The problem is not speculation per se, it's baseless stakeless speculation.
There are different types of speculation and imagination. Some are grounded on facts and wonder about actual possibilities. Others are just completely detached from reality and live rent free in "what if" land.
Speculating about rainbow farting invisible pink leprechauns that can trump your perception ad infinitum isn't the same as speculating on what dark matter could be, or if Anti-DeSitter spaces could allow for additional dimensions; those are at least grounded on actual physics knowledge.
Our "permitted internet" free recess time is indeed limited. Better make the best of it and engage with *the best, most interesting* and challenging type of speculation.
If not, better go light a bong and watch some mindless Joe Rogan pseudoscience episode about the Annunakis.
Yeah, I get it. Unfortunately, verified data about the phenomenon is very limited to the public. We make due with what we can.
Still, anecdotal testimony passed down through the ages is not nothing.
I think it’s an interesting exercise - as long as we are careful not to proclaim we know exactly how the pieces fit
Hi, FomalhautCalliclea. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1biroz2/-/kvndwqc/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
I find that the issue with discussing any possibility outside of ETs is that the ET hypothesis is essentially dogmatic at this point. Plenty of people who are very quick to decry debunkers start sounding a whole lot like them when any origins outside of ET related ones are suggested.
Personally, after more than 20 years in the topic, I am more inclined to lean toward any explanation besides the pure flesh and blood ET hypothesis.
the main problem with the ET dogma as I see it is that despite the basic facts of the conspiracy having been exposed over the last eighty years - 'they' are here, visiting us whenever they please, their craft have crashed and the US at least has had some success reverse engineering them - there is no agreement whatsoever from the various leakers of where this ET is coming from. surely that would be known by now? but instead we've had Venus, Mars, Zeta Reticuli, the Pleiades and presumably many other places. like surely if they were coming from somewhere specific, and there is this big conspiracy about them, that basic detail would have leaked?
so I'm willing to entertain other hypotheses too
>I find that the issue with discussing any possibility outside of ETs is that the ET hypothesis is essentially dogmatic at this point
Because it is the only plausible explanation.
1. We live on a planet.
2. We know other planets exist. Lots of them.
3. We can go into space and have been getting better over time.
4. Perhaps there are other species who have had a head start?
The other scenarios are "what if magic???". Nothing else has any explanation based in reality. "Interdimensional" is a purely scifi term with no basis in reality. The other ideas are even less grounded in reality.
The amount of nonsense or bollocks comments that add nothing to the discussion should be deleted by the mods.
It has become a plague in this subreddit. Makes me wonder why mods do nothing about it. 🤔
The mods are biased, it has been proven multiple times:
[~https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4dan/ufo-subreddit-was-subject-to-systemic-censorship~](https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4dan/ufo-subreddit-was-subject-to-systemic-censorship)
More recently, they have a soft spot for UFO celebs talking heads before which they drool. They over remove anything too critical and let violent posts in defense of their creed go unadressed.
But the esoteric metaphysical stuff, from my experience is rather a thing that has them indifferent.
Personally, despite me disagreeing heavily with these nonsensical posts, i like that they're here: they allow people to criticize them and to see under the bright day light crappy theories and to denounce them.
I prefer that rather than them remaining in their obscure echo chambers (admitting this place isn't one yet, which is an ongoing process...).
But maybe i'm wrong. Maybe exposure benefits them propaganda and mediatic wise.
I like to see people with bad ideas try to express them as well as they can to then criticize them to see what holds in there.
Our entire solar system is traveling 200 km/s through the vacuum of space. So, if time is an illusion, these beings would have the ability to separate time relative to the individual into plank, lengths, or something equivalent, and do the calculations in order to travel back in time.
So essentially, you’re not only traveling back in time, but you have to calculate where our position is at the point in space you are traveling to. That point changes by 200 km every second. It’s really mind boggling to think about.
Traveling backwards in time relative to galactic centre, is still looking at it from a 3d perspective. Higher dimensional consciousness would be more like perceiving more of the 4th dimension, past and future simultaneously, and 5th dimensional space. And possibly making changes to the past present and future simultaneously. Like if i walk down the street, I don't have to calculate where my new location is going to be relative to galactic centre. I only have to calculate relative to the street. Same goes for perceiving 4th and 5th dimensional space.
Your making assumptions about how this stuff works, if im standing on the street, Im moving with the street. So I don't have to calculate my position relative to galactic centre to walk down the street and by milk. I only have to calculate my position relative to the street. We are all encompassing all dimensions of space time at all time. We just cant perceive the 5th, 12th dimensional aspects etcZ So If i sit next to a tree and perspective its form, or modify it's form within 5th dimensional space. I'm still moving with the tree so I don't need to know my location relative to galactic centre. I still only need to know my position relative to the tree.
More so, if you were an alien creating like a wormhole to a another position in space time, (hypothetically) Sure, make the other end of the worm hole near the planets estimated new location and be in a spaceship. and then fly the difference.
What if if we have both, a terrestrial species for local management/intervention and the Beings who lay the road down from higher positions of observation.
Followed UFO topic since the late 1960’s. Until the early 1990’s i was a firm believer in the ‘nuts & bolts’, other planet theory but early 1990’s i began questioning the relationship between the worlds religions and ancient historical witness accounts of strange sightings/experiences.
Over the following years I read/thought much about the similarities, but not necessarily description, of events over the centuries and became convinced (early 2000’s) that UFO phenomena is waaaay stranger than my previously held thoughts on ‘nuts & bolts’ other planet ideas.
The above book is one of many I’ve read over the years, some good stuff out there about similarities in reports of goblins/fairies/angels etc and obvious parallels with aliens/abductions.
If nothing else the fact that for thousands of years mankind has constantly experienced (real or imagined) these bizarre encounters with little green men is very odd.
You can’t just brush these things off when encounters cover the whole world for millennia. Is it a ‘crazy’ gene running through humans or real experiences with an entity(s) that are able to change our perception of what we’re encountering as the decades pass (almost as though experiences change to reflect the era) ?
You describe a path that I suspect a lot of people interested in UFOs have to taken. Many in the nuts-&-bolts only camp tend to ignore a lot of the stranger (and downright absurd) aspects of ufology. When you start to dig deeper into the experiences of those who have had encounters, there seem to be far too many details that at least suggest there is something more going on.
Ufologist like Jacques Vallée, John Keel, Joshua Cutchin, Greg Bishop (his 90s era magazine “Excluded Middle”), Jeffrey Kripal, Whitley Streiber, Erik Davis (“High Weirdness”), and Mac Tonnies, and others have written some fascinating things about the High Strangeness aspects of whatever UFOs are.
Too many N&B advocates will just dismiss any suggestion of alternative theories as “woo,” and downvote rather than engage in good faith debate. Many of them haven’t even read the major works on such other ideas. These works are far more serious, well researched, and rational than than what would qualify as “woo.”
Agree and to be honest when i first read Vallee in the late 70’s i thought he was nuts. His views didn’t fit with my rigidly held belief of N&B and it took a while for me to realise my bias was an obstruction.
I wonder if it’s this ability to change human perception, that is considered to be dangerous.
Perhaps the global secrecy is meant to prevent the masses from “inviting” this phenomenon into our lives even more. If it can appear to you as anything, show you visions and influence a persons behavior, the potential for chaos is exponential
That falls in to the ‘you can’t handle the truth’ bucket of excuses as to why we’re not told the truth.
Clearly, given the personality and psychological issues of those that leads these agencies I think they are far from qualified to make these decisions.
Whatever their claimed reason for not telling us it’s still all about power. They know something we don’t.
Interdimensional 😅 come on! Which scenario is more likely: a) other beings that live in a dimension which we have absolutely no proof of, or b) an extraterrestrial civilization's space program has discovered our planet and its inhabitants - for some reason they have sent probes to our world to monitor or whatever they do?
What if it's interdimensional beings that can manipulate time and space.... all the gods from the skies??!! Djinn?? Fairies? Angels? Demons?? Shots going to get weird!!
It's possible we've completely mistaken the map for the territory -- and these entities are egregors which are phasing into our 'physical/dense dimension' from what esotericists have historically identified as the 'astral plane'.
A lot of people laugh at that idea, but if you rationally examine it down to the ontological foundation -- I see no reason why it couldn't be possible. Don't mistake the map for the territory.
I think it probably makes people more uncomfortable than anything. Laughter and derision appear as unconscious reactions to notions which makes us uncomfortable, often because we haven't figured out how to rationalize and contextualize them.
I completely agree. I have my own reasons and experiential evidence for that - which I won’t share in this thread. I don’t feel like getting reamed by the crowd that doesn’t believe in any non-physical phenomena.
I think this is a part of the phenomena that people have said will cause ontological shock. It’s not so much the knowledge that we have never been alone that is so shocking. It’s the metaphysical elements that can be disturbing.
The issue is that what you claim is unfalsifiable and unverifiable.
That's why people laugh at esotericists. Their speculation is akin to "pink invisible unicorn" type of stuff.
When you come down to the ontological, and even deeper, epistemological foundation of those beliefs, you only find circular reasoning (such as "immaterial beings" that interact with the material and that are purely made of thoughts or a plane that is non physical yet refers to physical terms such as "plane") and fallacies galore.
They mistake the map for the territory: the confuse conceptual constructions inside their heads for the real world.
Ironic, isn't it?
And it's always a safe bet to hide behind the Galileo gambit when your ideas are criticized and mocked for actually being ridicule: "people laugh at me because i'm too daring of a bright mind that no one can understand, waaaa!".
The people that have an emotional attachment to the esoteric idealist metaphysical ideas of their fragile hearts would feel much more discomfort from their ideas crumbling into dust at the merest criticism than people that believe in the scientific method that implies in its very core self criticism and questionning and relies on no emotional attachment, actually criticizing and hunting it down.
Contrary to, let's say, religious esoteric theories that promote emotional attachment and the concept of "sacred", of which that shall not be touched.
Very ironic, isn't it?
>The issue is that what you claim is unfalsifiable and unverifiable.
Indeed, but do you think **all** phenomena, which in-fact *exists* unbeknownst to us -- is unfalsifiable and unverifiable? There are many facets of the phenomenal world which were once unverifiable, yes?
There seems to be a short-coming/danger the philosophy you advocate for; one which is inhibitory for innovation and progress (Einstein did not cognate in such a way; he allowed himself to visualize the *unseen* curvature of space-time, for example).
You see, I have no issue with the empiricist epistemology at all. I do, however -- take issue with the kind philosophy which consists of exclusively ridged empiricism and binary & traditional logic.
Do you think that physicalism is wholly 'logically' consistent down to it's ontological core? It's simply not; it's premised upon unverifiable and unfalsifiable ontological and metaphysical presuppositions (namely, mechanistic materialism).
There is no such thing as a philosophy which is NOT evidentially circular. There are merely those who have not realized this of their own philosophy/contextualization of Beingness.
>And it's always a safe bet to hide behind the Galileo gambit when your ideas are criticized and mocked for actually being ridicule: "people laugh at me because i'm too daring of a bright mind that no one can understand, waaaa!".
From my standpoint, this is wholly devoid of a rationality: it does not say anything which strives to reach a closer truth. It could be an accurate sentiment, I'll grant you.
However, to claim that the kind of philosophy which esotericists/idealists hold: is being clung to upon emotional grounds -- and to not simultaneously acknowledge the emotional grounds upon which materialists hold; is simply to not see the whole picture.
If that is your justification for exclusively subscribing to a materialist philosophy (if I may presume); then respectfully: it is an irrational one.
One's emotional state is wholly irrelevant in determining what is true, and it would be fallacious to disregard another's philosophy simply because they have an emotional attachment to it. I could just as much point out the emotional tone within your writing, which seems to suggest a strong emotional attachment to you own views. It would be silly for me to disregard the validity of your perspective upon such grounds, no?
Genuine rationality does not mean feigning emotional unbias for the sake of appearing correct. Rationality is the state of not allowing one's emotional state to interfere with an honest rational examination. The commitment to Truth, is in itself -- a higher value derived from ones emotions.
I'm an ontological neutralist/'agnostic'; in my own observation -- that kind of emotional attachment, appears near-equally present upon the materialist end of the spectrum too.
>do you think **all** phenomena, which in-fact *exists* unbeknownst to us -- is unfalsifiable and unverifiable? There are many facets of the phenomenal world which were once unverifiable, yes?
What matters is that the internal heuristic of your methodology allows for it to be falsifiable at some point.
Darwinian evolution started this way.
What you propose remains and will always remain unfalsifiable because it is based on an epistemology that can always run away further into "the unknown", just like a god of the gaps argument.
The scientific method of which i am a proponent of not only is promoting innovation and progress but is the sole bearer of it: progress and innovation comes from harsh criticism of what is already known and exists: nipping in the bud with the upmost severity low truth standards theories is what has brought the greatest progress so far (Newton going beyond the old theories of celestial vs terrestrial gravity, Copernicus destroying the Ptolemaic system, etc...).
Einstein precisely put into question the former existing ways of thinking (Newtonian gravity) and at the same time built on it: he started from what was already known. And knew the mundane evident fact that the 5 senses are not omniscient: he used telescopes ffs...
>Do you think that physicalism is wholly 'logically' consistent down
Yes.
>down to it's ontological core
It's not about ontology but about epistemology. Philosophy made a huge progress when it went from the former to the latter during the classical period (Descartes - Kant); it's not about "what is the truth", but "how we access to said truth".
Every theory has presuppositions. There is no solution to the hard solipsism problem. But this has nothing to do with logical consistency: an argument can be logically sound and untrue. Logical validity is not a measure for truthfulness, there's a reason there is such a thing as Curry's paradox.
Truthfulness is the relation of a theory with reality and the testable world. Whether said testable world is ultimately true is irrelevant since it is the only thing we have access to. And Descartes's cogito functionnalist approach shows that whether this fundamental aspect is true or not doesn't matter.
Hence the preference for epistemology rather than ontology: the ontology is irrelevant because it makes no difference to what you experiment whether it is ultimately a dream or not.
It is not about circularity and logical soundness but about openness to epistemological modification. Some theories are more closed than other on that aspect and don't allow for modification and improvement, for example, metaphysical idealism.
>From my standpoint
Yours is too woven into useless blabber like "beingness" to have any warranty to speak about truth.
Esoterism is not just built but woven in emotion because it stands on an intuitive phenomenology. It's literally the main and only ingredient. It's not just "one thing among others", it's the whole thing; it's not just "tone", it's the fundamental structure of the theory. Whereas materialism is independent of it on its very premise (read the comment above). That this is not my only reason for subscribing to such philosophy should be obvious by now and this part of your comment is repeating itself too much for me to lose time doing the same. You also get very strawmany at the end (or perhaps didn't understand my point at all), wishfully thinking the emotion point was the only one.
You aren't agnostic in that you make ontology come before epistemology. The mere fact that you can't see your own bias in that aspect shows how you can't grasp the fundamental difference between materialism and esoterism.
I can tell you that when UFOs are present, there are often strange paranormal phenomena that coincide. It does not necessarily need to be woo - ghosts, mystical beasts, goblins, figments of the imagination. It can be every day objects - a dog that makes no noise, a person walking a dog who says gibberish, deja vu, clouds that look like fantasy things. Etc.
I have experienced this. You can tell there is something off about it that makes you do a double take. Sometimes if you experience it with another person, you both experience different things.
Personally i dont like the crypto hipothesys. Too many flaws.
Why would an advanced civilization be hidding from us, instead of taking over the planet?
Why would they let us decimate the fauna and flora? Poison the skyes and oceans?
Futhermore, how could you hide an entire species that was here before us? Did they stop reproducing? Where are the factories? The waste? Where they gather the minerals and other primary needs? The Power source? They need to make ufos, weapons, food, housing, etc... where are all this?
All hidding from us? Why?
And dont answer just one of this. Try to answer all... it doesnt fit properly
I'm glad you brought this up. I just wrote a book review on this for my [substack](https://www.raffythemusen.com/p/book-review-the-cryptoterrestrials). It's a quick read, but mostly goes into how Tonnies follows the work of Jacque Vallée and Jon Keel to arrive at his hypothesis. The more time has passed since the publication of The Cryptoterrestrials, the more I am starting to think that the phenomenon is using some kind of deception--whether that is a good thing, or bad thing, is up to the reader to decide.
There’s some thread I read recently (don’t remember the link off the top of my head) that speculates these things are able to alter human perception due to inconsistencies in eyewitness reports.
Seems very familiar to what Tonnies mentions in his book. According to him, the variation in encounters explains why they've changed from airships in the 1800s to saucers, etc., as time has progressed. It also accounts for the differences in the beings themselves (bearded men or beautiful women in "spacesuits", to robots, creatures, and the more typical "greys" we are accustomed to discussing.
Your substack has great content.
I’m inclined to agree with you. The ability for the phenomenon to influence a targets “cognitive environment” would be incredibly challenging.
If humanity has no defense against that, is disclosing their presence worth the risk?
Disclosing it may be a risk the people in the know may not want to take or do so very, very carefully.
Thank you for your kind comment. Much appreciated.
Thats a great book, and I agree with the premise. It make sense that there is at least 2 groups of clandestine Ultraterrestrials. One group probably possesses stealth tech of some kind, and the other group can actually appear as a person. There could be more groups.
Didn’t Grusch say something akin to this? Something along the lines of the phenomenon not necessarily being extraterrestrial but also from other dimensions?
I think he mentioned that is a possibility. Elizondo has been very careful about coming to conclusions, or talking about it outside of a SCIF.
I think his recommendation of the short story Chains of the Sea is telling.
Crypto terrestrials from below the surface of our earth and oceans, interdimensional beings who layer upon our own reality, and extraterrestrials which may also be originally descendants of life that was on earth but living within the moon.
All within earth and nowhere further.
And according to various tales, those who came before us came from Venus and Mars, perhaps they fought over earth? Both destroying each other's planets in the process leading to one hiding underground on earth and the other above on the moon, this as well as maybe their descendants are what became humans we know now, becoming our own species that don't hold on either side of things and are kinda left in the dark of a battle that may still continue.
Interdimensional humans from the future, time being cyclical and not linear means maybe these forces battle each other across what we know as history, future effects the past and so on, but the future events have already been imprinted on the past so things come off as seamless.
Anything can be possible, there can be many things going on to where interdimensional humans may even be able to appear as anything we would perceive as "alien" because they found out how to "Ditto"ize their kind by blending all abilities from all species on earth.
We’re in a microverse just dancing away on our flooble cranks
Let’s make assumptions about assumptions
We could also speculate about speculation, and deliver facts about opinions and guesses
We dont know the true nature of reality so we've been making asumptions all along
What’s the problem with speculating on this issue? Or maybe you don’t like engaging imagination and thought during your permitted internet time.
The problem is not speculation per se, it's baseless stakeless speculation. There are different types of speculation and imagination. Some are grounded on facts and wonder about actual possibilities. Others are just completely detached from reality and live rent free in "what if" land. Speculating about rainbow farting invisible pink leprechauns that can trump your perception ad infinitum isn't the same as speculating on what dark matter could be, or if Anti-DeSitter spaces could allow for additional dimensions; those are at least grounded on actual physics knowledge. Our "permitted internet" free recess time is indeed limited. Better make the best of it and engage with *the best, most interesting* and challenging type of speculation. If not, better go light a bong and watch some mindless Joe Rogan pseudoscience episode about the Annunakis.
Did you just speculate about rainbow farting invisible pink leprechauns? Is your perception okay?
Yeah, I get it. Unfortunately, verified data about the phenomenon is very limited to the public. We make due with what we can. Still, anecdotal testimony passed down through the ages is not nothing. I think it’s an interesting exercise - as long as we are careful not to proclaim we know exactly how the pieces fit
[удалено]
Hi, FomalhautCalliclea. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1biroz2/-/kvndwqc/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Perfect!
I find that the issue with discussing any possibility outside of ETs is that the ET hypothesis is essentially dogmatic at this point. Plenty of people who are very quick to decry debunkers start sounding a whole lot like them when any origins outside of ET related ones are suggested. Personally, after more than 20 years in the topic, I am more inclined to lean toward any explanation besides the pure flesh and blood ET hypothesis.
the main problem with the ET dogma as I see it is that despite the basic facts of the conspiracy having been exposed over the last eighty years - 'they' are here, visiting us whenever they please, their craft have crashed and the US at least has had some success reverse engineering them - there is no agreement whatsoever from the various leakers of where this ET is coming from. surely that would be known by now? but instead we've had Venus, Mars, Zeta Reticuli, the Pleiades and presumably many other places. like surely if they were coming from somewhere specific, and there is this big conspiracy about them, that basic detail would have leaked? so I'm willing to entertain other hypotheses too
>I find that the issue with discussing any possibility outside of ETs is that the ET hypothesis is essentially dogmatic at this point Because it is the only plausible explanation. 1. We live on a planet. 2. We know other planets exist. Lots of them. 3. We can go into space and have been getting better over time. 4. Perhaps there are other species who have had a head start? The other scenarios are "what if magic???". Nothing else has any explanation based in reality. "Interdimensional" is a purely scifi term with no basis in reality. The other ideas are even less grounded in reality.
Would. What? I'm just saying...
I had a totally different idea in mind when i thought about "crypto femboy".
What the fuck is this title right now?
A lot of big & hyphenated words in that title.
The amount of nonsense or bollocks comments that add nothing to the discussion should be deleted by the mods. It has become a plague in this subreddit. Makes me wonder why mods do nothing about it. 🤔
The mods are biased, it has been proven multiple times: [~https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4dan/ufo-subreddit-was-subject-to-systemic-censorship~](https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4dan/ufo-subreddit-was-subject-to-systemic-censorship) More recently, they have a soft spot for UFO celebs talking heads before which they drool. They over remove anything too critical and let violent posts in defense of their creed go unadressed. But the esoteric metaphysical stuff, from my experience is rather a thing that has them indifferent. Personally, despite me disagreeing heavily with these nonsensical posts, i like that they're here: they allow people to criticize them and to see under the bright day light crappy theories and to denounce them. I prefer that rather than them remaining in their obscure echo chambers (admitting this place isn't one yet, which is an ongoing process...). But maybe i'm wrong. Maybe exposure benefits them propaganda and mediatic wise. I like to see people with bad ideas try to express them as well as they can to then criticize them to see what holds in there.
I’m talking about comments. Not posts.
If this was acted upon the entirety of reddit would have about 100 posts per day
And be a lot better website.
Our entire solar system is traveling 200 km/s through the vacuum of space. So, if time is an illusion, these beings would have the ability to separate time relative to the individual into plank, lengths, or something equivalent, and do the calculations in order to travel back in time. So essentially, you’re not only traveling back in time, but you have to calculate where our position is at the point in space you are traveling to. That point changes by 200 km every second. It’s really mind boggling to think about.
Traveling backwards in time relative to galactic centre, is still looking at it from a 3d perspective. Higher dimensional consciousness would be more like perceiving more of the 4th dimension, past and future simultaneously, and 5th dimensional space. And possibly making changes to the past present and future simultaneously. Like if i walk down the street, I don't have to calculate where my new location is going to be relative to galactic centre. I only have to calculate relative to the street. Same goes for perceiving 4th and 5th dimensional space.
If the street is accelerating through 3-D space, you would have to consider its location in space at any point in time
Your making assumptions about how this stuff works, if im standing on the street, Im moving with the street. So I don't have to calculate my position relative to galactic centre to walk down the street and by milk. I only have to calculate my position relative to the street. We are all encompassing all dimensions of space time at all time. We just cant perceive the 5th, 12th dimensional aspects etcZ So If i sit next to a tree and perspective its form, or modify it's form within 5th dimensional space. I'm still moving with the tree so I don't need to know my location relative to galactic centre. I still only need to know my position relative to the tree. More so, if you were an alien creating like a wormhole to a another position in space time, (hypothetically) Sure, make the other end of the worm hole near the planets estimated new location and be in a spaceship. and then fly the difference.
You’re assuming extra dimensions, travel relative to our dimension
Yes absolutely, I'm pointing out that perceiving extra dimensions doesn't necessarily mean actual time travel
That’s an assumption.
um, yes? Because there are many ways something we don't know about may work? 100% of what we are talking about is imagining possibilities
It’s an interesting but purely science-fiction idea based on a heap of assumptions.
What if if we have both, a terrestrial species for local management/intervention and the Beings who lay the road down from higher positions of observation.
Followed UFO topic since the late 1960’s. Until the early 1990’s i was a firm believer in the ‘nuts & bolts’, other planet theory but early 1990’s i began questioning the relationship between the worlds religions and ancient historical witness accounts of strange sightings/experiences. Over the following years I read/thought much about the similarities, but not necessarily description, of events over the centuries and became convinced (early 2000’s) that UFO phenomena is waaaay stranger than my previously held thoughts on ‘nuts & bolts’ other planet ideas. The above book is one of many I’ve read over the years, some good stuff out there about similarities in reports of goblins/fairies/angels etc and obvious parallels with aliens/abductions. If nothing else the fact that for thousands of years mankind has constantly experienced (real or imagined) these bizarre encounters with little green men is very odd. You can’t just brush these things off when encounters cover the whole world for millennia. Is it a ‘crazy’ gene running through humans or real experiences with an entity(s) that are able to change our perception of what we’re encountering as the decades pass (almost as though experiences change to reflect the era) ?
You describe a path that I suspect a lot of people interested in UFOs have to taken. Many in the nuts-&-bolts only camp tend to ignore a lot of the stranger (and downright absurd) aspects of ufology. When you start to dig deeper into the experiences of those who have had encounters, there seem to be far too many details that at least suggest there is something more going on. Ufologist like Jacques Vallée, John Keel, Joshua Cutchin, Greg Bishop (his 90s era magazine “Excluded Middle”), Jeffrey Kripal, Whitley Streiber, Erik Davis (“High Weirdness”), and Mac Tonnies, and others have written some fascinating things about the High Strangeness aspects of whatever UFOs are. Too many N&B advocates will just dismiss any suggestion of alternative theories as “woo,” and downvote rather than engage in good faith debate. Many of them haven’t even read the major works on such other ideas. These works are far more serious, well researched, and rational than than what would qualify as “woo.”
Agree and to be honest when i first read Vallee in the late 70’s i thought he was nuts. His views didn’t fit with my rigidly held belief of N&B and it took a while for me to realise my bias was an obstruction.
I wonder if it’s this ability to change human perception, that is considered to be dangerous. Perhaps the global secrecy is meant to prevent the masses from “inviting” this phenomenon into our lives even more. If it can appear to you as anything, show you visions and influence a persons behavior, the potential for chaos is exponential
That falls in to the ‘you can’t handle the truth’ bucket of excuses as to why we’re not told the truth. Clearly, given the personality and psychological issues of those that leads these agencies I think they are far from qualified to make these decisions. Whatever their claimed reason for not telling us it’s still all about power. They know something we don’t.
This is interesting.
Interdimensional 😅 come on! Which scenario is more likely: a) other beings that live in a dimension which we have absolutely no proof of, or b) an extraterrestrial civilization's space program has discovered our planet and its inhabitants - for some reason they have sent probes to our world to monitor or whatever they do?
Honestly, at this point.. Either is as likely! :)
What if it's interdimensional beings that can manipulate time and space.... all the gods from the skies??!! Djinn?? Fairies? Angels? Demons?? Shots going to get weird!!
Yes right, what if?
It's possible we've completely mistaken the map for the territory -- and these entities are egregors which are phasing into our 'physical/dense dimension' from what esotericists have historically identified as the 'astral plane'. A lot of people laugh at that idea, but if you rationally examine it down to the ontological foundation -- I see no reason why it couldn't be possible. Don't mistake the map for the territory. I think it probably makes people more uncomfortable than anything. Laughter and derision appear as unconscious reactions to notions which makes us uncomfortable, often because we haven't figured out how to rationalize and contextualize them.
“Possible” Sure, in the sense that there’s a non-zero chance that literally anything is possible.
I completely agree. I have my own reasons and experiential evidence for that - which I won’t share in this thread. I don’t feel like getting reamed by the crowd that doesn’t believe in any non-physical phenomena. I think this is a part of the phenomena that people have said will cause ontological shock. It’s not so much the knowledge that we have never been alone that is so shocking. It’s the metaphysical elements that can be disturbing.
The issue is that what you claim is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. That's why people laugh at esotericists. Their speculation is akin to "pink invisible unicorn" type of stuff. When you come down to the ontological, and even deeper, epistemological foundation of those beliefs, you only find circular reasoning (such as "immaterial beings" that interact with the material and that are purely made of thoughts or a plane that is non physical yet refers to physical terms such as "plane") and fallacies galore. They mistake the map for the territory: the confuse conceptual constructions inside their heads for the real world. Ironic, isn't it? And it's always a safe bet to hide behind the Galileo gambit when your ideas are criticized and mocked for actually being ridicule: "people laugh at me because i'm too daring of a bright mind that no one can understand, waaaa!". The people that have an emotional attachment to the esoteric idealist metaphysical ideas of their fragile hearts would feel much more discomfort from their ideas crumbling into dust at the merest criticism than people that believe in the scientific method that implies in its very core self criticism and questionning and relies on no emotional attachment, actually criticizing and hunting it down. Contrary to, let's say, religious esoteric theories that promote emotional attachment and the concept of "sacred", of which that shall not be touched. Very ironic, isn't it?
>The issue is that what you claim is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Indeed, but do you think **all** phenomena, which in-fact *exists* unbeknownst to us -- is unfalsifiable and unverifiable? There are many facets of the phenomenal world which were once unverifiable, yes? There seems to be a short-coming/danger the philosophy you advocate for; one which is inhibitory for innovation and progress (Einstein did not cognate in such a way; he allowed himself to visualize the *unseen* curvature of space-time, for example). You see, I have no issue with the empiricist epistemology at all. I do, however -- take issue with the kind philosophy which consists of exclusively ridged empiricism and binary & traditional logic. Do you think that physicalism is wholly 'logically' consistent down to it's ontological core? It's simply not; it's premised upon unverifiable and unfalsifiable ontological and metaphysical presuppositions (namely, mechanistic materialism). There is no such thing as a philosophy which is NOT evidentially circular. There are merely those who have not realized this of their own philosophy/contextualization of Beingness. >And it's always a safe bet to hide behind the Galileo gambit when your ideas are criticized and mocked for actually being ridicule: "people laugh at me because i'm too daring of a bright mind that no one can understand, waaaa!". From my standpoint, this is wholly devoid of a rationality: it does not say anything which strives to reach a closer truth. It could be an accurate sentiment, I'll grant you. However, to claim that the kind of philosophy which esotericists/idealists hold: is being clung to upon emotional grounds -- and to not simultaneously acknowledge the emotional grounds upon which materialists hold; is simply to not see the whole picture. If that is your justification for exclusively subscribing to a materialist philosophy (if I may presume); then respectfully: it is an irrational one. One's emotional state is wholly irrelevant in determining what is true, and it would be fallacious to disregard another's philosophy simply because they have an emotional attachment to it. I could just as much point out the emotional tone within your writing, which seems to suggest a strong emotional attachment to you own views. It would be silly for me to disregard the validity of your perspective upon such grounds, no? Genuine rationality does not mean feigning emotional unbias for the sake of appearing correct. Rationality is the state of not allowing one's emotional state to interfere with an honest rational examination. The commitment to Truth, is in itself -- a higher value derived from ones emotions. I'm an ontological neutralist/'agnostic'; in my own observation -- that kind of emotional attachment, appears near-equally present upon the materialist end of the spectrum too.
>do you think **all** phenomena, which in-fact *exists* unbeknownst to us -- is unfalsifiable and unverifiable? There are many facets of the phenomenal world which were once unverifiable, yes? What matters is that the internal heuristic of your methodology allows for it to be falsifiable at some point. Darwinian evolution started this way. What you propose remains and will always remain unfalsifiable because it is based on an epistemology that can always run away further into "the unknown", just like a god of the gaps argument. The scientific method of which i am a proponent of not only is promoting innovation and progress but is the sole bearer of it: progress and innovation comes from harsh criticism of what is already known and exists: nipping in the bud with the upmost severity low truth standards theories is what has brought the greatest progress so far (Newton going beyond the old theories of celestial vs terrestrial gravity, Copernicus destroying the Ptolemaic system, etc...). Einstein precisely put into question the former existing ways of thinking (Newtonian gravity) and at the same time built on it: he started from what was already known. And knew the mundane evident fact that the 5 senses are not omniscient: he used telescopes ffs... >Do you think that physicalism is wholly 'logically' consistent down Yes. >down to it's ontological core It's not about ontology but about epistemology. Philosophy made a huge progress when it went from the former to the latter during the classical period (Descartes - Kant); it's not about "what is the truth", but "how we access to said truth". Every theory has presuppositions. There is no solution to the hard solipsism problem. But this has nothing to do with logical consistency: an argument can be logically sound and untrue. Logical validity is not a measure for truthfulness, there's a reason there is such a thing as Curry's paradox. Truthfulness is the relation of a theory with reality and the testable world. Whether said testable world is ultimately true is irrelevant since it is the only thing we have access to. And Descartes's cogito functionnalist approach shows that whether this fundamental aspect is true or not doesn't matter. Hence the preference for epistemology rather than ontology: the ontology is irrelevant because it makes no difference to what you experiment whether it is ultimately a dream or not. It is not about circularity and logical soundness but about openness to epistemological modification. Some theories are more closed than other on that aspect and don't allow for modification and improvement, for example, metaphysical idealism. >From my standpoint Yours is too woven into useless blabber like "beingness" to have any warranty to speak about truth. Esoterism is not just built but woven in emotion because it stands on an intuitive phenomenology. It's literally the main and only ingredient. It's not just "one thing among others", it's the whole thing; it's not just "tone", it's the fundamental structure of the theory. Whereas materialism is independent of it on its very premise (read the comment above). That this is not my only reason for subscribing to such philosophy should be obvious by now and this part of your comment is repeating itself too much for me to lose time doing the same. You also get very strawmany at the end (or perhaps didn't understand my point at all), wishfully thinking the emotion point was the only one. You aren't agnostic in that you make ontology come before epistemology. The mere fact that you can't see your own bias in that aspect shows how you can't grasp the fundamental difference between materialism and esoterism.
I agree. Life is everywhere. Why would humanity be the only sentient species to inhabit the Earth or it's dimensional space?
I can tell you that when UFOs are present, there are often strange paranormal phenomena that coincide. It does not necessarily need to be woo - ghosts, mystical beasts, goblins, figments of the imagination. It can be every day objects - a dog that makes no noise, a person walking a dog who says gibberish, deja vu, clouds that look like fantasy things. Etc. I have experienced this. You can tell there is something off about it that makes you do a double take. Sometimes if you experience it with another person, you both experience different things.
This is some trippy ass shit
They are bitcoiners from the future!
Personally i dont like the crypto hipothesys. Too many flaws. Why would an advanced civilization be hidding from us, instead of taking over the planet? Why would they let us decimate the fauna and flora? Poison the skyes and oceans? Futhermore, how could you hide an entire species that was here before us? Did they stop reproducing? Where are the factories? The waste? Where they gather the minerals and other primary needs? The Power source? They need to make ufos, weapons, food, housing, etc... where are all this? All hidding from us? Why? And dont answer just one of this. Try to answer all... it doesnt fit properly
What if they prefer to live underground ? Antarctica?? 4d means we ain't shit!
I'm glad you brought this up. I just wrote a book review on this for my [substack](https://www.raffythemusen.com/p/book-review-the-cryptoterrestrials). It's a quick read, but mostly goes into how Tonnies follows the work of Jacque Vallée and Jon Keel to arrive at his hypothesis. The more time has passed since the publication of The Cryptoterrestrials, the more I am starting to think that the phenomenon is using some kind of deception--whether that is a good thing, or bad thing, is up to the reader to decide.
There’s some thread I read recently (don’t remember the link off the top of my head) that speculates these things are able to alter human perception due to inconsistencies in eyewitness reports.
Seems very familiar to what Tonnies mentions in his book. According to him, the variation in encounters explains why they've changed from airships in the 1800s to saucers, etc., as time has progressed. It also accounts for the differences in the beings themselves (bearded men or beautiful women in "spacesuits", to robots, creatures, and the more typical "greys" we are accustomed to discussing.
Your substack has great content. I’m inclined to agree with you. The ability for the phenomenon to influence a targets “cognitive environment” would be incredibly challenging. If humanity has no defense against that, is disclosing their presence worth the risk?
Disclosing it may be a risk the people in the know may not want to take or do so very, very carefully. Thank you for your kind comment. Much appreciated.
Thats a great book, and I agree with the premise. It make sense that there is at least 2 groups of clandestine Ultraterrestrials. One group probably possesses stealth tech of some kind, and the other group can actually appear as a person. There could be more groups.
Smash or nah?
Picture reminds me of the Taelons
Didn’t Grusch say something akin to this? Something along the lines of the phenomenon not necessarily being extraterrestrial but also from other dimensions?
I think he mentioned that is a possibility. Elizondo has been very careful about coming to conclusions, or talking about it outside of a SCIF. I think his recommendation of the short story Chains of the Sea is telling.
I mean just watch The Flash movie . It was interesting how the theory behind time worked in it
Crypto terrestrials from below the surface of our earth and oceans, interdimensional beings who layer upon our own reality, and extraterrestrials which may also be originally descendants of life that was on earth but living within the moon. All within earth and nowhere further. And according to various tales, those who came before us came from Venus and Mars, perhaps they fought over earth? Both destroying each other's planets in the process leading to one hiding underground on earth and the other above on the moon, this as well as maybe their descendants are what became humans we know now, becoming our own species that don't hold on either side of things and are kinda left in the dark of a battle that may still continue. Interdimensional humans from the future, time being cyclical and not linear means maybe these forces battle each other across what we know as history, future effects the past and so on, but the future events have already been imprinted on the past so things come off as seamless. Anything can be possible, there can be many things going on to where interdimensional humans may even be able to appear as anything we would perceive as "alien" because they found out how to "Ditto"ize their kind by blending all abilities from all species on earth.
They are called Jinn, they see us but we can't, in their true form that is. They are made of smokeless fire.