From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:09:21 +0000 Archived: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:48:20 -0500 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. >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: I have attempted to try to analyze the phenomena. Having interacted with it here and there, I came to the conclusion that some external energy was interacting with my worldview/subconscious. The symbolic language that evolved used my internal images/language to control the product of the interaction. Our difference in approach is that you ascribe it to technology and I ascribe it to a higher state of mind. For another conscious mind to interact in this manner would require a truly superior mental being, not just some technology that Earthlings could replicate. To me, a superior mind is much more complicated and, if this being would manifest on this planet, they would have aspects of a god. Must be very careful of that one, I don't want to offend religious persons. Because of the above, if true, an individual has a very specialized internal worldview and the interaction creates a variety of images and language specific to the individual. This is the reason there are basic similarities in reported images/languages with "grace notes" of different details. KK 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