Here’s your chance to help Paul and Joel Hynek develop an extended classification system to augment the famous Close Encounter (CE) classification system developed by their father, Dr. J. Allen Hynek.
Love the acknowldgement of the inter-dimensional component here as I have and will continue to champion the idea that alients are inter-dimensional as much as they're inter-planetary, that angels and aliens and fairies etc. are all just different names for the same beings.
The problem of trying to ascertain the "objective reality" of a close encounter multiplies many times fold once you learn of cases in which one witness clearly observes a UFO while another person who may be standing right next to them sees nothing.
Even in the famous apparitions of Fatima, the observation of "the Lady from the Sky" could be put into question, since only the children saw her (and only Lucia was able to communicate with her) while the many devotees gathered with them at Cova da Iría reported other phenomena--a buzzing sound, a small white cloud placed right above the oak tree where the children were kneeling, etc.
Until we get a more comprehensive notion of how our brains make up the consensual illusion we call "Reality," obtaining 'compeling' evidence from witnesses that will move scientists to take UFOs more seriously will be extremely difficult.
Well thought out response, Mr. Junkie. There really seems to be an "observer" component involved that heavily influences perception during an "event." It's not that any given episode is entirely subjective, either, even though that's what people may hold up as evidence that it's "all in your head."
Love the acknowldgement of the inter-dimensional component here as I have and will continue to champion the idea that alients are inter-dimensional as much as they're inter-planetary, that angels and aliens and fairies etc. are all just different names for the same beings.
So many parallels, there has to be something to this!
The problem of trying to ascertain the "objective reality" of a close encounter multiplies many times fold once you learn of cases in which one witness clearly observes a UFO while another person who may be standing right next to them sees nothing.
Even in the famous apparitions of Fatima, the observation of "the Lady from the Sky" could be put into question, since only the children saw her (and only Lucia was able to communicate with her) while the many devotees gathered with them at Cova da Iría reported other phenomena--a buzzing sound, a small white cloud placed right above the oak tree where the children were kneeling, etc.
Until we get a more comprehensive notion of how our brains make up the consensual illusion we call "Reality," obtaining 'compeling' evidence from witnesses that will move scientists to take UFOs more seriously will be extremely difficult.
Well thought out response, Mr. Junkie. There really seems to be an "observer" component involved that heavily influences perception during an "event." It's not that any given episode is entirely subjective, either, even though that's what people may hold up as evidence that it's "all in your head."
The discussion of evidence types is useful, but I'd argue against new terms meant to make old concepts sounds more scientific.
Like UFO = UAP? We agree whole heartedly.