A telling factor in this is the "standardization" of UFO occupants since the late 1970s. No longer do we hear about beer-can shaped robots, humanoids in spacesuits, or hairy dwarves. Actually, these reports may be out there, but the researchers (especially of the American sort) are most likely blocking out the stories that don't conform to the big-headed, bug-eyed variety.
"A stunning survey of the latest evidence for intelligent life on Mars. Mac Tonnies brings a thoughtful, balanced and highly accessible approach to one of the most fascinating enigmas of our time."
--Herbie Brennan, author of Martian Genesis and The Atlantis Enigma
"Tonnies drops all predetermined opinions about Mars, and asks us to do the same."
--Greg Bishop, author of Project Beta
"I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the search for extra-terrestrial artifacts, and the political intrigues that invariably accompany it."
--David Jinks, author of The Monkey and the Tetrahredron
"Mac Tonnies goes where NASA fears to tread and he goes first class."
--Peter Gersten, former Director of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
And don't miss...
(Includes my essay "The Ancients Are Watching.")
Join the Posthuman Blues Geographical Matrix!
21 comments:
Maybe because in a less technological age, people could only related to them in those terms (at the time..50's/60's funny robots and whatnot) so the perception for some was their only way of relating to something 'fantastic' much the same way primitive man might have described a common meteor as an 'angel'
Dont you think..you cant have it both ways either.
You should read this, I guess he was another liar too (after his death)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Haut
This phenonomena, this thing, is amorphous. . . on another page I'm reading Keyhoes book Flying Suacers are Real. What strikes me is the amount of UFOs reported by pilots and other military personel who reported ships that appear, in this day and age, to be antiquated. They spoke of loud engines, smoke trailing behind and open flame like one would see emitted from a conventional rocket. I would lean more towards the idea that whatever UFOs are, they can change their appearance and/or their perception by the observer.
I tend to come down with Vallee on this one, some of the CE reports that I once thought were absolutely absurd, I'm now starting to believe are a morphing phenomena of which we can't even conceive.
Today, give me the absurd over another Roswell pissing contest. The absurd gives me something to ponder while the former leaves me cold and worried for the future of UFO study.
How many diverse shapes of aircraft and spacecraft do we have here on Earth? They are all without question task specific.
On the "occupants" issue I find it a bit surprising that he overlooks the rich variety of present day encounter stories. These reports continue to include robots, lizard men, humanoids and an assortment of Grey premutations. Not enough homework done me thinks.
That article was just silly.
Denny
Bishop does raise a damn interesting question, though.
Why _are_ there so many different ufo shapes, forms, and "models" that have both been witnessed and photographed/filmed over time and location?
There are many, many reasons (both real and speculative) that could be mentioned, but I will leave my comments there until or unless others chime in with their reasoning.
This is actually a very intriguing realm of discussion, IMHO.
For a moment, think about the opposite conjecture: what if ufos seemed to maintain a form or model which was uniform and standardized, such as the classic late 40's and 50's circular or ovoid disc-shape, with the rise or protuberance on top and in the middle, either as part of the standard old greyish metallic model or with a transparent dome on top? Less plausible deniability, more credibility, more able to be studied?
What does the wide variety suggest as opposed to a standard model?
Let's discuss.
I lean toward the explanation that it's a matter of perception. That is, whatever UFOs "really" look like, it is something that doesn't quite fit into what humans are used to perceiving. As such, the brain comes up with an acceptable appearance which is strongly colored by preconceptions, culture, etc.
Witness Ezekiel's Wheel, which is clearly a UFO story (he even rides on it), but described in very odd terms, such as animal faces. Ezekiel was a holy man, and the perceptual mode he saw the world in was through his spiritualism. So he saw the UFO in those terms. A modern man may have seen the exact same thing as a steampunk contraption or a classic flying saucer.
In the same vein, I tend to think that aliens, fairies, pixies, etc., are all the same, or nearly the same thing, just viewed through different worldviews.
But I'm convinced that all the explanations I've heard are not quite right. I just have nothing better.
As in many cases, the most simple answer is usually the correct one. What's the most simple answer as to why there's been this "standardization"? Stories of UFO abductions are imaginary. As the abduction lore evolves, a dominant "type" of alien emerges in the collective social imagination. In other words, so-called abduction reports are 99.9% bullshit.
Perhaps, Anon, althugh the 80-20 rule (80% of everything is crap) would indicate that the figure is a bit south of 99.9%.
But it depends on what you mean by "bullshit". Abductees aren't (with few exceptions) lying. Same with people seeing UFOs. They have experienced something, and the something is real in the sense that it was experienced. The only question is -- what is it? To dismiss it as "bullshit" gets us nothing except continued ignorance. It's the same as when religious fundamentalists reject science and explain things by saying "god did it."
"abduction reports are 99.9% bullshit"
The problem with that absolutely dismissive logic is that you can't make that statement if you truly know the facts. You have to do some hardcore data mining of a 50 year period (or so) and millions of reported abduction cases to get a clear picture of what's been happening.
In a healthy subset of abduction cases, lucid and stable observers have offered striking details of their abductions which match too closely to other related cases to be mere chance. And I'm not talking about vague "out of body", anal probe, "night terror at the edge of the bed" nonesense either, I'm talking about very specific, alien initiated role programing/training and other issues beyond standard "Abduction" archetypes.
Have a look into the "Calmer" phenomenon and you'll find a REALLY interesting correlation between cases dealing with aliens training humans to do very specific tasks. There are many of these reports but they don't typically get the mainstream "anal probe" exposure.
It is these highly focused case anomalies with striking similarities (not perpetuated in the main stream) that cannot be dismissed as mere memetic social programming or some odd subconscious, biological undercurrent all humans have.
Denny
Why are things diverse in any environment, be it biological or technological?
Why does this planet not nurture one perfect life form or one perfect toaster or one perfect virus?
Infinite diversity and limitless novelty seem to be the way of all life.
Now that we veered a bit into abductions, I'd love to know what the specific things are the Hopkins and Jacobs cite as evidence that the abductions are actually happening. They say that there are pieces of information that are highly collaborative between cases and that abduction researchers don't publish them as a means by which to verify the events. I suppose if we knew, they would no longer be hidden, now would they?
"I suppose if we knew, they would no longer be hidden, now would they?"
I'm telling you what they are Anon. Do some research into "Calmers" as it relates to alien initiated abductee programming and training. That's just one of many very unusual and highly collaborative roads this research actually takes...if you can get past the knee-jerk anal probe, night terror and OBE garbage that is.
Denny
Denny,
Can u give me some links or maybe the names of books that dicuss "Calmers"?
Btw, these must be _credible_.
Have a look into the work conducted by Constance Clear (now deceased)and John Mack. There are others but these two had the best research saturation.
Is their work "credible"? Well, John Mack as you probably know is a Pulitzer Prize winning author and Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School. Constance clear is a fully licensed psychotherapists M.A., M.S.W with well over a 25 years of practical research. I'm not sure you'll find anyone better qualified on a topic most won't touch.
And for the conspiracy paranoia crowd; it's interesting to take note that Constance died due to complications from a motorcycle "accident" & Mack from a hit-and-run ;)
Denny
Thanks for posting the follow-up on Calmers, Denny. I tried to look it up after your first post, and I couldn't find anything. I'll do some reading.
I was on Constance's show not too long before she died.
"I was on Constance's show not too long before she died."
She had a show? Wow that's news to me, are there archives anywhere? I heard her once on Art Bell or perhaps Strieber and she seemed like a genuinely level and intelligent person.
Anyway would love to hear that show!
Denny
Denny--
What is a "calmer?" I tried doing some searches on the internet, but couldn't find anything specific.
Could you point those here interested to any relevant net references you may know of? I'd like to read about "calmers", but can't find any pertinent links.
Intense--
This is one of those bits of info that abduction researchers tend to hold "close to their chests". You'll often hear them drop hints about data they only share with colleagues in order to verify certain stories. The Calmers issue is certainly one of those tid-bits. When I was heavy into this stuff I had a few back-and-forths with Constance on the issue and my personal research went on from there.
There's nothing really available on the net specifically. I'm fairly certain that Constance Clear covers this in one of her publications but I the title is evading me at the moment (I'll dig around). One title that pops to mind that gets to the core of Calmer based abduction scenarios is "The Keepers" by Jim Sparks: http://www.amazon.com/Keepers-Alien-Message-Human-Race/dp/1930724055 . From what I remember I believe Jim was one of Constance's clients (could be wrong there) but his recollections of being a calmer are right in line with reported cases. Whether or not his entire recollections are accurate is questionable but the calmer syndrome features prominently in his story.
Long story very short "Calmers" are
programmed abductee's who are trained to maintain calm and order amongst other abduction victims (in mass abduction cases). This affords them special privileges to some extent. The behavior is usually uncharacteristic and Calmers typically feel controlled but highly motivated. This also enters into that whole realm of adduction processing centers and other areas where large quantities of aductee's are contained within the same area.
REALLY interesting if not entertaining stuff.
Denny
Denny,
I think I DID do my homework. That's why I said that the non-standard alien types were "probably" not getting reported by the bigwig UFO researchers in the U.S. See my other post on a great site with numerous entity reports of widely varying appearance.
http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/ufo-entity-reports/
How was my article "just silly?"
Hey Greg,
I do understand what it is you were trying to say but at first blush the article sounds like a veiled dig against the UFO phenomenon in general. At it's best it came across as that middle of the road attitude that seems more and more prevalent these days.
You're a good writer and my intent isn't to knock you. It's not so much what you said as what the piece infers, even if that wasn't your intent. Too much wild speculation and a seeming avoidance of certain information which is actually contradictory to some of your assumptions.
Anyway, I'm just some dude on a blog. 10 whole people will actually read my comments ;)
Denny
Post a Comment