Wednesday, June 07, 2006

I was listening to the podcast of my "Radio Misterioso" appearance earlier today. Much to their credit as researchers, Paul Kimball and Greg Bishop go to some length to emphasize that the prevailing Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for UFO visitation (if "visitation" it is) is simply that: a hypothesis (among many others).

But what do we know about the phenomenon? What can researchers agree on, if anything? I certainly don't expect them to hop on the "cryptoterrestrial" bandwagon (as wonderful as that might be from the perspective of whoever ultimately publishes my tome on the subject). Neither do I expect ufologists to agree on the ever-nebulous Interdimensional Hypothesis, which raises at least as many reality-altering questions as it purports to answer.

At the same time, the Null Hypothesis, maintaining that UFOs can be universally ascribed to misidentified natural phenomena and sightings of unconventional earthly aircraft, has grown decrepit and toothless. Fashionable debunking aside (up to and including the brittle posturing of self-styled "alien experts" such as the SETI Institute's Seth Shostak) something absolutely fascinating is happening.

Taking stock of the situation, I'm tempted to reduce the UFO riddle to a few guiding tenets which I think can be reasonably supported by the evidence provided since the "modern" era of sightings began 60 years ago. A list of pertinent characteristics might go like this:

1.) Regardless of their origin, UFOs are physically real.

2.) UFOs are sometimes observed engaged in behavior which can only be described as intelligently directed.

3.) The psychological and sociological impact of the phenomenon is especially enduring and should be a topic of paramount interest for scholars and researchers in fields as disparate as cultural anthropology, aeronautics and neurology.

4.) The sometimes theatrical behavior of unidentified flying objects suggests the possibility of some form of dialogue, whether directed by ourselves or orchestrated by the phenomenon itself. Likewise, certain military encounters in which weapons systems have been apparently manipulated in intelligent fashion invite the prospect that the UFO intelligence is at least partially amenable to understanding in terms of human psychology.

4 comments:

Paul Kimball said...

Mac:

That more or less sums up, in broad strokes, my own up my take on it, although I'm a bit more restrained on the "intelligent control" conclusion that you are.

It's basically what I call the "Dick Hall Thesis".

Paul

W.M. Bear said...

Regardless of their origin, UFOs are physically real.

But what does "physically real" mean exactly? Made of some metal or composite? Actual flying machines of some sort (not necessarily or even likely spacecraft)? These would seem to be a couple of the more obvious implications of the physical reality of UFOs.

Personally, I think that assuming the physical reality of UFOs creates way more problems than it solves, mainly because it means that the notion that the UFOnauts themselves are purely visionary in nature (which wouldn't necessarily mean they're not "real" just not "physical") simply doesn't wash in the end. To wit, the physical reality of UFOs themselves seems to me to imply the physical reality of their occupants as well. (Which I guess is what you're contending with your CT hypothesis?)

Interestingly, thinking along these lines about your CT hypothesis in fact put me in mind of the movie "The Abyss." Because this film does explore the idea that we're sharing the planet with another native sentient species that has developed their own technology in a profoundly different direction from ours.

ufoia1310 said...

Mac,
Finally got around to listening to your misterioso appearance. Great stuff, especially about Wm. S. Burroughs. I just finished reading The Yage Letters Redux and it was brilliant. Currently reading Junky. I never knew he was into Orgone. Weird.

Anyway, you and Paul and Greg rocked it, as I expected.

Mac said...

Thanks, ufoia1310! And I appreciate the link from your site. I thought the program went pretty well (at the very least I had a great time). Greg and Paul are a couple cool guys to hang with!