UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Feb > Feb 22

Re: UFO Morphology Issue Revisited

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.


>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

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

Gerald O'Connell

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



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