From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:36:01 -0700 Archived: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:29:30 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Morphology Issue Revisited All, Sorry for abandoning my post, so to speak. There have been some very interesting comments, here are some tardy ones of my own. Proceeding from the premise that some UFOs are of ET origin and represent nuts-and-bolts 'devices', occupied or not, consider our apparent circumstance in which, based on verbal accounts, drawings, and photographs, these objects are extraordinarily diverse, perhaps even individually unique (or, alternatively, are morphologically dynamic, i.e., size/shape changing with time). A pertinent question is, why is this troubling (as it clearly is to many, including myself)? Certainly some degree of diversity of form would not be surprising, but the actual set of observations indicates extreme rarity, if even any existence, of repetition among cases where detailed morphology can be resolved. I think many find this abhorrent in the Occam sense, i.e., it seems so _uneconomical_ , and calls for some rather contrived scenarios, some of which put us in the untenable position of imputing human motives to alien life form(s). A few examples of attempts to make this situation more palatable include: (a) ETs do this because they can, i.e., they aren't constrained by our production-line methods of manufacture, so why _not_ make each device unique, e.g., as a matter of artistry? (b) ETs do this to deliberately modify or direct human interpretation of the phenomenon, e.g., to instill doubt about its reality/objectivity, thereby averting panic, social upheaval, etc. (c) These devices, although nuts-and-bolts in nature, are actually manifested/perceived in a subjective or non-uniform way, (perhaps even to the extent that inert, passive instruments, e.g., cameras, are affected. There are no doubt additional, better formulated options, and I do not mean to present these as strawmen. They are not overtly absurd, but I personally find them pretty difficult to swallow. Perhaps this is because there is a fairly straightforward and Occam-friendly way out: namely, that the vast majority of (but not necessarily all) UFO sightings and/or photographs that are sufficiently detailed to distinguish geometric features are _not_ ET-related, but rather, are either hoaxes, misidentifications, or internal, subjective experiences (e.g., hallucinations). For better or worse, this would obviously encourage the standard rebuttal to virtually any class of anomalistic phenomena, i.e., "If that large a fraction of cases are prosaic, shouldn't we just presume that they all are?" To which my own answer is "no", because I remain intrigued by a small fraction of cases that do not admit any tenable prosaic explanation, or at least no explanation that is more plausible than, say, the ETH. But if the non-prosaic fraction of UFOs are as diverse and non-repetitive as the total UFO dataset indicates, I would have to consider that one of several warts to be found on the ETH. Mike 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp