UFO people may not particularly like what you’ve said here, but I think it’s VERY interesting. I’ve wondered things like this myself. The biggest question I have with regard to this theory though is what about the times when 20 people see the same thing? I know people talk about “mass hysteria” etc, but without some traumatic event or massive shock, it’s hard to imagine this. I wondered with Rendlesham and some of the military sightings if chemical experimentation was a factor given the time period of these events.
To sort of tie your response back to the original post here, this is another reason I don’t see linking UFO stuff to paranormal stuff. In the most cynical of possible views, it would seem to me that unless and until we can say they’re the same psychological condition, it makes sense to tackle them separately. If the root cause turns out to be a common one - no problem, but if not we may never get there if we muddy the waters too much. Thanks for the referral. I’ll take a look.
If you look at the history of UFOs there’s almost a generational shift that has happened. Depending on what decade you’re looking at there’s a different slant to the UFO conversation, but you’re right. It seems that some people have been trying to link the two off and on since the beginning. My guess is that if we look at it from the paranormal side we’d probably see the mirror image of the same thing happening. I don’t have any data to back this up, but based on the books and the people pushing this mindset, the push to connect the two appears to me to be more self serving than about any serious conversation. The more obvious reason for TV shows, magazines, etc doing this is once you’ve crossed the line and entertained one theory, you’re likely a lot more open to another. I think this has proven itself to be true, but personally I don’t like it. I just get distracted with stuff that is obviously flat out BS rather than the possibilities that present themselves through intelligent observation.
That happens less often than one might think. Often a lot of people see something, but they retroactively edit their perceptions to conform with what other people say they have seen. Or what the newspapers report. The Chicago O’Hare sighting is an example; the descriptions range from a phenomenon the size of a bird to a fuzzy disk tens of feet across. But the common perception is that they all saw the same thing.
If I’m following this debate accurately, the reason you are adament that UFOs and other paranormal activity shouldn’t be commingled is that the field of UFOs is deserving of further study, as there are some historical UFO incidents that are difficult to explain or otherwise interesting.
My question is, what form would this research or study take? When 99% of the evidence is eyewitness reports, how much more study can be done?
How so? We don’t have a clue about the conditions required for life to be sustainable. To give a example, I’ve read once an article stating that life could have thrived only as a result of the large size of the moon which would be required to stabilize Earth orbit over long durations. Which if it’s correct would mean that besides liquid water, etc.. a planet had to hit another for life to be sustainable here.
We don’t have the slightest clue about the likelihood of life appearing even given optimal conditions. And as for intelligence, is it necessary to remind that there was life for billions of years without (apparently) any intelligent creature appearing? That’s all in the Drake equation. Given life, how likely it is that intelligence would appear? Given intelligence, how long is it likely to last? Etc…
There’s no “pretty likely” or “law of the averages” here. As it is mentioned over and over again, we have a sample of one. You can’t guess anything on that basis, at least not until we have an extremely detailed knowledge of abiogenesis, and a magical “evolution predictor”. The universe might be absurdly large, but the probability of intelligent life appearing might be equally absurdly low.
One of the most interesting images came in 2005, when this bright, wide object was photographed moving across Hawaii. APOD: 2005 February 8 - A Mysterious Streak Above Hawaii
It was eventually identified as a rocket dumping fuel at the edge of space; the light-shows produced by fuel-dumps are among the most peculiar phenomena in the night sky, and have nothing to do with aliens or ghosts, although they are caused by spacecraft.
Sure, but then again book popularity is no evidence either.
Unfortunately already one of the “best” evidence put forward is actually coming from the old “a tale that gets better with age” sources. The records from the Air Base show that there is no confirmation and the “witnesses” depended almost exclusively on second hand information.
This. If you want a cite that any ufologist has linked UFOs with the paranormal, the fact that they consider ufology an interesting enough field for them to become “ufologists” is adequate proof that they have linked ufology with the paranormal.
The notion of alien visitation is a paranormal notion. They are part of the same discussion, and it’s not a healthy discussion to participate in at all, except in the context of late-night bong sessions. Which we can all agree are quite worthwhile.
There exists a similar book, UFO, the Complete Sightings Guide, by Peter Brookesmith. Note the “complete” in the title. Here’s what one reviewer said about it:
I fine with people studying whatever they want to. I can’t say paranormal phenomena shouldn’t be studied. My point as simply stated as I can is that the types of reports and sightings I find interesting remain interesting even if you completely rule out alien UFOs or even eliminate the possibility that any “object” is there at all. The reports I’m speaking of involve the discharge of weapons, military forces in sensitive roles, and people of “respectability” who we should probably care if they’re suffering from hallucinations, delusions, or whatever else the cause might be. Let’s say for the sake of your question that those same people were shooting at ghosts or reacting to what they thought were spirits. I’d study those incidents as well and I don’t believe in such things. So, its more about finding the truth than proving that UFOs or ghosts or whatever exist. The phenomena is real. The question remains is it a psychosis, alien visitation, or something secret yet not nefarious in any way (or a bunch of other possibilities). I just don’t think ANY of the discussion is served by mixing topics. I think cases should be studied for exactly what they are without any assumptions. In my opinion, just linking the topics requires some pretty big assumptions. Hope I answered your question.
Agree 100%, but I find the cases where “witnesses” edit their findings equally interesting. Obviously those are less about the “object” and more about people, but still I want to know why they do that. People always say, “Why would the government hide the existence of UFOs from the public? It’s not like people would really panic.” That is 100% a false assumption. After the sighting preceding Roswell the government was besieged with reports that snowballed as time passed. People WERE beginning to panic. So much so in fact that the government eventually terminated their public investigation into the phenomena and went underground just so they didn’t have to deal with all the nonsense. Of course, UFO dudes say this is proof the government is covering up alien visits. I’d say that it only proves that the government has limited patience for the “panic” phenomena and the nutty. Does this mean they aren’t lying? No. In fact its pretty easy to prove the government has lied where UFO sightings are concerned. But just because I ask you a question and you lie doesn’t mean that I automatically know the truth.
I didn’t say they were good evidence of UFOs. I said there were credible reports or some reports by more credible people. There were two nuclear missile bases, a radar station, and more than one incident involved in this case. It’s also worth adding that inconsistencies ARE a part of multiple reports by the same people over time. That doesn’t usually mean that you throw out ALL of the data and right it off. It also makes the point that timely investigation is worth more than one that last decades. Most serious UFO people like documents and testimony that is not aged.
But they have been studied quite a bit, and the conclusions aren’t very surprising. Namely, that human perception is somewhat easy to confuse in a variety of situations, and our senses are imprecise. There’s not much more to it than that. Seeing objects in the shadows and reacting isn’t a sign of hallucinations or delusions, it’s part of the human condition.