From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:54:11 -0000 Archived: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:45:44 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Morphology Issue Revisited >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:08:19 -0000 >Subject: Re: UFO Morphology Issue Revisited >>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:17:49 -0000 >>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. <snip> >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.... >Hi Gerald >Well, having been flattered to this unfeasible extent I can >hardly forbear to comment (assuming it was not another Martin >you had in mind, in which case I have embarrassed myself >deeply!). Yes, don't worry, you got the right 'Martin' Martin! What you say is what I have often wondered about too. I expect many of us have. _If_ the pattern of psychocially determined imagery occurs in the population of unknowns, then how else square the circle? >Indeed your theory is itself - in a satisfyingly recursive self- >validating way - a technical modern avatar of a traditional >idea, echoing for example the theosophical theory of nature >spirits, that they utilise human thought-forms to "dress up" in. >Of course it remains to be proven that the culturally entrained >imagery does operate not just on the bulk of knowns but also in >an an unexplained way on the core unknowns (i.e., in a radical >way that can't be explained as a superficial psychosocial >residue). It's actually a very complicated question when you get >down to cases. I'm not sure what the answer is. In which case I'd reiterate my point to the effect that If one of the aims of such a technology were to be to mask and deceive, then it's working pretty well. Yes, of course we are dealing in some hefty unprovables here, and perhaps the only real value in the hypothesis is to warn us against any automatic acceptance of the false dichotomies that have characterised debate to date. Given the occasional virulence of one particular fault-line in the ufological community, it's hard not to be amused by the potential ironies that abound in the idea of a nuts and bolts psychosocial technology... 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