So...perhaps interesting mysterious things do take place. Acknowledging the possibility of such we're left with what conclusion? Is it that we're not alone that life must have came from other worlds? Reading after many who are into ufology that seems to be the usual conclusion drawn. Quite interesting that a different approach was put forth in Jacques Vallee's book, 'Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucer'.It was stated by Vallée, who was very much considered one of the top leaders in the study of UFO's and was considered the real-life model for one of the characters in Spielberg's, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' that UFO phenomena seemed to follow along the lines and pattern of supernatural manifestations of angels , ghosts and psychic phenomena.
To put it another way he felt the assumptions that many ufologists were making had need to be drawn into question. Instead of extraterrestrials Vallee considered we might be looking at rather an interdimensional reality. It's not so much that they came here but rather that they've always been here within inner space. Holding to such a possibility Vallee found it alienated him from most of the pure materialists within ufology. One might say materialists refused to consider a spiritual/supernatural possibility as the greater answer to the UFO question. The idea was that such entities would look at whatever the current culture was into and create and produce visual illusions accordingly. Perhaps it could be said before the time a culture could consider space travel it may have been phantom tall ships on the sea which would appear.
This could mean that UFO's may no more be physically substantial any more then mystery ghost ships on the ocean in generations past. As to whether such a thought could be the case who knows? It does however provide another avenue of looking at the theme, thinking out of the box, or the seeing of a bigger picture. Instead of the equation being, 3x3 equally 9 the true way of looking it it might be 3+3 equally 6. As stated Vallee's hypothesis was not well received by ufologists which I consider rather ironic. It seems from advocates believing in UFO's who are constantly encouraging everyone to keep an open mind one would think they themselves would exercise the same way of reasoning---keep your mind open to all possibilities.
Vallee had went on record to say that he is presently viewed as a "heretic among heretics" and among other ufologists he's veiwed as an outcast. If you're considered an outcast by Ufologists then keep in mind you must be way out there in the twilight zone...but who knows? Maybe that's where the UFO's are from.
This is the end of "Mystery Lights in The Sky"but perhaps you'd like to read one of my blogs similar, which I entitled, "The Scariest Halloween On Record" The theme is concerning the "War Of The Worlds" radio broadcast in 1938 which too you might say is a UFO blog. To enjoy please click on the link below,
Secondly, lets add, multiple witnesses especially of the type who are known to demonstrate rational reasonable thinking. True that sounds condescending but it's how the real world functions. Do the individuals claiming to have seen or experienced a certain phenomenon have a reputation and a track record for not being given over to excesses? To be even more clear if you're claiming you've seen a UFO and you happen to attend one of the Star Trek conventions dressed as Worf dont' be surprised if your testimony would be discredited as invalid due to your being extreme. Keep in mind that sure does look like a large walnut on Worf's head so how could you blame folk for thinking you a nut.
So multiple witnesses, but of the type not given over to excesses, professionals such as police officers would add to the believability factor as well. Ask yourself how many police officers while on duty would want to participate in a hoax with the public record of doing so a part of 911 tapes? Would many of them want to risk their jobs by not looking professional at all times? So considering the two aspects of having multiple witnesses which are also deemed credible, I've picked two particular examples which seem to show credible evidence backing the thought that at least a strange event had occurred. The first is what's known as the Turnbull Country UFO event and the second the Phoenix Lights story.
The Turnbull County event in Youngstown Ohio, took place on Dec 14, 1974 and involved over a dozen police officers giving chase to strange lights in the night sky. Numerous calls had come in to the police dispatch centre of people seeing a bright red glow in the sky. One resident of Samson Drive claimed the craft came down and was hovering right over his house. When one officer, Mr Toby Melero reached the scene he radioed back that whatever the thing was it's size was huge. He reported as the vessel or craft went over top his position all the power of his vehicle suddenly went dead. Dozens of other officers latter described it as a brightly luminous object that rotated as if on an axis. They observed it as well hovering over housetops at disturbingly low level of elevation.
Again the key issue is multiple witnesses and of the type who'd say have a lot to lose by participating in a hoax. Individual anecdotal stories like the kind of Billy-Joe and Sally-Jane could be made up and hoaxed and as long as they didn't involve wasting the time of peace officers in conducting investigations, thus they'd be charged with mischief---they could spin their tales and fibs to their hearts desire. Officers of the law could not or would not do so considering how much they'd lose. I find it interesting that the record states on the 911 tapes of the Turnbull event that the phenomenon was hugh hovering over residential areas and yet NBC in their 'Confirmation Special' wanting it would seem to discredit the account brought in some cynical astronomer suggesting all the officers saw was a comet or planet. Yeah sounds good! When the officers state,
it was huge and hovering we can all set aside their descriptions and say whatever we want. Isn't that what's called the spin masters going to work? As for me on this case I'd have to stay with what the officers claimed they actually saw even though it was never totally defined exactly what it was. A second interesting account worthy of note is the Phoenix Lights event. On March 13, 1997 it's reported that thousands of people [notice the multiple witnesses] including the then Governor Fife Symington saw a strange phenomenon, or UFO. Some time later it was defined by the Governor as being 'otherworldly'. You can watch them yourself. http://bit.ly/gLORP9 Here was seen a V shaped craft but here's the kicker--it was over one mile wide, would hover and made no noise! All the ingredients which would define this as a credible account are all present--multiple witnesses of good reputation.
I'd be honoured if you'd consider subscribing to my blog. Merely type in your email in the side bar of this site.
Mystery lights in the sky? Yes just another way of saying UFO's or unidentified flying objects. I pondered as to whether I should even blog on it. It seems the mere mention of the theme produces snears from the great many high and mighty intellectual elites, the so called guardians over that which is to be considered reasonable thought. I recall in the last US Presidential campaign, U.S. House Representative, Dennis Kucinich saw his political ambitions thwarted in a television debate by merely acknowledging that he thought he saw a UFO. One might ask why should another be so marginalized merely for claiming they saw what they believed was something peculiar?
Could the sad truth really be that it's a cheap political ploy designed to split a political contenders support--make him acknowledge his experience of such and you marginalize him as mentally deficient? As for me I have to acknowledge that I've never seen a UFO so maybe I'm safe from a condescending opinion concerning myself. It could be however that I saw a UFO but thought it was a regular plane the same as maybe the cynics have done. Would I say the most renown UFO reports seem credible? One of the most talked about UFO accounts would be Roswell but in seeking to arrive at a sense of a UFO case to seem credible I wouldn't touch the Roswell case with a 10 foot pole.
The problem with the Roswell story isn't that it's not interesting to hear but rather it's been overplayed constantly and people tire of hearing it. Yes, a UFO allegedly crashed in the desert and the sly ole military confiscated the debris and hid it awayor... so the story goes. All our modern tech actually came about by backwards engineering taking apart that craft, or don't yeah know. Aliens are supposedly advanced beyond us? If so why would they need to hover at so low attitudes to have a sense concerning what we're all about? Can't they do at least as much as us by zooming in with cameras from space? Roswell plus all the commercialization of the story---alien masks of the greys and t-shirt sales etc, etc, etc, kind of made the mention of the story a laughable thing. Important to note as well that it doesn't pass the test of having two main items that can lead to believability from a legal perspective which I'll speak of just ahead.
What about abduction stories? Let's imagine a case about say, Sally-Jane and Billy-Joe claiming they were walking in the woods and a bright light appears, shooting down some ray which transports them within the ship where they claim they were subjected to intrusive experimentation? Would such as that be considered credible? I'd say not. The problem with these type of accounts isn't that it can't be found interesting to hear, like stories around a camp fire, but rather what can one do with them? From a legal standpoint or in a court of law they'd not stand out as impressive. What would? First of all multiple witnesses of an event. Isn't that what convinces a jury?
I'd be honoured if you'd consider subscribing to my blog. Merely type in your email in the side bar of this site.
Browse through your local bookstore and see how many titles are in the self-help section, similar to "7 Steps To Great Success" or "24 Steps To A Happy Marriage". How wonderful I've thought! Aren't we privileged to have such ingenious individuals who've nailed down the truth in such an expertise fashion? I must confess however there's been times when I've found it a tad bit nerve wracking being somewhat concerned about the whole ladder to success approach. I mean what if they're wrong? What if after step 5 it's not really another step one needs but rather a jump? I'm sure it can be appreciated that stepping when jumping is really required can lead to dire consequences.
Consider stepping stones in your local creek and you understand it's not like going from point A to point B but rather leaping, jumping is usually also much required. Also if you're acquainted with most of the renown superheroes of our time, Batman, Robin, Superwoman and the like, then you're fully aware these guys and gals don't just step around issues, nor are they merely pussy footing around! In order for them to achieve success you'll see them jumping, leaping and yes at times they even fly. Perhaps a good question to ask is that if they can't just apply say, 'The 7 Steps To Victory' but real life requires a lot more effect and energy then what about us? Should we not therefore be a lot more observant of each move we make? Know what's required!
If you take a mere step when a leap is needed consider that it may be such a long way to the bottom with few if any steps to get back up. Keep in mind as well that you don't want to be taking 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards but seek to see the bigger picture of things. To give an example, you and your spouse have just read the latest best seller by say a Doctor Phillips who cites the '24 Ways' or 'Steps' to have a happy marriage. Step No #17 states, 'Husbands Open The Car Door For Your Wife'. Hubby states, "But dear, sweet wife I've got a knee problem now and I'm walking with a cane!" Would the author of the book insist."Don't matter ladies if he's got to crawl around to do it make him do so, and yes even if it's pouring rain!"
I'd say leap across that step and move on to #18 because if the partner has an injured leg and you make him do it....he may never be able to walk again. In closing, one might think of me that I'm right now, leaping and jumping to a wrong conclusion and wrong conclusions being jumped at yes one needs to watch that too but I highly suspect the great NASA astronauts understood exactly what I'm saying. What was the very first thing man said upon stepping foot on the moon? 'That's one small step for a man but one giant leap for mankind' Steps, yes even baby ones but know when to jump and leap too!
Note: Yes I know this writing is nutty, crazy and ridiculous which I'm sure you appreciate it was meant to be. I do believe in developing a good stage by stage plan or steps to achieve ones goals or dreams but should we consider those 'Steps' to be thought of as absolute rigid requirements without giving things a second thought? I'd say be careful not be be duped into taking too seriously all things the step makers create.
Having spoken of NASA and going to the Moon, perhaps you'd like to hear my FREE 30 minute audio short story I put on Youtube, entitled, "Checkered Flag Moon!" If so I hope you enjoy...please click on link below---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fiPLSe0bM
Manned missions to the moon should be pursued for no other reason then to stretch out with our new technologies. Wouldn't it be wiser however when it comes to the outer planets to employ a different approach? Ask yourself how many robotic ships one could send to all the planets at the same price of sending one manned mission to Mars? Wouldn't it be a multitude in number? What if a US President had a vision, similar in a sense to JFK's that at the end of the decade there'd be a handful of robotic ships permanently in orbits around all of the planets. While soil composition tests can be done on site, what about developing robotic systems which could land but with a goal of bringing back various samples of sorts on a return journey to earth?
Would not such seem like a more worthy goal? With a myriad of ships scattered throughout the solar system there'd be news reports coming in continually on what's being found and discovered. Also if any one of the robotic ships goes silent it's loss could be marginalized as not having any overwhelming import. Could that really be the vision NASA so desperately needs? To boldly go, developing robotical systems seems to make more sense with pay back, spin off benefits which very clearly would enormous! Mankind could have a sense that they're really everywhere around all the planets in this very generation.
Perhaps right now it's not imperative for mankind to be taking his own physical steps. Mankind took such steps on the moon at the end of 69 but perhaps we need to allow robotics still to take the next ones, that is many ships equalling a great many achievements for mankind. Writers like Jules Verne, Arthur C Clark, Gene Rodenberry have portrayed different scenarios for the look ahead. Could it be the future which most likely will reflect our own will be the idea played out and majored in the Asimov book series, 'Foundation' a world full of robotic wonders? Even in the original Star Trek series, episode #53, 'The Ultimate Computer', professor Richard Daystrom , creator of the M-5 [concerning computer/robotics replacing men in space] stated, "One machine can do all those things they send men out to do now. Men no longer need die in space or on some alien world. Men can live and go on to achieve greater things than fact-finding and dying for galactic space..."Seems like a plan! As long as we don't arm the robotic ships with warheads I think we'll be alright!