From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:51:24 +0100 Archived: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:21:15 -0400 Subject: Re: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:05:15 -0500 >Subject: Re: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap >>From: Franck Boitte <franckboitte.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:56:54 +0200 >>Subject: Re: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap >>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:19:09 +0100 >>>Subject: "Orthoteny" And The Great French Flap >>>It raises a question: are ufologists working on the >>>'orthoteny' hypothesis? >>The answer is a polite and definite, No. >Orthoteny is one of those things, like the Mars correlation, >that remain in ufology's early history and in its rear-view >mirror. Basically, summed up as: it seemed like a good idea at >the time. Thanks Franck and Jerry, for your information and opinions. However, it has to stay on my radar and in my bookmarks for several reasons: First, as Charles Fort repeatedly queried in his books, there seems to be a dichotomy between our scientific picture of Earth as a rotating (and orbiting) sphere in space, and incidences of incoming (or visiting) aerial phenomena which _should_ be random in timing and across the face of the Earth (according to that picture) - but which in fact seem to operate to a geophysical _and_ chronological pattern or patterns. Second, as Stanton Friedman and Don Ledger said in the foreword for Paul Kimball's 'Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gd9ehcry-Q those aerial phenomena seem to have been essentially unchanging throughout all of our history, and. as Mac Tonnies implied in his tailpiece for the same video, their most important aspect is their influence on human minds, in forming our concept of 'the alien'. [A vital point from Mac was that the phenomena could be physical or 'para-physical' (or a combination maybe?) and that "I don't think we have the proper vocabulary for that - frankly".] Lastly, I'm fond of asking the 'naive question' (as recommended by Buckminster Fuller for research and discovery), because that tends to cut through the undergrowth of faulty assumptions, propaganda and trendy science-fashion (often only formed by repeated propaganda - like "black holes", "dark matter", "dark energy") which mostly surrounds the concepts which we (and the PTB) think are most important. As an example, a battered copy of 'The New Background of Science' (1933) by James Jeans, still provides one with the best skeleton outline of classical and quantum facts, free of most of the maybe false assumptions concerning the 'conscious observer' which clutter our minds today. (All one has to do is bear in mind the extra evidence obtained since 1933, which you can get from Penrose's 'Road to Reality' maybe.) It would be great if a similar book or series of books did the same job on the aerial phenomena, and all their epiphenomena, considered without bias or assumptions; including contacts, abductions etc. and therefore having to also include all claimed 'religious events' - ie. the supernatural and the paranormal. Charles Fort made a good start - see: http://www.resologist.net/index.htm (it's just a pity that some sort of classification or even content-indexing weren't in vogue back then). Cheers Ray D 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