The “ideal ineptitude” of supposed ETs in UFO and alien abduction phenomena

This is a guest post by Matt Rouge, who has previously contributed posts on capital-S Skepticism, the Western myth, and "the burden of Mystery." And now, here's Matt! 

———

Thank you, Michael, for the opportunity to contribute to your blog again!

I was very happy to see Michael’s three excellent posts on UFOs recently. I had been wanting to discuss the relationship between UFO phenomena and Afterlife phenomena, as well as make the argument I’m going to make in this post.

Phenomena are separate from their interpretations. That is, it’s possible to acknowledge UFO sightings and alien abduction experiences as genuine phenomena (i.e., not wholly due to the Skeptical go-to trifecta of fraud, hallucination, and error) without signing onto any particular explanation.

I don’t believe UFOs are actual “nuts and bolts” spacecraft, nor do I believe that the entities experienced in so-called alien abductions are actual physical beings like us. I want to make it clear, however, that I am not a Skeptic with respect to the phenomena themselves. I think that at least the best cases are paranormal in origin and cannot be explained under the current scientific paradigm.

Today I’d like to take a look at a short paper from 1990 by Jacque Vallée: Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Object. Vallée is perhaps the most prominent opponent of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, or ETH,¹ and Michael has discussed his work in the above-mentioned posts. I’m going to paraphrase his arguments, comment on them briefly, and then lay out a new argument that I think adds something to the overall argument against the ETH.

Valée’s five arguments

1. There are so many UFO sightings that earth would have to be ETs’ Grand Central Station.

This, I think, is Vallée’s most devastating argument. Even if we counted only the most solid cases, earth would be overrun with ETs coming and going to a degree that is truly unrealistic.

2.It’s too big a coincidence that ETs are humanoid, can breathe our air, etc.

This is the only argument out of the five that I really don’t buy. I think it’s possible that convergent evolution could result in many species being bipedal and humanoid, and it may be that oxygen is the gas that supports life on most planets. Further, there are reports of ETs, such as Mantis ETs, that don’t look very human at all.

3. The ETs in alien abduction reports are using really bad and primitive science.

This is another killer argument in my view. Abducting people is a supremely inefficient way to get DNA and other biological samples.

4. UFOs are an old phenomenon in a modern guise.

Michael talked about this argument in this post. I find it pretty compelling.

5. UFOs do not behave like normal physical objects.

And Michael talked about this argument in this post. Again, compelling.

Arguments #1 and #3 tie into the argument I will make, which is this:

The ETs in UFO and alien abduction reports are “ideally inept”: they give themselves away just enough to tease us with their presence yet never collectively convince us of it.

Let’s take a look at both phenomena, and I’ll explain what I mean further.

 

A saucer lands on the DC mall in 1951's The Day the Earth Stood Still

 

UFO phenomena

ETs are supposedly advanced, with technology thousands if not millions of years ahead of our own. Combined with the discipline required, one would think, to explore the stars, this technology should allow them to be seen only to the degree they wish to be seen.

Thus, the idea that they are just—whoops—accidentally being seen strains credulity.

One perhaps may object that ETs don’t actually care about being seen from afar. But where does their caring begin and end? If they didn’t care at all, then they would be landing anywhere and everywhere and being photographed and videoed all the time. OK, maybe they don’t mind being seen from afar but do mind being seen up close.

In that case, we are still left needing to explain such coincidentally perfect fine-tuning. Do all the ETs who are nonchalant about being seen from a distance have a program in place to prevent all of the thousands (per Vallée’s #1 argument above) of spacecraft visiting Earth each year from being photographed, videoed, captured on radar, etc., to an excessive degree?

Vallée points out in his paper that it would be easier for ETs to send probes to get their work done. Further, Ray Kurzweil observes: “A computational-based superintelligence of the late twenty-first century here on earth will be microscopic in size. Thus an intelligent delegation from another planet is not likely to use a spaceship of the size that is common in today’s science fiction, as there would be no reason to transport such large organisms and equipment.”²

OK, but maybe the ETs are sending probes to earth, which they intend to be seen by humans to such a fine-tuned degree. They are not sending microscopic probes but instead large objects that make lights in the sky,³ are visible sometimes on radar, and are from time to time seen up close by people. But they never make the proverbial landing on the White House lawn, and they never, say, descend into Manhattan and get seen and videoed by thousands of people all at the same time. In other words, plausible deniability is always maintained.

Alien abductions

In his paper, Valée observes, “The means of permanently erasing the memory of the victims through the use of appropriate drugs are also available in the current pharmacopeia.”

True. As a medical interpreter helping Japanese people, I’ve observed patients coming out of sedation/anesthesia perhaps around 50 times. Today’s anesthesiologists and their technology are very good. The doctors always use a drug that induces amnesia—and it works. People wake up and are usually surprised that the procedure or surgery is over already, and they certainly don’t remember anything about what happened during it.

Again, it strains credulity to suppose that the ETs intend for abductees not to remember their experiences and have technology in place to induce amnesia, but—whoops—quite a large number of people end up remembering anyway.

Plausible deniability is an issue here too. ETs that abduct humans are clearly ethically challenged—so why don’t they just kill their catches or keep them for experimentation over the long term? If we suppose that only a fraction of abductees remember their experiences (i.e., when ET amnesia technology fails), and if we consider that thousands of people have reported abduction experiences, then it stands to reason that the actual number of abductees is quite large indeed, perhaps numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands. If only a small fraction of this total were never to be returned, then that would entail a substantial number of disappearances requiring explanation. Yet this problem does not seem to exist.

Fair enough. Perhaps the ETs don’t disappear humans. But they seem to be taking care not to get “caught” in many other ways as well. While abductees do report physical traces of their ordeals, such as small wounds and scars and small metal implants, and perhaps these are indeed genuine phenomena in their own right, to my knowledge there have been no reports of limbs amputated, organs removed, or surgeries performed that leave major scars, sutures, etc. That is, there is nothing to compel us to believe that someone with medical skill and technology was involved in the abductee’s ordeal. Further, to my knowledge, no recovered implants have ever consisted of undeniable extraterrestrial technology. Plausible deniability is always maintained.

 

In Forbidden Planet (1956), humans are piloting the saucer

 

Plausible deniability—or simple inability?

Thus, in their “ideal ineptitude,” the supposed ETs give us glimpses of themselves that are always just this side of the line of plausible deniability. Many different species are reportedly involved, and the circumstances of their appearance can vary considerably, but they always maintain iron discipline in order to, well, just tease us.

By “plausible deniability,” I do not mean that the phenomena themselves can or should be denied. In our Skeptical age, however, they mostly are denied—or at least swept under the rug by the media and other elites.⁴ Rather, the phenomena are not strong enough to instantly compel consideration by the global populace, as would happen with a landing on the White House lawn or something similar. Nor are the phenomena distinct (e.g., detailed video of ETs walking out of a landed craft) or permanent (e.g., artifacts left behind) enough as to give a prima facie indication of their physical origin.⁵

Thus, I think we are left with two possibilities: either the ETs continually screw up just so, which is not plausible,⁶ or the two phenomena of UFOs and alien abduction have a cause (and not necessarily the same cause) that prevents anything more from happening than what actually does. In other words, they or it are unable to do more.

I think the latter possibility is the truth. In a future guest post, I would like to explore what I think may actually be the cause of the phenomena in question.

———

¹On the other side of the debate, one of the major proponents of the ETH today is Richard Dolan, who has a great YouTube channel. Although I don’t ultimately agree with his conclusions, he is an immensely knowledgeable, intelligent, and entertaining speaker, so I encourage you to check out his videos.

²Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Viking Press, 1999.

³Just as we do not put big honking lights on our warplanes just for fun, there is no technologically plausible reason for ETs to have craft that light up like Christmas trees in the night sky.

⁴By “elites” I do not mean anything particularly conspiratorial. I merely mean that those with the power to shape our worldview, such as prominent members of the media, scientists, teachers, public intellectuals, etc., collectively prefer not to examine the phenomena and incorporate them into a revised worldview. I don’t think it is much different than the reaction of elites in the 17th century to heliocentrism. Needless to say, such elites are equally in denial about the psi and Afterlife phenomena that Michael regularly discusses on this blog.

⁵I’m well aware of claims that the government is in possession of crashed spacecraft, ET bodies, and so on. I will certainly believe if I can see the evidence. (Contrary to Skeptics, I am willing to change my views when I see proof.)

⁶“Screwing up” (i.e., committing errors or causing accidents) is by definition a lack of control on the part of the entity screwing up. Just as it would be implausible to suggest that, say, losing control on the freeway could cause damage to the vehicle but never a serious injury or fatality, it is likewise implausible to suggest that UFOs could accidentally be seen in the sky but never be captured at close range on video, or that alien abductions could result in undesired memory recall but never any extreme physical evidence.

Comments

[Eric Newhill]

Great writing and thinking as always, Matt.

One of a few quibbles I have with what you say is with regards to UFOs being seen.

"One perhaps may object that ETs don’t actually care about being seen from afar. But where does their caring begin and end? If they didn’t care at all, then they would be landing anywhere and everywhere and being photographed and videoed all the time. OK, maybe they don’t mind being seen from afar but do mind being seen up close."

As transparency on the topic of UFOs from the US (and other countries') military increases, it is becoming apparent that these things are frequently seen by pilots, they are seen up close, they reveal their performance capabilities and they get photographed (gun cams, etc) and captured on radar screen saves.

The military has recently revealed that they are very concerned about the potential for accidental collisions between our aircraft and UFOs. This is the result of years of study and many situations in which the UFOs came danger close to our aircraft.

I'm agnostic on the topic of UFOs beyond accepting the evidence that there is something going on that we can't explain via our normal bag of explanations.

I *lean* toward the idea that the UFOs pilots are encountering are one thing and the abductions are another. The former being nuts and bolts aircraft from some other planet(s) and the latter being more in the realm of OBEs, lucid dreams, spirits, etc. I willing to be convinced otherwise. I also think that the waters are muddied in the way that you, MP and Vallee note largely because we are mixing the two classes of phenomena.

The UFOs, as actual aircraft, as seen by pilots and captured on cams, radar, etc appear to be a very straightforward phenomenon. Yes, there are sometimes psychological effects on the observers, but many known normal, but profound, experiences can result in significant psychological changes in the experiencer. I think that being a hotshot fighter jock that engages a bizarre looking aircraft that just shouldn't..can't...do what it does counts as a profound experience.

I am an OBE experiencer. I have never encounter an alien/UFO/been abducted. Yet, I can see how someone could mistake certain aspects of some OBEs as being those things. Michael spoke to this possibility, and I agree with what he said. It's a murky topography. Maybe with the talk of UFOs in the skies it becomes easier for some to explain spontaneous OBEs in terms of what is available in the current social lexicon. I know the first time I had an OBE (which was spontaneous) I thought I had a heart attack, died, and was stuck in limbo because I had allowed my Christian practices to lapse. It was the only explanation that made sense at the time. I was drawing from what was available in my own head to understand what was happening.

Bottom line, I don't know. Looking forward to you net article!

[Eric Newhill]

Ughh. Just realized I didn't make my main counter argument. While your (and JV's) arguments against space aliens in nuts and bolts craft are persuasive, the same arguments could be made, equally as effectively, against archetypical forms from the collective subconconscious, etc.

[Matt Rouge]

Thanks, Eric!

You wrote,

||As transparency on the topic of UFOs from the US (and other countries') military increases, it is becoming apparent that these things are frequently seen by pilots, they are seen up close, they reveal their performance capabilities and they get photographed (gun cams, etc) and captured on radar screen saves.||

Yes, good point. Still, if they don't *intend* to be seen, then why don't they simply evade our aircraft? They are clearly capable of doing so. If their reaction is to "mess with" our aircraft, then why aren't they messing with us in many more ways and more up close and personal?

I would also say that, per Valée's first argument that the rate at which they are seen by the military, etc., is evidence that they are *not* nuts and bolts. "I traveled 39 light years from Zeta Reticuli, and all I got with this lousy t-shirt and a blip on the radar." It really doesn't make any sense.

I think the only real nuts and bolts possibility is that they are ET technology that is *designed* to be seen in a limited fashion--for some purpose that is difficult for us to divine. However, until we get our hands on some physical evidence, there is nothing about the phenomena that is more suggestive of physical origin than of paranormal origin (with the purpose equally difficult to understand).

I agree that abduction phenomena are probably in an entirely different category. They may both be caused by the same outside force that is sending us a message or just messing with us, or they may not.

[Matt Rouge]

Eric wrote,

||The same arguments could be made, equally as effectively, against archetypical forms from the collective subconconscious, etc.||

Oh I think it's a paranormal force that has some ability, but nevertheless a limited ability, to interact with our physical reality. You think the arguments are effective against such a contention? Please elaborate, I'm curious!

[frith]

For the anonymous user record I want to state that I do believe some UFO/ET reports to be real.

Why these entities remain in the shadows and sometimes reveal themselves is open to any interpretation and I think its primarily a matter of self-defense/intelligence gathering on the part of ETs.

The publicly admitted, and then denied Roswell 1947 incident took place around the USA's 509th atomic bomb air squadron. Many other reports take place around nuclear missile silos.

Essentially I believe humanity has opened a Pandora's Box of galactic terror and curiosity from other intelligences in the universe. We weren't all that interesting to any of them until we started splitting atoms and discovering universal secrets. Since we're still very much on a war footing these beings are now proactive in their defense of a possible future threat.

They reveal themselves at times, IMO, to scare the crap out of our leaders. Even if it makes some of us look crazy. Its a warning.

Not all reports are true of course and I do believe many are simple hoaxsters or governments themselves trying to muddy the waters on the matter.

[Eric Newhill]

Fleshing out a little more between boring meetings -

So why are archetypes taking DNA from people? Why are archetypes using really bad and primitive science? Why wouldn't they simply wave a magic wand?

"There are so many UFO sightings that earth would have to be ETs’ Grand Central Station"

kind of contradicts

"The ETs in UFO and alien abduction reports are “ideally inept”: they give themselves away just enough to tease us with their presence yet never collectively convince us of it.....One perhaps may object that ETs don’t actually care about being seen from afar. But where does their caring begin and end? If they didn’t care at all, then they would be landing anywhere and everywhere and being photographed and videoed all the time. OK, maybe they don’t mind being seen from afar but do mind being seen up close."

Why aren't archetypical beings just popping up everywhere, including up close and personal where they can be examined closely?

[Matt Rouge]

Eric wrote,

||So why are archetypes taking DNA from people? Why are archetypes using really bad and primitive science? Why wouldn't they simply wave a magic wand?||

I think the short answer about alien abductions is that whatever is behind the phenomenon is not actually trying to perform the "tasks" perceived in the phenomenon. IOW, it is an experience on the part of the abductees and not goal-seeking behavior on the part of the abductors.

||Why aren't archetypical beings just popping up everywhere, including up close and personal where they can be examined closely?||

And the short answer here is that the UFO phenomenon is more or less "what you see is what you get." They are fast, agile shapes in the sky that are perceived via visibile light, radar, etc. They are not in fact nuts-and-bolts craft, so there is nothing to land, nothing more to see. They are already doing all they can do.

I am not saying that either of these are archetypes with unlimited power that is somehow arbitrarily limited. I am saying that they are paranormal phenomena with limited ability to affect our physical world.

[Kris]

Maybe this is alien teenagers who are simply punking humanity? That would explain the trivial nature of this and the ineptness too.

[Eric Newhill]

"I think the short answer about alien abductions is that whatever is behind the phenomenon is not actually trying to perform the "tasks" perceived in the phenomenon. IOW, it is an experience on the part of the abductees and not goal-seeking behavior on the part of the abductors."

The problem with the above is that all we have is experiencer testimony. Now we are doubting a big chunk of the testimony, but keeping the rest. Why not doubt it all? - or keep it all? Where and how do we make the cut off as to what part of the testimony we're going to believe is accurate?

I agree with what you say, but I recognize the holes in the analysis. And that has always been one of my big problems with JV's theories. He does the same thing. He somewhat randomly decides what is wheat and what is chaff.

But yeah, my personal reaction to the stories of abduction has always been, "Ok. Show me the chip they put in you. That should be very easy to do. Show me the surgical scars". To my knowledge, no alien chip tech has ever been obtained from one of the abductees who has claimed a chip was inserted.

So, while the flying saucer/tic tac/giant triangle type of UFO/aliens do leave a physical trace (radar images, photographs, multiple credible witnesses, etc), the abduction type leave no physical corroboration whatsoever, even when they should (implants).

With regards to the flying phenomena, I'm not ready to dismiss the theory that they are nuts and bolts simply on the basis of not understanding why they would behave as they do. It's challenging enough to understand the motives of human beings that are of different psychology than oneself, let alone what may be a different species from a different star system.

Also, the multiple credible witness aspect of the aircraft phenomena is, for me, hard to reconcile with JV's theories. I have no problem with the idea that a few people hanging out together around the camp fire could slip into a shared trance/altered reality in which they all experience a paranormal bleed through of archetypical energies into normal waking reality. However, that kind of situation seems an order of magnitude less likely when we have multiple pilots in the air as well as technicians and officers on ships seeing the same thing AND cameras and radar confirming the reports.

All of that said, you and JV make over all compelling arguments that cannot be readily dismissed either.

I wish they'd just open up area 51 to the public already! ;-)

[Michael Prescott]

Eric's reference to Area 51 reminds me of this dialogue exchange from the old sitcom "NewsRadio." Beth is razzing Joe for being gullible.

Beth: Didn’t you believe that alien autopsy video too?

Joe: First of all, that video was certified by an independent panel of experts. And second of all, the title was "Alien Autopsy Bloopers."

🙂

Joe, by the way, was played by Joe Rogan, who’s become a well-known figure in UFO circles. Life imitates art?

[Matt Rouge]

Eric,

Good dialogue. You wrote:

||The problem with the above is that all we have is experiencer testimony. Now we are doubting a big chunk of the testimony, but keeping the rest. Why not doubt it all? - or keep it all? Where and how do we make the cut off as to what part of the testimony we're going to believe is accurate?||

I don't think I'm actually denying any part of their testimony. I'm simply disagreeing as to interpretation that these are flesh-and-blood ETs living in our physical world. Am I missing something?

||With regards to the flying phenomena, I'm not ready to dismiss the theory that they are nuts and bolts simply on the basis of not understanding why they would behave as they do. It's challenging enough to understand the motives of human beings that are of different psychology than oneself, let alone what may be a different species from a different star system.||

I think the argument that they are "screwing up just so" needs to be addressed, however, as that tends to be how ETH proponents tacitly interpret things. If flesh-and-blood ETs are here in spacecraft and/or sending problems, then I think we need to assume that they are showing us exactly what they want to show us, no more, no less. And I think it is very difficult behavior to explain assuming *any* imaginable set of intentions.

||However, that kind of situation seems an order of magnitude less likely when we have multiple pilots in the air as well as technicians and officers on ships seeing the same thing AND cameras and radar confirming the reports.||

I think it's 100% impossible to reconcile with a dismissal of the phenomenon due to fraud, hallucination, or error. I don't think it's hard to reconcile with JV's interpretation, however. What, specifically, is the problem?

If it turns out that they really are physical and nuts-and-bolts and of ET origin, I think the most likely thing is that they are automated probes of some sort.

[Matt Rouge]

Valée explicitly recognizes in his paper that UFOs interact physically with the environment and leave physical evidence:

"The Natural Phenomena Hypothesis does not fare well under these tests. Many reports are quite specific in terms of the physical and biological parameters that can be derived from an analysis of the interaction between the phenomenon and the environment. [...] The environmental interactions most often reported include abrasions, burns and effects on plants, animals and humans. [...] The observed phe- nomena include radiation effects and have not been accounted for by a combination of known physical and psychological causes."

Further, interaction between UFOs and military aircraft was old news as of 1990, so it's not as though he had not taken such cases into consideration.

[Bill Ingle]

I've reviewed a fair amount of material since Michael's first post in this area.

"UFO" covers a wide range of phenomena -- there may be no-one-size-fits-all explanation for a diverse and large collection of UFO-related experiences and sightings while speculative explanations of all kinds abound.

Some studies link "abduction" experiences with areas of "psi" including, prominently, OOBE and telepathy, connecting UFOs with psychology or "inner realities."

I believe there's a great deal of validity to this linking, although it doesn't explain any number of reported incidents or sightings.

As someone who has had unusual experiences and pursued questions pertaining to all things "inner" for years, I've come to believe that in terms of understanding the nature of reality the human species is at a primitive level.

This applies to the UFO question.

I don't claim to have any "advanced" understanding myself aside from recognizing how primitive we are, collectively -- but I have had experiences that cannot be explained by the usual "official" beliefs.

Therefore, in addition to continuing to develop my own "inner" experiences, I accept the idea that superior explanations regarding the nature of reality, if they exist, are likely to be on the "fringe."

I engage in a particular homemade meditation practice, one I continually tinker with, that has, gradually, yielded results; that is, my experience has "widened" in certain respects.

Certain "fringe" materials and practices have inspired my explorations.

(I learned long ago that is does no good to merely think about or speculate in this area; cognitive activities have value, of course, but experience is more fundamental even if there are feedback loops here -- thought influences experience and vice versa.)

A very basic "fringe" idea that, if adopted, will change anyone's cognition or speculation regarding "UFOs" is that each and every person continually creates their own unique space continuum.

Most educated westerners will reject this idea as it flies in the face of what they believe, what they have been taught, and what common sense and practical experience teach them -- this will seem like Bishop Berkeley stuff to those familiar with philosophy.

There are fringe teachings, however, that address typical objections and extend well beyond what the good Bishop imagined. How does this "work?" What about the fact that we seem to share an "objective" physical reality, an idea that is foundational to science (with some exceptions here and there)? How could an objective physical reality exist if each and every person creates their own unique space continuum?

Then there are questions concerning that which is not part of any physical space (or time) continuum.

Furthermore, the usual idea of what the self is soon falters as one ventures into this, including very basic questions concerning perception.

Perception, of course, is one key to all that has been reported in the UFO area.

[Kathleen]

I've only had a passing interest in UFOs, but have tended to think that perhaps they are some natural phenomena that's not understood yet. From what I have heard, one big obstacle to UFOs being aliens visiting us is the enormous distances in the universe required to travel to earth.

On a slightly different subject, I found a Guardian article today about an Englishwoman who woke up from a coma and began speaking fluent French very interesting. She had taken it seems only basic French and German 30 years ago, and yet somehow emerged from a coma speaking fluent French (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/31/experience-i-woke-from-coma-speaking-french). There are also other cases of people suddenly speaking with heavy accents.

I have no idea what the heck it may mean - are our brains far more advanced in ways we're currently unable to easily access? Had she reverted to a past life when she woke up? Being in a coma, which I guess could be considered a near death experience, was her brain receiver "broken" and her consciousness was consequently expanded and unfiltered? It's very strange and seems to go against the prevailing materialistic theory that our physical brains generate consciousness. existence.

[Juan]

I think it is a mistake to combine UFOs with reports of abductions: UFO is only something unknown observed in the sky, surely a group of very heterogeneous phenomena which requires individual examination; some UFOs will be human made aircraft, others may be reflections or hallucinations, or meteorites, or plasma balls, etc. That would explain why there is no open contact with other extraterrestrial civilizations, because they are not intelligent beings, either probes or piloted ships. You would have to examine each case in detail, but it does not seem plausible that in these cases there is something paranormal.

About reports of abductions, I do not know them thoroughly, but some may be due to sleep paralysis. This puts me on the side of skeptics, but it's normal; if there are cases of abductions unexplained by those conventional hypotheses, that make them public and the scientific community would be shocked.

[Ro]

It seems like what the author of this blogpost is getting at...is that UFOs may be, in reality, thought-forms, either deliberately created by humans, or as mere mental exhaust. We know that the military experimented in the past with remote viewing. Who's to say they don't also experiment with the projection of thought-forms. Maybe the "foo fighters" of WWII were projected thought-forms deliberately created to harass the enemy pilots?

Regarding a thought form created *collectively*, I will say, I have always had a very hard time ascribing to the idea of "collectively created" objects and locales. For example, an astral realm known as Summerland in which people of similar belief systems inhabit surroundings that are formed by the community's collective desires/expectations. Well, how exactly would that collective reality form if, for example, Jimmy's idea of the ideal town hall is of a red-brick three-story structure, and Buffy's idea of the ideal town hall is a white, one-story building with a courtyard and pergola? How would each individual in the community's desire and expectation of small details merge into one collectively created space? To me, it seems more likely that the one giving the account is responsible for creating all of it -- including creating the inhabitants themselves. In other words, it's that individual's dream, and the other people have no independent reality except as characters populating that person's fantasy. I know this is a complete digression from the topic at hand, but it leads me to the subject of UFOs as collectively created thought-forms.

It's hard for me to believe that "UFOs" come from collectively created human thought forms. Their behavior is not haphazard at all, but often very unique and distinctive and precise. It seems more plausible that they could have been created, purposely or accidentally, by a single psi-gifted individual in the vicinity of where they are seen. Parapsychologist Barry Taff, in his fascinating and odd book "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," notes that some people with epileptic tendencies seem to generate anomalous phenomena, like PK, poltergeists, ghosts, visual phenomena...It could be that many UFOs are thought-forms accidentally or deliberately generated by an individual who has powerful psi talents, possibly unbeknownst to them.

I hope the readers of this blog watch the show "Paranormal caught on Camera" on the Travel Channel. I'm sure a small portion of the videos they present have been faked, but I think they do a nice job at trying to present only the most legitimate footage. A lot of it is bizarre things up in the sky, and some of the footage is just mind-boggling. A single light which separate into 6 lights and do patterned whirling in the sky before bursting into a fireworks display. Or UFOs that look like a person flying upright in the sky. A pyramid recorded by two separate people hovering over the Pentagon. Just really odd stuff...

UFOs could also be a thought-form created, not by humans, but by extra-terrestrial or inter-dimensional beings. The objects seen in the sky may not be made of "nuts and bolts" but may, in fact, have some physicality to them. Some weeks ago, I saw a TV personality in my state become emotional on air describing a UFO that he saw at night very close at hand, and he said he felt it was not a solid object, but was made of "plasma." Plasma, or some substance that is very insubstantial and highly malleable, could explain the shape-shifting and oddball qualities often on display.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Interesting blog-post and a fascinating topic!

[Art]

"I have no idea what the heck it may mean - are our brains far more advanced in ways we're currently unable to easily access?" - Kathleen

I try and keep in mind that my brain doesn't produce consciousness, it comes from someplace else. The microtubules in our brains, from birth, seem to "tuned" into a particular set of waves or frequencies, but if something affects those microtubules (which has something to do with quantum mechanics) like a blockage or a rewiring, say a stroke for instance, they can and do change, and different information is accessed, information that comes from the collective unconscious (what we call God?) and then the person can be changed.

This might also be why savants are sometimes gifted with what seems almost supernatural abilities to access information that the rest of us aren't able to quickly access, such as musical or mathematical talent, and we just sit back and wonder "where did that come from?"

We are not our bodies, they are just vessels for the soul, sort of in the same way I am not my car, yet it carries me where I want to go. I get in and out of it, but when I'm driving it the car becomes part of me and I know where it's fenders and bumpers are and try and avoid obstacles, and the only way I can know how to drive that car is to get in and drive it. I didn't learn to drive a car simply by watching somebody else do it. I had to get behind the wheel and learn how to drive it myself, and in the same way that is how a newborn baby learns how to control it's new body, by "getting in it" and just by "driving it" it learns what it feels like and the parameters of it and also it's limitations.

[Leo MacDonald]

I really don't believe in this UFO stuff sorry, sure there are identified flying objects we don't understand but do they have to be little green men?. On top of that as far as these alien abductions go I remember my friend once claimed he was abducted by aliens and that they were doing an experiment on him. You don't see too many psychical researchers matching UFO's with the afterlife as those two things are very different phenomenon.

[Matt Rouge]

Ro wrote,

||It seems like what the author of this blogpost is getting at...is that UFOs may be, in reality, thought-forms, either deliberately created by humans, or as mere mental exhaust.||

Something along those lines, yes.

||Regarding a thought form created *collectively*, I will say, I have always had a very hard time ascribing to the idea of "collectively created" objects and locales. [...] Well, how exactly would that collective reality form if, for example, Jimmy's idea of the ideal town hall is of a red-brick three-story structure, and Buffy's idea of the ideal town hall is a white, one-story building with a courtyard and pergola? How would each individual in the community's desire and expectation of small details merge into one collectively created space? To me, it seems more likely that the one giving the account is responsible for creating all of it -- including creating the inhabitants themselves. In other words, it's that individual's dream, and the other people have no independent reality except as characters populating that person's fantasy.||

If we take the evidence from ADCs, NDEs, etc., seriously, then we need to accept the reality of collectively created environments. I have even read accounts of people on drug trips seeing the same things, and I have little doubt that those accounts are accurate.

How does it work? Well, when you are having a dream, do you *feel* as if you are creating all that you are sensing? Or do you feel as though you are experiencing an external world that does *not* come from your mind? Personally, I feel as though I am experiencing an Other, not myself, although I do have the power to alter things within the world.

And I think that that is how it basically works. When you enter Summerland, you are experiencing thoughtforms that have been handed down across many generations of people who have passed through the realm. At the same time, this reality is malleable, and you can make changes that are either temporary or ones that might "stick" and remain for others.

||It's hard for me to believe that "UFOs" come from collectively created human thought forms. Their behavior is not haphazard at all, but often very unique and distinctive and precise. It seems more plausible that they could have been created, purposely or accidentally, by a single psi-gifted individual in the vicinity of where they are seen. Parapsychologist Barry Taff, in his fascinating and odd book "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," notes that some people with epileptic tendencies seem to generate anomalous phenomena, like PK, poltergeists, ghosts, visual phenomena...It could be that many UFOs are thought-forms accidentally or deliberately generated by an individual who has powerful psi talents, possibly unbeknownst to them.||

It's possible and I have little doubt that things like this do happen. At the same time, the interesting thing is that, in terms of paranormal phenomena, we tend to deal with a limited number of phenomena that make repeat appearances. If it were truly up to the individual, then I think we would expect a near-infinite variety of phenomena. E.g., we'd be seeing pirate ships, unicorns, etc., flying in the sky and not just "spaceships." (Which is not to say there are not outliers--there are--but the phenomena tend to cluster around certain patterns or types.)

||I hope the readers of this blog watch the show "Paranormal caught on Camera" on the Travel Channel. I'm sure a small portion of the videos they present have been faked, but I think they do a nice job at trying to present only the most legitimate footage.||

I need to check it out, thanks!

||UFOs could also be a thought-form created, not by humans, but by extra-terrestrial or inter-dimensional beings.||

This is possible too.

Interesting comments, I appreciate them!

[Eric Newhill]

Matt,
I essentially agree with your comment (6/2/19 @ 3:16). I think that's pretty much all there is to reality in general.

At the Skeptiko forum, which has been discussing UFOs, etc recently, they are a bunch of paranoids that think aliens/spirits and government are conspiring to alter our reality and do sinister things to us. I keep trying to get them to consider that what is experienced is more along the lines of people doing things to themselves; like in dreams. They don't like that.

[Matt Rouge]

Eric,

Cool, thanks. Yes, I'm not on the same vibe either as the conspiracy-minded.

[Juan]

||If it were truly up to the individual, then I think we would expect a near-infinite variety of phenomena. E.g., we'd be seeing pirate ships, unicorns, etc., flying in the sky and not just "spaceships."||

But I'm not sure that most UFOs look like spaceships; simply the majority are lights that could be many things, such as human-made aircrafts, plasma balls, etc.

[Matt Rouge]

Juan wrote,

||But I'm not sure that most UFOs look like spaceships; simply the majority are lights that could be many things, such as human-made aircrafts, plasma balls, etc.||

No doubt. I'm talking about the inexplicable cases.

Some UFOs definitely do look like spacecraft to the experiencers. Some, when seen up close, have windows, etc.--sometimes even ETs look out from them!

Some, however, are in essence flying shapes without a lot of detail. These may be interpreted as spacecraft by experiencers. The point being that they tend to fall into a particular range of appearances (with some outliers).

[Eric Newhill]

Matt,
"And the short answer here is that the UFO phenomenon is more or less "what you see is what you get." They are fast, agile shapes in the sky that are perceived via visibile light, radar, etc. They are not in fact nuts-and-bolts craft, so there is nothing to land, nothing more to see. They are already doing all they can do."

And

"Further, interaction between UFOs and military aircraft was old news as of 1990, so it's not as though he had not taken such cases into consideration."

I had just gotten back from vacation a couple days ago, cracked a beer, sat down and turned on the tv and there was a show made in 2011, hosted by Roger Moore (who looked amazing for a man in his 80s) about Russian encounters with UFOs. A lot of the material in was newly released/declassified from the Soviet days; especially the 60s.

Some of the material was UFOs on fighter jet cams and it is exactly what we see from our own military. Disks, lights and tic tac shapes, buzzing around Russian aircraft, performing maneuvers that our aircraft cannot and that are considered impossible by our technology and even our understanding of physics.

I first noted the similarity of what we see compared to what Russians see. The continuity across cultures is noteworthy, IMO.

However, in one of the videos, the UFO either fires something - like a pod - at a Russian fighter, or a main craft smashes into the fighter. This action is captured on the cams of other fighters in the squadron. The fighter (a MiG) that is hit explodes in the air, with the pilot obviously being killed, having had no opportunity to eject.

Assuming the film is not a fraud (it doesn't look like it) and that the cause of the explosion is truly what it appears to be and not a missile of kind, then that would put a hole in JV's (and your) theory.

The US military has also expressed that it is concerned about possible collisions or attacks (based on some, to date classified, experience?).

[Eric Newhill]

Here is a link to the Roger Moore hosted show (found it on YOUTUBE).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pJii4_7XyQ

BTW, I give no credence at all to the alleged alien autopsy segment. IMO, there is no way that those guys are going to cut into an alien being without full biohazard protective gear. My main interest in the show is the fighter cam footage.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Eric,
Those kids in the white coats appear to be dissecting a small decomposed sea turtle, trying to cut through the back of the shell. The so-called ribs are the remaining evolution of the reptile rib cage evident in the shell or carapace. Too much superficial information in the video; 1.5 hours is too long for my attention span. - AOD

[Eric Newhill]

Amos,
Yeah. I agree. My wife said the same thing and she is pretty smart about animals. I was just putting the nail in the coffin on that segment.

[Eric Newhill]

Good video about the Nimitz UFO encounter. I belief these guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRgoisHRmUE

[mick kusirov]

RE: So why are archetypes taking DNA from people? Why are archetypes using really bad and primitive science? Why wouldn't they simply wave a magic wand?

If a highly-advanced civilization is sending exploratory vessels throughout the galaxy, maybe they wisely send out technology that is:

1. As sophisticated as a it needs to be and no more.
Some of the "natives" might get their hands or tentacles on a magic wand and learn the science behind the apparent magic. What-do-you-know, ten thousand years later they're marauding through the galaxy with ships and weapons based on wand science.

2. Simple and durable enough to be repairable and reproducible in the field over very long periods of time, maybe eons away from the nearest repair shop. (What if FTL travel is not possible after all?) Behind a sleek little magic wands might be a lot of supporting infrastructure that can't be towed along. For medical purposes, a mechanical armature that drops down of a craft's ceiling and pinches off a tissue sample might be sufficient.