UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Feb > Feb 21

Re: UFO Morphology Issue Revisited

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com