UFOs, Paranormal, Pseudoscience Thread

[Sea Turtle]

Sorry if this has been posted but what do you guys think of the Skinwalker Ranch case?

 

[calvegas04]

Sorry if this has been posted but what do you guys think of the Skinwalker Ranch case?

Have you been watching the History channel or whatever channel the show it on? Seems like a lot of nothing

 

[Bishop2b5]

There was a discussion about it several months ago here or in the What Are You Watching thread. I thought the show was one long empty tease without a shred of substance.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Have you been watching the History channel or whatever channel the show it on? Seems like a lot of nothing

Yes, which I why I post this now. I saw a couple of episodes last night. So far it hasn't been as interesting as the online stories you see.

OMM, what are your thoughts?

 

[Sea Turtle]

There was a discussion about it several months ago here or in the What Are You Watching thread. I thought the show was one long empty tease without a shred of substance.

Sounds like the curse of oak island.

 

[calvegas04]

Sounds like the curse of oak island.

Curse of Oak Island at least they find some stuff here and there and some of the man made stuff found while digging is interesting. I don't think they will ever find the "treasure" they think is there but the show is fun if you watching for the history side of things.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Well .... very long story and far more complicated than you'll ever get on mass-view TV.
Not sure that I want to go into it. (also Bishop and others tend to just disregard my inside info, and that's a bit irritating.)

I'll just give a few bullet points:
1. There were claims about odd things there from the late 1980s at a minimum (Native American much longer.)
2. Bob Bigelow bought the place to do what he hoped would be hi-tech UFO research there.
3. I knew Bob and his research director, Colm Kelleher, personally, and got over-the-lunch table inside talk on it.
4. Bigelow decided that it wasn't producing enough data and sold it. New owners are exploiters.
5. Kelleher told me that there were some genuinely peculiar incidents (to say the least) but resisting explanation.
6. Injury to workers cases were MRId by top NSA/CIA bioscientist (Known very well by several of my friends.)
7. This spooky guy (Christopher Green if you must know a name) believes that the injuries are NOT due to UFOs.
8. Injury types are felt to be caused by specific RF frequency broadcasts probably delivered by drones.
9. These injuries are felt to be a different problem than some of the more paranormal events out there.

That's enough. I'll hand the "conclusions" over to those with deeper information. (italics)

The book by Kelleher isn't bad for the parts he oversaw. The news writer is less trustworthy. Eric Davis not at all.

 

[arahop]

Well .... very long story and far more complicated than you'll ever get on mass-view TV.
Not sure that I want to go into it. (also Bishop and others tend to just disregard my inside info, and that's a bit irritating.)

I'll just give a few bullet points:
1. There were claims about odd things there from the late 1980s at a minimum (Native American much longer.)
2. Bob Bigelow bought the place to do what he hoped would be hi-tech UFO research there.
3. I knew Bob and his research director, Colm Kelleher, personally, and got over-the-lunch table inside talk on it.
4. Bigelow decided that it wasn't producing enough data and sold it. New owners are exploiters.
5. Kelleher told me that there were some genuinely peculiar incidents (to say the least) but resisting explanation.
6. Injury to workers cases were MRId by top NSA/CIA bioscientist (Known very well by several of my friends.)
7. This spooky guy (Christopher Green if you must know a name) believes that the injuries are NOT due to UFOs.
8. Injury types are felt to be caused by specific RF frequency broadcasts probably delivered by drones.
9. These injuries are felt to be a different problem than some of the more paranormal events out there.

That's enough. I'll hand the "conclusions" over to those with deeper information. (italics)

The book by Kelleher isn't bad for the parts he oversaw. The news writer is less trustworthy. Eric Davis not at all.

Mike loved your book UFOs and Government.

I'm amazed that the Government is/was able to suppress common sense on UFOs existing.
Do you have any thoughts on the Zimbabwe incident in 94?
Side note my favorite all time interview on the subject is Donald Keyhole and a close second Gordon Cooper. Do you have any insights on Gordon Cooper.

 

[Old Man Mike]

mostly non-simple answers again.

1. On Cooper. Cooper's sighting was not as an in-space astronaut but as a pilot if I remember. It was not reported in a lot of detail, so it doesn't loom large in UFO case files. Cooper's influence was that it convinced him of UFO reality and he went about (for a while) asking colleagues about their experiences and being an irritant to NASA by talking in public. There are NO good cases of UFO encounters by astronauts while in space. There IS however one very good UFO encounter by an astronaut in his prior career (as follows).
2. In 1951 a pilot was flying a training plane as part of his duty. He was in-air over Hastings, MN, an area where we were launching hi-tech balloon devices for later spying on the USSR. He saw a white disk which embarrassed his plane when he tried to pursue it. On landing he was ordered to make a full report. He then found out that the balloon scientists had seen the same thing both visually and through their tracking theodolites. ---> witness: Deke Slayton.
3. Ariel school, Zimbabwe. 1994 incident. This is a Close Encounter of the Third kind, so many people just get scared off because they just can't swallow things that strange. It is difficult to make any headway, because these types are scared of "being the fool" (even if they won't admit it), and laugh and shut down.

The case is complicated. Zimbabwe was having a UFO "Flap" (lots of cases in a condensed time.) The incident here involved kids at recess seeing four objects (one large and three small) (disks) come in low and land some distance away. (but easily seeable). The kids got excited and some ran closer. It is estimated that at least 60 saw it. Teachers were all inside the school in office or break room space. It's vital to know exactly what the kids saw and that's not so easy. Though all from well-to-do families, the kids were from several different ethnicities --- this is good and bad. Bad is because the folklore of the groups tended to influence the kids to label some things differently. But this was to my mind overshadowed by the good, because the former can be overcome by good interviewing, and the ethnic differences ended up giving a strong flavor that the basic information was culture independent.

Still, trying to get to 60 kids quickly is chaos. Drawings of the bigger craft were not uniform by a long shot. But the main element (a 3+ foot tall man in a black shiny suit and long straight black hair) was. This information, gained by the African area UFO researcher Cynthia Hind, is the reason for me that the case is a keeper. Once the famous US psychologist John Mack gets involved, I start wondering how contaminated the case becomes. So ... I say keep the "simple" CE3 part in your pocket as a probable good encounter, but stay flexible on the rest. A slightly similar school yard landing occurred in Australia (Westfall School) a decade or two earlier --- forget the exact date. One key researcher there is a friend, Bill Chalker, and I trust that case.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Well .... very long story and far more complicated than you'll ever get on mass-view TV.
Not sure that I want to go into it. (also Bishop and others tend to just disregard my inside info, and that's a bit irritating.)

I've not been dismissive of anything you've posted, Mike. I'm just in the camp that thinks Sagan was right when he said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "It's amazing and unusual and we can't explain it" is not proof that it's from an extraterrestrial intelligence.

I strongly believe there is intelligent life out there. I'd set the odds at better than 90%. I'm much less convinced that they've ever visited us. If they have, that would require a civilization whose technology is far, far beyond ours at this moment, and I can't imagine in my wildest dreams that such an advanced civilization would find it difficult to observe us without detection. If they want to make contact, then the current type of questionable sightings sure is an odd, ineffective, difficult to explain way to do so, and if they don't want us to know they're here, I can't imagine they'd have any trouble hiding themselves from us completely.

I believe all the sightings are simply military testing, intentional deceit on the part of the military to cover up such testing, or over-active imaginations. I'd love to be convinced otherwise and see some genuinely compelling evidence and proof of ETI, but until I do, I'll remain skeptical of all claims. I enjoy your posts on the subject and respect the work you've done. I just haven't seen any evidence that crosses from interesting and thought-provoking to convincing and proof.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Yep, I am fully aware that you "can't imagine any of this in your wildest dreams."
And I can't imagine you actually taking the trouble to do the research necessary to quit making your hard conclusions ("can't imagine in your wildest dreams" is a strong dismissive statement --- coupling that with admissions that you have not done the research into the subject should indicate why I don't like to bother even trying to write about this stuff --- can you imagine what it would take from me to even dent your biases a tiniest bit?) I don't have that time by years. The book that Arahop cites was a 6 year effort by seven of us. The current one readying for publication is even longer in the effort. USAF Project Blue Book didn't "prove" ET either, but their statistics powerfully indicated that the cases COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED by your military testing wave-off.

He!l I don't know why I bother .
Good night all.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I'm sorry you're bothered by my skepticism, Mike. I didn't say I couldn't imagine "any of this." I very clearly and specifically said I couldn't imagine that such an advanced civilization would find it difficult to observe us without detection. Please don't misrepresent my statements nor my thoughts.

 

[Old Man Mike]

... and what's the relevance of being unable to imagine an advanced civilization being able to observe us undetected, if that's what they wanted, to this issue? What does that have to do with anything? You reading their minds/intentions?

All this speculative "I can't imagine" stuff is not science and it is not the research hypothesis. The research hypothesis is that "Very high technology devices have been witnessed/detected in our atmosphere demonstrating flight characteristics beyond those of which we are currently capable." There is plenty of information coming from military, science, law enforcement, technologists, and "just plain" honest observers which supports that hypothetical question. Once honestly noting that, one should (as a scientist) begin listing alternative hypotheses to explain the information that has already been vetted (i.e. eliminating the mundane potential causal agents --- done in spades by the USAF and the French Government srtudy group as well as the best citizen analysts). Once you make that list, you may choose to not further trouble yourself with investigation, but at least admit that you DON'T know what this rather astonishing phenomenon is. (and quit saying things at the wrong end of the research process like you can't imagine extraterrestrials not being able to X, Y, Z , especially when you seem leaping to some internal model of what you think must go on in such a profoundly unknowable "attitudinal" situation like what could be going on.

I'm getting drawn into 40 years of research (by me) as a "tutorial" to someone who doesn't even have an open mind (due to the "can't imagines."). This is not a useful thing to me, nor to you. For anyone reading my posts, you will note that I try to give the information as the witnesses gave it and the investigators received and evaluated it. When reports are weak, I have told you.

 

[arahop]

Thanks for the detailed and in depth response OMM! I can guarantee you that all of us that have a interest in this phenomenon value your insight and expertise.

They clearly have harnessed the physics/technology that mankind can't fathom. Scientific minds or skeptics like Sagan, DeGrasse-Tyson, need extraordinary proof. The proof is here. The scientific method and understanding of current day physics can't explain these occurrences so they must not be possible in their minds.
Because we can't do it... It's not possible. That will forever hinder the scientific mind and proof crowd. People want a Whitehouse lawn landing. Well the UFOS buzzed the Whitehouse tower in 1952. They wrote that off as weather.

OMM dinner and Beers are on me if you're ever up for it!

 

[arahop]

I've not been dismissive of anything you've posted, Mike. I'm just in the camp that thinks Sagan was right when he said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "It's amazing and unusual and we can't explain it" is not proof that it's from an extraterrestrial intelligence.

I strongly believe there is intelligent life out there. I'd set the odds at better than 90%. I'm much less convinced that they've ever visited us. If they have, that would require a civilization whose technology is far, far beyond ours at this moment, and I can't imagine in my wildest dreams that such an advanced civilization would find it difficult to observe us without detection. If they want to make contact, then the current type of questionable sightings sure is an odd, ineffective, difficult to explain way to do so, and if they don't want us to know they're here, I can't imagine they'd have any trouble hiding themselves from us completely.

I believe all the sightings are simply military testing, intentional deceit on the part of the military to cover up such testing, or over-active imaginations. I'd love to be convinced otherwise and see some genuinely compelling evidence and proof of ETI, but until I do, I'll remain skeptical of all claims. I enjoy your posts on the subject and respect the work you've done. I just haven't seen any evidence that crosses from interesting and thought-provoking to convincing and proof.

We don't have the technology now to do what these things are capable of and we certainly didn't have the technology 70-75 years ago.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Hello, Arahop. I'll spin a few more factual things for you since you appreciate them.

The best UFO researchers do not frame the research question in terms of "proving" anything (science as a whole rarely "Proves" anything especially when exploring the mysterious edges of science textbook knowledge.) Any slight familiarity with the history of science shows that discovery and analysis are constantly refining what seem to be most favored hypotheses. Scientific "Laws" are few, and even then need refinement (Newton's brilliant stuff is the poster child for this.) Because of this fact of nature (i.e. its depth and complexity) researchers are careful about hypothesis framing. That's why we phrase what we're researching in terms like what I listed in the previous post. Note that the words "ET" or extraterrestrials do not appear there. To phrase a hypothesis with those terms in it would require the acquisition and multi-lab years-of-work upon actual ET bioforms (or robots) and craft or at least far-ahead devices. That's the only level at which such a hypothesis could be considered "proven." Even then guys like our IE friend would balk claiming military hoaxes or some such speculation based upon nothing but "it seems to me..."

This conundrum was that faced initially by the USAF and then by the Pentagon and then by the Colorado USAF-sponsored study project and others of less "stature" but equal brains. Workshops and papers and brainstorm sessions have been held on this for decades (none of which substance is known by the average citizen despite their self-assured opinions about the subject. The administrator of the Colorado Project said that the UFO conundrum was like an onion with three layers of questions. 1. Are there UFO incidents of high strangeness and inexplicable characteristics reported by credible witnesses?; 2. Do these reports refer to objects acting externally in the physical world (i.e. not just creations of the Carnival of the Mind)? 3. Do these incidents originate from extraterrestrial technology? The administrator said that the data show that the answer to the first question is clearly "Yes" and the answer to the second question is also clearly "Yes" barring some mass mental malfunctioning of our best and otherwise most competent observers. The answer to question three was however very hard, as although one might state that the most inexplicable cases would support such a hypothesis, only physical lab evidence of highly anomalous character could approach "chemistry-style" lab-bench assurance. Most scientists on the Project, plus Dr. James McDonald (atmospheric physicist, U Arizona who was working with other scientists on their own secret team for LBJs Whitehouse at the time (late 1960s)) would say that while the ET hypothesis could not be "proven", it was the only one which had the dual qualities of explaining the data, while remaining within the wider bounds of textbook science (ex. certain paranormal ideas or parallel reality concepts etc could bee imagined to deal with the phenomenon, but they required serious add-on speculations about the nature of the universe.) Of course, scientists wanting things to be as "normal" as possible fled from these conclusions entirely, though often when questioned talked authoritatively as if they'd studied the question, instead of merely spinning BS as was the truth. Some of these science-trained not-really-scientists in this way violated the scientific method and the requirement of open exploration of potential unknowns.

We had these debunkers early in the game, motivated by known factors, some bizarre. Sagan later was turned into one, as he made the error of following his explorer's instinct and publishing two ET-friendly papers, for which he received hellfire blasts by his "establishment." (I have talked to Sagan and to his department chair --- none of this is BS.) Frank Drake was more savvy, sneaking out anonymously to research UFO cases that interested him, but making the error (in c.1969) of suggesting that UFO research was worth funding. De Grasse Tyson is simply an idiot who knows nothing of the subject but knows where his bread is buttered. Some of his commentary is pathetic and wholly counter to science and the method. He may well be expert on something astronomical, but on this he is thoroughly anti-science. ... and astoundingly ignorant and thereby unqualified.

The amount of going over and inside all these issues is library large. Unfortunately there's no Cliff Notes, and all the public gets is DeGrasse/Shostak/SETI-Institute propaganda (UFO data would put them out of business) and morons like the cash-grabbing idiots you see on the History Channel, and who serve better than the debunkers to ruin the field. So, this field is HARD. 40 years hard for me. It's why I have little patience with persons who've studied nothing of it making facile comments as if they know anything about what they're talking about. The irritation trip switch is that all these comments come from on high with no question marks. Fixed thinking. Not worth my bashing against walls.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I'm sorry you're bothered by my skepticism, Mike. I didn't say I couldn't imagine "any of this." I very clearly and specifically said I couldn't imagine that such an advanced civilization would find it difficult to observe us without detection. Please don't misrepresent my statements nor my thoughts.

Invoking Sagan’s evidentiary quotes to diminish this thread’s legitimacy is peak gaslighting. Makes me think you don’t understand what Carl was all about in the least. That quote was a pot shot a religion because at least with science there are ways to obtain knowledge that doesn’t involve handwaving and acceptance without evidence.

I know OMM has his own opinions of Carl but to use Sagan’s own quotes against the very purpose of SETI is ballzy to say the least. Sagan seemed to me to be very much aware of the limits of technology of his time but very hopeful that those limits would be obliterated through science and progress. Poor form Bishop. Argument from incredulity is the complete arse end of the scientific method and no way to discover or learn anything. I agree with OMM on this matter. Can’t reach anyone who adopts this as a point of basis with which to discuss anything.

If you cant imagine anything in between a civilization capable of interstellar travel and observation and undetectability then there isn’t any reason for you to be in this thread. You won’t be adding to or furthering the discussions.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Cack, this all went right over you. I believe there's probably intelligent life out there. I just haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that the sightings over the past few decades are related to it (I'm not convinced they aren't either, if that makes you feel better). Why does that bother you and Mike so much? Do you really need me to just say, "OK, I believe it!" to make you happy? Please tell me you aren't that needy. In the meantime I'll keep an open mind on the matter and remain skeptical until more convincing evidence is presented. You see, that's how science works. You don't accept something as fact until it's actually proven.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Edited: Gaslighting. Science doesn’t prove anything ….. facepalm

 

[Old Man Mike]

Since Carl Sagan was mentioned, let me be explicit about what I think about Carl.

Carl was, as a young man, shocked by the stories of The Church vs Galileo (me too) and of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (me too.) Carl was a young Jewish guy from NYC whose belief in God had left and was replaced by the thrill of the potentials of Science, and these two things (Galileo & Alexandria) were Cardinal Sins against Science's Church. I grew up Catholic with lots of family support, so I hated the two Sins but had the spiritual basis to merely be disgusted by them. (I later learned the full story about Galileo, and that, as most things, turned out to be a LOT more complex than superficial reading indicated.) ... so Carl had a BIG deep-seated anti-God, science-is-all, bias burnt into him. As I got to know who he was, that life background made it easier to read his work without prejudice to how he arrived at the non-science tones that crept into it.

Carl began his science career as a Big Picture adventurer, something that I stand in strong applause for. He was in the 1960s almost child-like in his joy about such exploring. In that period, he wrote his paper on ET civilization colonizing the galaxy with his mind-stretching conclusion that his math showed that statistically it was reasonable to estimate that civilizations could have visited Earth hundreds of times in the last 8000 to 10000 years. Giving this as a talk at a conservative astronomy symposium blew the roof off and was the only thing that the press wanted to talk about. Sagan followed this with reaching out to Russian astronomer I.S.Shklovskii (Spelling surely wrong but what-the-hell) to engineer a co-authored book on Intelligent Life in the Universe. Shklovskii wrote about the small moons of Mars being artificially constructed (how's that for ET-visitation?) while Sagan did him one better by stating that the very old legend of the Babylonian Flood story could perhaps better be interpreted as an ET research expedition to Earth --- I'm not at all kidding, and if one retains an open mind on adventuring in science, one CAN see why Carl thought it just might be that (I read the old legends even more than he did, and the dammed things, even when taken with several more contemporary Sumerian materials kept making a kind of sense. Later exploiters of this idea went WAY off the reservation with bogus material, but the first probe by Sagan wasn't crazy --- completely unprovable, but worth the thought.)

Carl's colleagues of course, not only thought that these things WEREN'T worth the thought but their biases rose up to slap him down. As big an ego as he had, he couldn't buck his establishment, and shut his mouth and became an anti-UFO media speaker to make it up to them --- his election to the National Academy of Science was consistently denied. Sagan became the go-to guy for the astronomers to go before Congress for funding, and to oppose funding for UFO projects. He was good at it.

But for me, Carl still had the joyful little adventurous kid in him, even though he couldn't always voice it in public. We sat together alone one day (so there were no microphones around) and he wanted to talk about The Face on Mars (which had not yet proved to be an intriguing erosion feature so the Adventure was still "on"). He practically jumped up and down retelling when he and his Cornell mates first brought the NASA picture up. When I said that the Face, if true, didn't necessarily show proof of anything except an ancient visitation of some form of advanced life (I had just done a study of Convergent Evolution and the expected features of ANY evolution of large land-based animals), he immediately shut me down with: No. That's a HUMAN face and That changes everything we think we know about human origins. ...... combine that experience with his publication about the Babylonian Flood story.

You'll not read that sort of thing in science's reminiscences of Sagan by the way, because "science" doesn't like things like that.

Carl Sagan, I believe to have been a highly talented (though a little too cocksure) scientific explorer, whose basic "heart" I can admire --- other than the atheism --- and who was pounded into some "establishment tolerable" intellectual shape to corral his open-mindedness and adventurous joy.

I was walking up one of the San Francisco hills alongside Carl's department chairman at Cornell, Yervant Terzian, and we were discussing several things including Carl. Terzian in answer to why Sagan had rough going getting recognized in certain high placed ways, simply said: "Carl has made some mistakes."

 

[Old Man Mike]

For doubters, I just found this old image from the Face on Mars conversation time.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

From Cosmos to all of his books I read, Carl had a profound impact on mine and my wife’s life as children. Thinking what it would be like if me and OMM’s wisdom had crossed paths back in the day.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Mike and others, what are your thoughts on the book Communnion: a true story and the author, Whitley Strieber?

 

[Old Man Mike]

When Strieber wrote that book, it was so sensational that serious researchers felt that it could damage the UFO topic's credibility (what little we had arduously built up) for decades. My colleagues came to me (particularly Dr. Hynek's Center for UFO Studies, but also the Mutual UFO Network) and asked me to analyze the book and make a preliminary assessment of it. This assessment was published in MUFON's Journal --- it must have been way back in the mid-to-late 1980s.)

In that assessment, I took the book literally page-by-page and listed all the extraordinary claims. Alongside that, I gave a statement as to whether any of those claims had any validating support or even the possibility of any validating support (ex. interviewing another witness.) The conclusion was that there was no such support for anything in the book. The claims, I said in scientific fairness, must then be said to be mere believe-it-or-not assertions by the writer. They COULD be true, but we have no way of knowing. This "caveat emptor" statement served as the UFO community's "protection" vs people claiming that Strieber was a fiction writer exploiting the public and perhaps a lunatic/liar. I wrote none of that latter in the article.

Strieber is/was an extremely explosively angry man and he blew up, railing all over the MUFON Journal and my write-up. MUFON was a bunch of pussies and allowed him to write his rant directly behind my article (which is against all editorial etiquette by the way.) But that was the last I directly heard from him. There are, however, two more things that I can tell you which might help understand this guy.

I knew Budd Hopkins very well (a fellow West Virginian and a nice sensitive man.) Despite liking Budd a lot, I disagreed with almost everything he was concluding about the UFO Phenomenon (particularly his work on alleged abductions.) Budd, despite being an artist and no scientist, was a very intelligent man, and became the focal point for so-called CE4 claimants. Among his hypnosis "clients" was Whitley Strieber, and this is how this all came out. Budd, in my opinion, had both lousy technique and a preconceived model as to what was true in these CE4 encounters before any "witness" opened their mouth.

The Strieber connection came to a boil when Budd completed a second book on the subject and sent his MS to his publisher (this MS did not contain anything about the Strieber "case"). Shortly thereafter, Strieber finished the Communion MS and sent it to the same publisher. Though Budd was first, Strieber insisted that HIS book get priority so as to sweep up the sales prior to any second similar-topic book emerging. Strieber was the BIG fiction name, so that's the way it went down. Makes one wonder a bit about motivation and truth.

Secondly, Budd told me once (despite still believing Strieber's story) that he considered Whitley "the most frightened person he had ever known." Budd took that as proof of story. I lean toward proof that Strieber had mental problems. Remember, he constantly wrote VERY frightening horror fiction. Years later I saw him on some morning talk show (might have been Ophra), and there he changed his entire story about what he felt happened. Now he was sure that it had nothing to do with UFOs but was caused by Demons harassing him. He also said that he believed in witchcraft, presumably thinking that had something to do with it.

Nothing I've said here precludes you buying the whole Communion story because it is still hearsay one way or the other. Most of us come down on the side that this is the believed imagination of an unwell writer, who has the amazing ability to turn his issues into dollars.

And that is the inside story that you won't ever hear on The Discovery Channel.

 

[AlaskanIrish]

View attachment 3050712
For doubters, I just found this old image from the Face on Mars conversation time.

OMM, this has to be the coolest thing I've seen on IE in the 15 or so years I've been on this site. Your insights on Carl are absolutely fascinating as well. I am no expert on these matters, so I keep my mouth shut--but I just wanted to give you a shout-out for all of your contributions to this site, and science in general. You've enriched my life greatly over the years.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Very flattered. I was a good science teacher and the "trick" was to be adventurously open to all possibilities while insisting that we do the necessary work ourselves in the studies, maintain active flexibility to alternative hypotheses, and not be dismissive of others simply because what they say doesn't resonate with our view of the world. I called that "policy" Earning An Opinion That Was Worth Speaking In Public. The kids loved that attitude, which coincidentally SHOULD be the Objective Scientific Method in part. I'm sure that we are all aware here on IE that very few of us actually live our internet lives by that policy.

But soapbox over. I've spent a VERY long exploratory life looking into almost all the substantive topics relevant to this thread, and if I have useful information on any question, and if it is phrased respectfully, and if it CAN be answered in less than a weekend Chataqua Workshop worth of intensity, I'll do my best to share. Now that I'm in this retirement community, I've left a lot of my files behind and so won't be able
to give factually solid responses (so on such things I won't.) Photo of me making fun of myself (a good general policy also.)

 

[RDU Irish]

Very flattered. I was a good science teacher and the "trick" was to be adventurously open to all possibilities while insisting that we do the necessary work ourselves in the studies, maintain active flexibility to alternative hypotheses, and not be dismissive of others simply because what they say doesn't resonate with our view of the world. I called that "policy" Earning An Opinion That Was Worth Speaking In Public. The kids loved that attitude, which coincidentally SHOULD be the Objective Scientific Method in part. I'm sure that we are all aware here on IE that very few of us actually live our internet lives by that policy.

But soapbox over. I've spent a VERY long exploratory life looking into almost all the substantive topics relevant to this thread, and if I have useful information on any question, and if it is phrased respectfully, and if it CAN be answered in less than a weekend Chataqua Workshop worth of intensity, I'll do my best to share. Now that I'm in this retirement community, I've left a lot of my files behind and so won't be able
to give factually solid responses (so on such things I won't.) Photo of me making fun of myself (a good general policy also.) View attachment 3050753

Strange observation but I have to ask - why so many duplicate copies of different books on the book shelf? Signed copies? Don't trust they will return when lent out? People know your interests so you end up with multiple gifted copies?

Huge fan of your contributions to this thread in particular. Please do not let a few naysayers influence your decision to share or how you filter your depth of knowledge.

You talked about the common theme in the scientific community from folks like Sagan that implies faith and science are mutually exclusive. Could you share some of your core experiences or influences that helped cement your confidence in the faith element? I imagine that draws ire in some circles as much or more than UFOs and poltergeists.

Also still holding out for that Bigfoot theory - please DM!

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'm sitting in the library of the Center for UFO Studies prior to a board meeting in that picture. The CUFOS librarian cannot help acting like a professional librarian (Masters in Library Science from Kansas) so he collects both every edition of some books plus multicopies of ones he considers worthy of same. There was only one copy of Round Trip, by the way. ... appropriate for its "high" quality.

otherwise: both my faith in faith and my not-very-popular theory of Bigfoot are in their wildly different ways VERY long stories to tell. Don't know if I could ever condense them into a reasonable set of paragraphs here. One thing: the savvy atheists oppose all things in the psychic areas just as violently as in the GOD area. They know that opening the door to exploring the possible paranormal claims leads to direct violation of their "There is nothing but Matter moving in its lawful ways" gospel (i.e. materialist reductionism.) To give even a little on that opens the doors to the Spiritual and that is the death knell of Materialist Reductionism. That would force them to expand their consciousnesses beyond mere matter to, at a minimum, well, "consciousness." That terrifies them. Anything smacking of the Soul and Free Will kills not GOD but their Universe of Minimalism.

 

[AlaskanIrish]

I'm sitting in the library of the Center for UFO Studies prior to a board meeting in that picture. The CUFOS librarian cannot help acting like a professional librarian (Masters in Library Science from Kansas) so he collects both every edition of some books plus multicopies of ones he considers worthy of same. There was only one copy of Round Trip, by the way. ... appropriate for its "high" quality.

otherwise: both my faith in faith and my not-very-popular theory of Bigfoot are in their wildly different ways VERY long stories to tell. Don't know if I could ever condense them into a reasonable set of paragraphs here. One thing: the savvy atheists oppose all things in the psychic areas just as violently as in the GOD area. They know that opening the door to exploring the possible paranormal claims leads to direct violation of their "There is nothing but Matter moving in its lawful ways" gospel (i.e. materialist reductionism.) To give even a little on that opens the doors to the Spiritual and that is the death knell of Materialist Reductionism. That would force them to expand their consciousnesses beyond mere matter to, at a minimum, well, "consciousness." That terrifies them. Anything smacking of the Soul and Free Will kills not GOD but their Universe of Minimalism.

We may be wearing you out, OMM, so don't feel obligated to respond, but, regarding the second paragraph of your post, what are your views on someone like Sam Harris, particularly on his book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion? He doesn't like the word "atheist" but he certainly is one of the so-called "New Atheists." He's also a materialist, and by his own account a very spiritual man--having had some of the same experiences as him (minus the LSD, haha), I believe him to be so. Further, he refers to himself as agnostic regarding Psi Phenomena and similar things.

I share his views largely. When pressed, I would have to admit that I am an atheist (essentially, a non-theist), but I meditate daily and each year I spend at least two weeks on silent meditation retreats, typically in the Tibetan Buddhist/Dzogchen traditions. I find them to be profoundly spiritual, in the best sense of the word. Do you see a conflict between "atheist" and "spiritual"? Very best regards, sir. And thank you again for all of your insight.

 

[Old Man Mike]

A Buddhist or Hindu is an atheist but not a Materialist Reductionist. They espouse the same "non-need" to believe in a Creator GOD but one limits himself to nothing but material physical law reductionism, while the other believes that all of that is largely passing illusion, and Existence is One Thing within which "individuals" constantly refine in pursuit of harmony within that One. Upon achieving perfect harmony after many lifetimes turning the Karmic Wheel, they "dissolve" into the One never more to have being as individual points of partial disharmony. Because Buddhists maintain that matter bits are basically an illusion, and the whole dynamic of life takes place on the "Spiritual" level of Dharma (essentially "Good Works") and Karma (disharmonic burden caused by ill works), they can view life nearly opposite to materialist science. In fact, the basic "technology" pursued by the Buddhist or Hindu searcher is a Technology of Consciousness wherein the seeker seeks not a Communion with God's Love, or the fortitude to pursue The Beatitudes, but rather to achieve the ability of self-mastery and then utter self-denial, i.e. the awareness that one's self is itself an illusion, as is any worldly interaction including Death.

Hindus and Buddhists are perfectly happy with the Spiritual technological pursuit of the paranormal, just as long as it does not hinder the de-karma-ization of their current turn of the Wheel. Paranormal ability however can be a problem, if it leads to ego-centrism, the opposite of the Buddhist/Hindu quest. Reductionist materialists are not comfortable with ANY of that. I've heard some of them say that they are "spiritual" people, but in fact they only mean that they try to be nice generally, try to care about other things than themselves, and like watching Nature. But at the core of that there is no real meaning. Meaning would come when the Game of Life is actually on the line. Does one's belief structure fortify one standing up for what's morally right in the face of severe threats to oneself? Does one place oneself in service of others regardless of any close relationship? Does one TRULY LOVE on an expansive scope? True spirituality for me involves seeing oneself as Servant and Helper in loving and moral ways. There is no morality in materialist reductionism if that philosophy is honestly exposed to its root conclusions. Without the Soul acting through Freedom of Choice, there can be no concept of a moral or immoral act, and consequently no true living of a PURPOSEFUL life. ... an illusion to the reductionists.

One can choose of course to go all material with that brand of atheism, or all spiritual with that brand of atheism, or believe in a separate Creator God who created The Universe as a (brilliantly fascinating) backdrop for giving individual free willing souls opportunities to make choices on their own for goodness/love or for egocentric selfishness or mindless uncare, and discover who each of us is. I see no basis for such moral choice in reductionism, and only the pragmatic (I better do this to not burden myself with Karma) motivations of Buddhism. ... and the urgency of moral choice is not really there either --- you always have another turn on the Wheel coming, and "you" don't actually exist anyway.

So, I'm sticking with my New Testament Gospel of Love Jesus pronouncements, and pray to The Holy Spirit every day several times for the spiritual strength to overcome my animal instinct selfishness and take the opportunities that The Universe gives me top choose the right thing. I find this a very "logical" philosophy of life and very supportive even in times of trouble.

Please do not attempt to draw me into some philosophical-religious-theological debate on these things. If you are a nice person, I respect you regardless of your final philosophical structure. If you are not a nice person, I tend to disapprove, but usually not loudly and combatively. We all need to understand that this universal design seems powerfully resistant to PROVING things at this level in any form. Anyone demanding such creates a red herring, and probably does so for their own unspoken reasons.