Saturday, December 23, 2006

I think some readers have surmised that since I've been writing about the possible presence of "cryptoterrestrials" I must hold the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for UFO visitation in disdain.

Not true.

Like Stan Friedman (who's raised some worthy arguments on the UFO UpDates mailing list), I think some UFOs are likely ET in origin. But I maintain that ET visitation in no way detracts from my proposal that some UFO events are terrestrial in origin.

This convergence of possibilities might be one of the reasons some UFO pundits automatically discount indigenous intelligent nonhumans; when it comes to hypothetical unknowns, it's always easier to stick with the most familiar of any given set of options. Conceding the reality of aliens in nuts-and-bolts spacecraft might seem downright easy if it means doing away with other, equally esoteric interpretations -- regardless of explanatory potential.

(By the way, I've decided to ditch "Indigenous Hypothesis" when referring to cryptoterrestrials. From now on it's merely the "Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis," or "CTH.")

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mac:

The problem is that you understand this, and I understand it, and the vast majority of people seem to get it, but Jerry, and Stan, and a few others do not.

Oh well - at the end of the day, that's their problem, not yours, or mine.

Paul

Mac said...

Paul,

My question to "ufoology": Why the hell is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Anonymous said...

Mac:

The same reason that Henry Alline had trouble convincing people in the late 18th century that religion was about faith, and not about non-essentials such as the type or form of baptism. He was known as the "ravager of churches" as a result - but he redefined religion in the Atlantic colonies.

Maybe you'll do the same for "ufoology".

Paul

Mac said...

Paul--

"Faith." Here we go with the "F"-word again. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Mac:

In Alline's case, "faith" was as much about independence of thought in finding God, at least within his own worldview. He was determined that the discovery was all that mattered, not the structures, and dogma, that had been built up around the essence of the divine.

You're a ufological Alline, whether you like it or not. Just substitute "mystery of the UFO phenomenon" for the "divine".

;-)

Paul

Mac said...

I'm not waffling; I'm simply conceding that the ETH isn't entirely without teeth and that to dismiss it because I'm intrigued by another hypothesis would be the height of arrogance. (You know -- the kind Jerry Clark accuses me of.)

In short, there's no reason why we couldn't be visited by genuine ETs as well as by CTs.

As for your other questions, they're damned good ones. As I've suggested, I think CTs would be well-served to camouflage their true nature using ET imagery -- regardless of an actual ET presence.

Mac said...

Paul--

You're a ufological Alline, whether you like it or not. Just substitute "mystery of the UFO phenomenon" for the "divine".

OK, I'll buy that.

Ray Palm (Ray X) said...

Mac:

Regarding the CT versus ET debate:

Didn't Charles Fort speculate that mankind was "property?" So may be the CTs are "genii," in the sense of being the guardian "spirits" of the Earth and its lesser creatures. Maybe CTs tell ETs to "Keep Off The Grass" and "Don't Disturb The Animals In Their Cages." Ergo, that's why space aliens haven't (directly) contacted us. CTs could be technologically advanced just enough to maintain a balance of power (to use an old Cold War phrase).

Ray