From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:17:49 -0000 Archived: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:25:45 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Morphology Issue Revisited I've been struggling for 45 years to come to terms with this issue. This is a quick snapshot of where I've arrived at in my labyrinth of perplexity. The overall morphology is fractal: a limited number of recognisable forms, yet no exact repetition within each distinct pattern. I conclude that the appearance is driven by sophisticated algorithms. I suspect that two key things are at work here: 1. We actually create the appearance ourselves. It is derived from a complex interplay between individual and collective psychology, cultural expectations, and an external awareness of the leading edge of our technology at any given point in time. 2. The algorithms process the elements of (1) and through an extremely advanced technological process deliver a series of appearances that matches, on a dynamically shifting basis, the objective record - photos, films and reports, genuine and otherwise - that we labour over. So each specific appearance is objective and fixed, yet psychologically and culturally derived. The perpetual array of minor and major variations can be seen as the trajectory of the algorithms as they process the cultural (including socio- psychological points) data set in relation to the dominant (including subconscious) expectations of specific actual and potential viewers. The algorithms and the technical processes that deploy them are truly 'nuts and bolts' (that is, they are real and physical), yet the material that they work on in order to fix their 'output' is truly 'psycho-social'. Of course, if I were to be close to the truth with this hypothesis, it would render great swathes of ufological debate on the objective/subjective status of the phenomena wholly redundant. This in itself occurs to me as a strong recommendation that my little exercise in armchair analysis should be taken seriously. If one of the aims of such a technology were to be to mask and deceive, then what better than the systematic generation of a series of fruitless disagreements amongst the relatively tiny number of people who attempt to subject the data to serious analysis? In a quixotic attempt to equalise before the opposition scores: for those who are prepared to admit that we might be confronted by an extremely advanced technology, then for heaven's sake let your imagination extend at least as far as a technology that is capable of doing the sort of thing I am envisaging here. In other words, don't fall into the trap of defining 'advanced' as being just a smarter version of what we ourselves can actually do. I described this as a 'quick snapshot'. I can vouch for the genuineness of the snapshot (no Photoshop or double exposure trickery), but if ace analysts like Bruce and Martin want to take stock of the focal length of my imagination and dismiss my view as a psychological lens flare, then so be it. All I'm struggling to do is come up with an idea that fits the data.... Gerald O'Connell http://www.saatchionline.com/gacoc Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp