highly Unlikely"); the UFO as "advanced technology" is, quite consistent with what you present Land to think, a reification of technology, perhaps as the ideology of so-called advanced societies (a la Habermas), i.e. the positing of the UFO as the end/goal/telos/ultimate revelation of present day technology (a la Land) masks a contingent social situation, itself the "result" of a nonsequence of contingencies, with a seeming necessity....
Chris O'Brien--I, for one, though only tangentially concerned with "physical" ufology, applaud your efforts. Have you made public any thoughts on similar research, for example, the Hessdalen lights or Rutledge's Project Identification?
By
Bryan Sentes, at Thursday, March 14, 2019
@robert c. - Nick Land hahaha! One of my old tutors at Warwick - a somewhat 'left field' (shall we say) thinker who was always entertaining (when he turned up!) if a little, er...'somewhere else' most of the time. He did introduce us to Deleuze & Guattari though, for which I'll always be eternally grateful. Always being threatened with the sack if I remember rightly - for not submitting his quota of academic papers. What a guy! :)
Again 'disclosure' - whilst the US Govt undoubtedly knows more that it tells, it eternally asserts it's 'no longer interested' in UFOs, despite the post Blue Book Air Force being EXTREMELY interested in Hickson and Parker after the Pascagoula Incident, as recently recalled by Calvin Parker to Kevin Randle (link: https://player.fm/series/adp-col-kevin-randle-ret-phd/adp-calvin-parker-pascagoula-the-closest-encounter-my-story)
Plus the admission of the existence of the Pentagon funded AATIP program (together with perplexing statements regarding its preliminary 'findings') while again maintining all along they're 'no longer interested' all suggests there's not much 'closure' to disclose and the US Govt & military remain as interested & baffled by the phenomenon as ourselves.
Part of Nick Pope's responsibilities while handling the UFO desk for MI5 was of course to constantly & publically deny that his job actually existed! Mainly because, should anyone have requested to view the findings (and thus justify the continued public funding) of this office over the years, they would (as Pope notes) have been left with a considerable amount of egg on their faces.
Given that 'a recent MIT quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality' (link: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/) it would suggest the laudable aim of conclusively defining/explaining/disclosing exactly what UFOs are will always perhaps ultimately amount to little more than tilting at windmills.
Still, it remains an interesting & engaging pursuit, despite the fact (and perhaps because of) there are no undisputed 'victors' :D
By
DrDee, at Sunday, March 17, 2019
Post a Comment
<< Home