UFO Flap - The Big Picture

[LilWabbit]

Based on all the valuable Metabunk efforts so far, this thread is intended to examine and articulate the big picture regarding the overall phenomenon billed as 'The UFO Flap'.

It's intended to weave together all the key factors, ranging from politics, sociology, psychology, government, technology, visual perception all the way to culture and entertainment, that together create this Flap. I will start by my own tentative encapsulation of this big picture. MB threads over the years have explored, and partially demonstrated, all of the following inter-connected elements which I'm only summarizing in the below. Feel free to amend, refute or introduce your own comprehensive hypothesis as to what's really going on here.

Comprehensive UFO Hypothesis

The resurgent UFO flap, including the very existence of publicly funded UAP investigation entities, is just another example of:

(1) The inherent vulnerability of democratic governments to the influence of able political lobby groups consisting of relatively few leading individuals;

(2) Supported by a large number of ideologically committed believers both inside and outside the government;

(3) Drawing variously on entertainment-based sci-fi folklore, lack of purpose, lack of belonging, need for attention, and sometimes involving grifters manipulating the foregoing for personal pleasure or gain;

(4) Sustained by the impressionability of the generality of people;

(5) Also sustained by a vast number of sincere eyewitness reports streaming from the general public, whereby the power of human imagination together with the brain's visual perception functions, further informed by cultural fiction and myth, fills observational information gaps.

(6) As a belief system, the UFO ideology consists of many semi-canonized faith-based tenets that precede evidence, looks for whatever evidentiary support it can find, and thrives in the low information zone (anecdotes and low-information physical records) in the absence of scientifically more compelling evidence.

The flap, as described in the above, is an essentially sociological, psychological and politological phenomenon and will continue to resurge as long as many of the above systemic features of society and culture persist. Where the UFO "college" has lacked scientific competence and credibility, they have excelled at organized public outreach, fundraising and politics.

Is there any significant aspect of the flap that the above summary doesn't somehow satisfactorily cover, and why? Feel free to present your own summary or analysis.

 

[JMartJr]

So we're talking about the current situation, not the tendency of UFO sightings suddenly increasing as a "flap" from time to time? I'm not 100% sure this would count as a "flap" in the traditional sense, but I can't think of a better term so let's accept it.

 

[LilWabbit]

So we're talking about the current situation, not the tendency of UFO sightings suddenly increasing as a "flap" from time to time?

The latter 'tendency' and persistent resurgence is the real big picture which I tried to address.

 

[JMartJr]

Ah, glad I asked then, I'd gone off in the wrong direction. Now to stop and think about it for a minute before replying substantively...

 

[Amathia]

I think 5) needs to be expanded a bit to also incorporate abduction claims. Though they're far less common and I'd wager have been far less influential than UFO sightings in expanding the lore and mythos of the phenomenon, they're still a part of it and a comprehensive psychological account of why people have abduction experiences is going to need more than just imagination and visual perception errors to do most of the explanatory heavy lifting.

 

[Petra]

I think 5) needs to be expanded a bit to also incorporate abduction claims. Though they're far less common and I'd wager have been far less influential than UFO sightings in expanding the lore and mythos of the phenomenon, they're still a part of it and a comprehensive psychological account of why people have abduction experiences is going to need more than just imagination and visual perception errors to do most of the explanatory heavy lifting.

Agreed. In fact I would suggest they've been almost more influential, both when it comes to creating or affirming "true believers" and to the current UFO flap. Consider that Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, the writers responsible for the 2017 New York Times article that precipitated so much of the current mainstream attention, were both strongly influenced by abductees-- Leslie through her relationship with Budd Hopkins, and Ralph via his writings on and open admiration of the work of John Mack.

 

[LilWabbit]

Good one @AR318307, thanks. I added it as point no. 6 below (unable to edit the OP anymore) and indeed an important aspect of the flap that we've covered at MB in many threads. I also added LIZ sensor data as no. 7 which I had totally forgotten but which remains a key factor contributing to UFO lore. The following 8-point comprehensive hypothesis is beginning to look rather exhaustive.

Comprehensive UFO Hypothesis

The resurgent UFO flap, including the very existence of publicly funded UAP investigation entities, is a unique example of:

(1) The inherent vulnerability of democratic governments to the influence of able political lobby groups consisting of relatively few leading individuals;

(2) Supported by a large number of ideologically committed believers both inside and outside the government;

(3) Drawing variously on entertainment-based sci-fi folklore, lack of purpose, lack of belonging, need for attention, and sometimes involving grifters manipulating the foregoing for personal gain;

(4) Sustained by the impressionability of the generality of people;

(5) Also sustained by a vast number of sincere eyewitness reports from the general public, whereby the power of human imagination together with the brain's visual perception functions, further informed by cultural fiction and myth, fills observational information gaps;

(6) Also sustained by a small number of sincere reports of encounter experiences with aliens (including detailed stories of abductions, physical contact, crafts, etc.), whereby psychotic, hallucinatory or autosuggestive episodes, informed by cultural fiction and myth, are sincerely believed and remembered as real encounters;

(7) Also sustained by continuously emerging unidentifiable low-information sensor data (including photographs and video footage) of mundane airborne objects which are bound to invite UFO speculation. Even the most cutting-edge sensors of the future will have their capability limits at which they will generate low-information sensor data;

(8) As a belief system, the UFO ideology consists of many semi-canonized faith-based tenets that precede evidence, looks for whatever evidentiary support it can find, and thrives in the low information zone (anecdotes and low-information physical records) in the absence of scientifically more compelling evidence.

 

[Ann K]

(1) The inherent vulnerability of democratic governments to the influence of able political lobby groups consisting of relatively few leading individuals;

I'd suggest expanding (1) as well, because if we are discussing the current emphasis, we must also mention the current political climate. At the moment in the USA one party is desperately trying to distract from the criminal charges against the ex-president, and any shiny object waved in front of the electorate can certainly be a distraction. Additionally, it is in their (short term) interest to foment distrust of the current government. I'm talking about the motivation and the objectives of the political lobbyists that you mention briefly in (1).

 

[LilWabbit]

I'd suggest expanding (1) as well, because if we are discussing the current emphasis, we must also mention the current political climate. At the moment in the USA one party is desperately trying to distract from the criminal charges against the ex-president, and any shiny object waved in front of the electorate can certainly be a distraction. Additionally, it is in their (short term) interest to foment distrust of the current government. I'm talking about the motivation and the objectives of the political lobbyists that you mention briefly in (1).

Indeed, definitely one of the motivations of the likes of Burchett is to make Biden's government look suspect and inept. But of course we would also have to account for the political motives of the likes of Schumer. Does anyone know more about his friendship with Reid and whether that's his 'only' motivator? I guess all of them, Democrat or Republican, wish to cozy up to the UFO believing demographic which is vast.

 

[Amathia]

Good one @AR318307, thanks. I added it as point no. 6 below (unable to edit the OP anymore) and indeed an important aspect of the flap that we've covered at MB in many threads. I also added LIZ sensor data as no. 7 which I had totally forgotten but which remains a key factor contributing to UFO lore. The following 8-point comprehensive hypothesis is beginning to look rather exhaustive.

Comprehensive UFO Hypothesis

The resurgent UFO flap, including the very existence of publicly funded UAP investigation entities, is a unique example of:

(1) The inherent vulnerability of democratic governments to the influence of able political lobby groups consisting of relatively few leading individuals;

(2) Supported by a large number of ideologically committed believers both inside and outside the government;

(3) Drawing variously on entertainment-based sci-fi folklore, lack of purpose, lack of belonging, need for attention, and sometimes involving grifters manipulating the foregoing for personal gain;

(4) Sustained by the impressionability of the generality of people;

(5) Also sustained by a vast number of sincere eyewitness reports from the general public, whereby the power of human imagination together with the brain's visual perception functions, further informed by cultural fiction and myth, fills observational information gaps;

(6) Also sustained by a small number of sincere reports of encounter experiences with aliens (including detailed stories of abductions, physical contact, crafts, etc.), whereby psychotic, hallucinatory or autosuggestive episodes, informed by cultural fiction and myth, are sincerely believed and remembered as real encounters;

(7) Also sustained by continuously emerging unidentifiable low-information sensor data (including photographs and video footage) of mundane airborne objects which are bound to invite UFO speculation. Even the most cutting-edge sensors of the future will have their capability limits at which they will generate low-information sensor data;

(8) As a belief system, the UFO ideology consists of many semi-canonized faith-based tenets that precede evidence, looks for whatever evidentiary support it can find, and thrives in the low information zone (anecdotes and low-information physical records) in the absence of scientifically more compelling evidence.

This just just quibbling more than anything, but I'd add hypnotic suggestion by careless hypnotherapists to #6 as well. I've had quite a bit of training in hypnosis and use it in my own work with clients but I'm consistently amazed at how careless many clinicians are in its use and just how much they're willing to believe anything the unconscious provides in a session under hypnosis under some strange assumption that the unconscious mind doesn't tend to lie.

The fact that hypnotic regression is often found behind phenomena as diverse as abduction claims, satanic ritual abuse claims, past life regression, between-lives-regression, spirit-release therapy, and the retrieval of "pre-verbal memories" just goes to show how dangerous the use of hypnosis can be for anything related to memory work, and the beliefs and expectations of the clinician coupled with the beliefs and expectations and compliance of clients can often produce these types of extraordinary claims.

 

[Skalman]

I was directed to this thread on twitter a few days ago by someone called Dave Troy who purports to be an investigative journalist:
Source: https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1684755059995705345?s=20

Fact: all of the current US-centric UFO nonsense can be traced back to Stanford Research Institute, the Institute for Noetic Sciences, the Esalen Institute and the transhumanism movement.

This milieu was heavily influenced by multiple intelligence agencies, including KGB, GRU, CIA and Mossad. Anyone promoting this set of narratives is either a rube or advancing an intelligence agency agenda. It's all hot nonsense. Sorry.

He then links to a report written by Thomas Bearden for MUFON and then some pages from a book called An End to Ordinary History, with some paragraphs marked. I assume he thinks this strengthens his thesis, but I fail to see how. The only link between Bearden and the organisations he mentions in his first tweet that I can find is claims that Bearden was friends with Ira Einhorn, who were associated with the Esalen Institute. An End to Ordinary History is a spy novel by the Esalen Institute founder Michael Murphy, so quoting that seems weird unless he thinks that Murphy is referencing the stuff he does is him in a roundabout way telling that he knew of the disinformation campaign.

Anyways, I know way too little about these parapsychological institutes, Bearden and nothing about Dave Troy, so I can't really make an assessment of the claim other than that it was the first time I heard the Alphabet Soup Agencies Disinfo-theory being linked to these fringe crackpot organisations, and also those organisations painted as the progenitors of the UFO-narratives (and thus, also this UFO flap). But I figured some of you here are better equipped to comment on whether there is any substance to these claims, so I thought I'd add it to the discussion and this thread seemed to be a great fit.

 

[Dr.Robert]

Having followed the UFO phenomenon for years and been very puzzled as to why people seem to see all kinds of things but never be able to document them- abductions being the most extreme cases of this. At the same time it seems to be mired in all kinds of notions of clandestine organizations that manipulate from behind the scenes.

In the all to glaring lack of any evidence for the extraordinary claims of UFO witnesses and abductees I found that the explanation to the entire phenomenon must be found in the psychology of the people involved. There is a wonderful thread on this forum titled "Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer" where this notion is also visited. But I feel that a more comprehensive view of the human psyche is needed to account for peoples experiences- but also the conspiratorial flavour that is hanging over much of the debate.

I see the psyche as the sum of both unconscious low level processes and the conscious mind. I also acknowledge that we can be in different levels of consciousness at different times- we all have experienced unconsciousness, but also low level consciousness like sleep- where we in the moment feel awake but later "wake up" to a higher level of consciousness and typically realize that the lower level conscious experiences was "just a dream". I speculate that there might be higher levels of consciousness that we normally don't have access to- but that we all might have an innate drive towards- because the psyche wants to develop and expand as part of our evolutionary makeup. People that have done psychedelic drugs sometimes get a glimpse of something like this, and people with long meditative practices claim this to be the case.

I think this drive towards higher levels of consciousness is what is meant by a spiritual need. I have heard it described as a yearning for "something more" and can sometimes manifest as visions of how the psyche looks when more developed. The vision can come while in a lower state/dreaming or even when fully conscious- but often when the person is alone and undisturbed. Depending on the culture of the person experiencing this- it can be meeting an angel, the holy Madonna, Vishnu, elves or maybe even aliens/UFO's. Religious traditions often provide a framework to interpret/place these experiences- not always in a satisfying or even coherent way- but
in lieu of many modern people not having any framework, the normal conscious mind is left to interpret these often very powerful experiences using whatever the person's culture has to offer.

Descriptions of people's meeting with angels (their own higher consciousness) often have concentric patterns of colors surrounding them (also seen in depictions of Jesus or Buddhist Mandalas) that to me sounds very similar to many experiences of encounters with aliens/shining crafts.

I am not suggesting that people seeing a tic-tacs is really experiencing a projection of their own higher consciousness- not even sure the third degree encounters/abductions are an expression of this (lot's of them seem to be a combination of sleep/sleep paralysis/molestations) but I think that people with the spiritual yearning will recognize descriptions like those in the UFO memeplex as representations of their own need to develop their psyche- or their own spirituality in other words.
So while lots of people in the middle ages saw angels- modern people with no spiritual/religious framework see UFO's. Even people that haven't seen anything, but share the yearning can feel the drive towards this being true. Very rational and not religious people that might have a more or less conscious spiritual yearning can suddenly feel themselves very driven towards phenomena like this as substitutes for traditional spiritual explanations.

The rational and lets say more normal conscious level is often at odds with the vagouries and weirdness of this yearning. This internal paradox in the psyche manifests as a feeling that something very rational, but clandestine and powerful is keeping the wonder of higher consciousness from being fully unfolded. The psyche therefore casts some unknown nefarious "government" plots to keep this development from happening- but always with the secret hope of "full disclosure"

I imagine people with more or less realized need for spirituality rubbing shoulders in lets say the pentagon- trying to suss out if the others also feel the same way. I imagine it being a little like closeted gay people- always on the lookout for a kindred spirit- but it can never be fully spoken of as they all sense that it's not rational/right.
At the same time less admirable qualities of more prosaic grifting, self importance, greed and all the usual slew of human faults thrown into the mix and we have sort of an explanation to the whole affair.

So in conclusion I theorize that not all motivation in the strange field of UFO's and the surrounding structures are on the whole based on bad motivations, greed or misunderstanding of visuals stimuli- but at least partly on a "genuine spiritual yearning for higher consciousness" that manifest either as a belief that aliens are real or in some cases as actual seeing them.

 

[NorCal Dave]

was directed to this thread on twitter a few days ago by someone called Dave Troy who purports to be an investigative journalist:

There is something to that statement. The SRI (Stanford Research Institute) is where Hal Puthoff got his start with the CIA and Psy research in the early '70s. The same research was picked up by Bay in the '80s also for the CIA. So nearly 20 years of government paid for "research" into ESP, remote viewing, spoon bending and other nonsense with mixed results at best mostly out a sense of FOMO that the Soviets were doing it. We discussed it in a number of threads.

Important is that Puthoff went on to work with Robert Bigelow and Skinwalker Ranch, AASWAP maybe the UAPTF as well as telling Jaques Vallee that he was connected to secret UFO retrieval and reverse engineering projects. He is still in the UFO/SWR mix 40 years later and is considered one of Grushc's possible sources.

 

[Mendel]

Great chat, zero evidence so far, unfortunately.

(1) The inherent vulnerability of democratic governments to the influence of able political lobby groups consisting of relatively few leading individuals;

Counter-hypothesis: Government responds to a larger demographic trend (as it should, in a democracy). Evidence:

Article:

Source: https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/articles-reports/2022/10/04/more-half-americans-believe-aliens-probably-exist

Metabunk's body of work supports your points (5) and (7) as to the provenience of UAP sightings (mistaken witnesses and LIZ sensor data).

The remainder of your hypotheses lack evidentiary support (for factuality and the influence you attribute them), given the wide spread of UFO belief.

 

[LilWabbit]

Great chat, zero evidence so far, unfortunately.

Counter-hypothesis: Government responds to a larger demographic trend (as it should, in a democracy). Evidence:

Article:

View attachment 60838

Source: https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/articles-reports/2022/10/04/more-half-americans-believe-aliens-probably-exist

The new Ipsos polling suggests that figure is currently as high as 42 %. Granted, the survey questions might differ a little. In any case, that the government responds to a major demographic is very much part and parcel of the hypothesis rather than a counter-example. That there is an inluential and media-savvy lobby group commanding the sympathy of many of these UFO believers makes the government (especially the Congress whose members' careers depend on votes) vulnerable to bending to their wishes/demands irrespective of how representative of the entire US population these demands initially were (such as the need for a UAP investigation agency). This is what is meant by "vulnerability to lobby groups" and why it essentially undermines representative democracy.

Metabunk's body of work supports your points (5) and (7) as to the provenience of UAP sightings (mistaken witnesses and LIZ sensor data).

The remainder of your hypotheses lack evidentiary support (for factuality and the influence you attribute them), given the wide spread of UFO belief.

They indeed lack my citation to said threads and evidence (which could be useful, albeit time-consuming, to add) but not to the lack of at least some solid research existing on each of those aspects, nor to the total lack of evidence cited also on multifarious MB threads.

I'm actually thinking about suggesting to @Mick West that we could use something similar to this 8-point big picture (or whatever alternative 'big picture' formulation we can together come up with) to introduce this broader framework (i.e. the complex and cross-disciplinary interplay of at least these 8 factors underlying the resurgent UFO flap) to the lay MB viewers as succinctly as we can, whilst linking all the necessary threads and evidence to each of the eight points. Some of those other points are admittedly open questions where more research is needed to make the argument airtight. But as a comprehensive hypothesis offering the likeliest explanation to the overall UFO 'phenomenon', it is presentable as an umbrella 'UFO research program' of said prosaic hypothesis with all these sub-categories and interlinkages requiring further research.

What makes it the likeliest 'big picture' / comprehensive hypothesis at the outset, before any further research, is that all these 8 points have (firmly terrestrial) empirical priors, and that their interplay as described makes sense.

 

[jarlrmai]

Is there any political will/gain in the US system to be made from putting effort in to adopting a sceptical approach to this?

 

[LilWabbit]

Is there any political will/gain in the US system to be made from putting effort in to adopting a sceptical approach to this?

Only from those that are sincerely interested in exploring the most plausible explanation to this whole persistent 'charade' without any ideological blinkers on.

I guess MB is not primarily dedicated to educating the 'US system' but rather the general public, globally.

 

[jarlrmai]

It needs an independent public inquiry that starts with Harry Reid and Bigelow and the formation of AATIP/AAWSAP and the connections to Skinwalker Ranch. I believe this has possibly happened in private, hence the dissolution of the program in 2012 and Taylor/Stratton/Elizondo and Grusch etc not being there anymore.

 

[LilWabbit]

It needs an independent public inquiry that starts with Harry Reid and Bigelow and the formation of AATIP/AAWSAP and the connections to Skinwalker Ranch.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Scaramanga]

Is there any significant aspect of the flap that the above summary doesn't somehow satisfactorily cover, and why?

I think you need to include the more recent 'I saw one too !' aspect to the flap.....the growing and alarming tendency for people to be so caught up in the UFO religion that they are on forums presenting every lens flare, bird, sighting of Venus, or whatever, as a UFO. On some forums that I have seen, that is practically every thread. There are quite literally people sitting in their gardens with their cameras focused on any passing tiny spec in the distance that can be converted into a 'UFO'. There was a time, and it really wasn't that long ago ( before the internet ) when believers were happy to read other people's accounts of sightings in glossy magazines. All of a sudden, every member of the faithful has to have their own sighting. It is a disturbing trend.....and I particularly blame those such as Steven Greer.

Oh...and you have to be abducted by aliens too or you're not a 'true' believer.

 

[jarlrmai]

There's a LARP element as well, I can't quite put my finger on it but when I read certain fora it feels like some people are just getting involved and posting because it's fun with odd characters weird twists and turns and unintentional humour, they don't necessarily believe, they are egging on/memeing possibly also sort of linked to drug use etc. Basically following the real world internet culture soap opera. And yes Mick and Metabunk are antagonists in this space..

It's hard to find a real definition of this usage of the term LARP (derived from the dress as your character physical RPG) outide of Urban Dictionary.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LARP

"2) An internet phenomenon where the anonymity of the internet allows individuals to masquerade as any identity as they so please, with a central theme surrounding it (often a controversial one). There is no real motive for LARPing other than "for the lulz" or "for the aesthetic". LARPing is similar to trolling in a way, but fundamentally different. In fact, you could LARP around as a troll, thus creating a double-walled identity."

 

[a_robot_kicker]

There's a LARP element as well, I can't quite put my finger on it but when I read certain fora it feels like some people are just getting involved and posting because it's fun with odd characters weird twists and turns and unintentional humour, they don't necessarily believe, they are egging on/memeing possibly also sort of linked to drug use etc. Basically following the real world internet culture soap opera. And yes Mick and Metabunk are antagonists in this space..

It's hard to find a real definition of this usage of the term LARP (derived from the dress as your character physical RPG) outide of Urban Dictionary.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LARP

"2) An internet phenomenon where the anonymity of the internet allows individuals to masquerade as any identity as they so please, with a central theme surrounding it (often a controversial one). There is no real motive for LARPing other than "for the lulz" or "for the aesthetic". LARPing is similar to trolling in a way, but fundamentally different. In fact, you could LARP around as a troll, thus creating a double-walled identity."

I especially get this vibe whenever the same people on those forums say real science on ET, seti, astronomy and astrobiology is "boring" and make fun of people who sincerely care about whether there are aliens.

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

I think you need to include the more recent 'I saw one too !' aspect to the flap.....the growing and alarming tendency for people to be so caught up in the UFO religion that they are on forums presenting every lens flare, bird, sighting of Venus, or whatever, as a UFO. On some forums that I have seen, that is practically every thread. There are quite literally people sitting in their gardens with their cameras focused on any passing tiny spec in the distance that can be converted into a 'UFO'. There was a time, and it really wasn't that long ago ( before the internet ) when believers were happy to read other people's accounts of sightings in glossy magazines. All of a sudden, every member of the faithful has to have their own sighting. It is a disturbing trend.....and I particularly blame those such as Steven Greer.

Oh...and you have to be abducted by aliens too or you're not a 'true' believer.

And have X-rated abduction experiences and be able to say with a straight face you've had an ongoing affair with an alien hybrid. (I saw it in a film; must be true.)

Is this what we get for letting the kids watch Star Trek and Ancient Aliens instead of learning about astronomy?

 

[JMartJr]

Is this what we get for letting the kids watch Star Trek and Ancient Aliens instead of learning about astronomy?

Linking Star Trek to Ancient Aliens is heresy; expect the Inquisition to be stopping by...

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

Linking Star Trek to Ancient Aliens is heresy; expect the Inquisition to be stopping by...

Should I serve them tea and biscuits? If Ancient Aliens is good enough for Nick Pope it should be good enough for anyone - except maybe those pesky archeologists.

 

[pony]

I mean, if you are going to "examine and articulate the big picture regarding the overall phenomenon", then you cannot just start with this current wave of interest. To approach the totality of the phenomenon, you have to go way back as well, wouldn't you?

People have been seeing things in the sky for a long time now.

Specifically, I'm thinking of the numerous stories of the Foo Fighters from WW2 pilots and aircrew. Some of the testimony of these men match very closely to what is currently being described today. The History Channel documents some of this testamony:

https://www.history.com/news/wwii-ufos-allied-airmen-orange-lights-foo-fighters

On December 17, 1944, near Breisach, Germany, a pilot was flying at approximately 800 feet when he saw "5 or 6 flashing red and green lights in 'T' shape." The lights seemed to follow him, closing in "to about 8 o'clock and 1,000 ft." before disappearing as inexplicably as they came.

Then on December 22nd, two more flight crews sighted lights. One crew, near Hagenau, reported two lights in a large orange glow, seeming to rise from the earth to 10,000 feet, tailing the fighter "for approximately two minutes." After that, the lights, "peel off and turn away, fly along level for a few minutes and then go out. They appear to be under perfect control at all times," according to Keith Chester's Strange Company: Military Encounters with UFOs in World War II.

And then there was Lt. Samuel A. Krasney's experience: a wingless cigar-shape object, glowing red, just a few yards off the plane's wingtip. Lt. Krasney, justifiably spooked, instructed the pilot to attempt evasive maneuvers, but the glowing object stayed right next to the jet for several minutes before it "flew off and disappeared."

WW2 combat airmen don't strike me as people who lack purpose, lack belonging, have a need for attention, and are grifters manipulating the foregoing for personal gain. What would be their motivation for just making stuff up, and still sticking to their false stories decades later?

There is a large historical component to "The UFO Flap" that, I would think, needs to be addressed as well.

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

I mean, if you are going to "examine and articulate the big picture regarding the overall phenomenon", then you cannot just start with this current wave of interest. To approach the totality of the phenomenon, you have to go way back as well, wouldn't you?

People have been seeing things in the sky for a long time now.

Specifically, I'm thinking of the numerous stories of the Foo Fighters from WW2 pilots and aircrew. Some of the testimony of these men match very closely to what is currently being described today. The History Channel documents some of this testamony:

https://www.history.com/news/wwii-ufos-allied-airmen-orange-lights-foo-fighters

On December 17, 1944, near Breisach, Germany, a pilot was flying at approximately 800 feet when he saw "5 or 6 flashing red and green lights in 'T' shape." The lights seemed to follow him, closing in "to about 8 o'clock and 1,000 ft." before disappearing as inexplicably as they came.

Then on December 22nd, two more flight crews sighted lights. One crew, near Hagenau, reported two lights in a large orange glow, seeming to rise from the earth to 10,000 feet, tailing the fighter "for approximately two minutes." After that, the lights, "peel off and turn away, fly along level for a few minutes and then go out. They appear to be under perfect control at all times," according to Keith Chester's Strange Company: Military Encounters with UFOs in World War II.

And then there was Lt. Samuel A. Krasney's experience: a wingless cigar-shape object, glowing red, just a few yards off the plane's wingtip. Lt. Krasney, justifiably spooked, instructed the pilot to attempt evasive maneuvers, but the glowing object stayed right next to the jet for several minutes before it "flew off and disappeared."

WW2 combat airmen don't strike me as people who lack purpose, lack belonging, have a need for attention, and are grifters manipulating the foregoing for personal gain. What would be their motivation for just making stuff up, and still sticking to their false stories decades later?

There is a large historical component to "The UFO Flap" that, I would think, needs to be addressed as well.

Unexplained just means unexplained, not making stuff up.

Eventually the Army Air Command sent officers to investigate, but their research was lost after the war, Chester reported. In 1953, the CIA convened a panel of six top scientists familiar with experimental aviation technology to determine if the lights constituted a national security threat. The Robertson Panel, named for its chair, Caltech physicist Howard P. Robertson, offered no official conclusion.

Ziebart, the historian, offered no explanation either, only an insight. "I think the foo fighters didn't show up on radar because they were plain light," he said. "Radar had to have a solid object. If there was any bogey out there, the pilots would absolutely be able to tell."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-...-fighters-sighted-ww2-night-flyers-180959847/

 

[JMartJr]

At the risk of under-thinking this, it seems to me that the major stimulus for a flap is just "I heard somebody just saw a UFO, I'll pay attention to the sky more, and so will be more likely to see something I cannot identify, and then to interpret it as another UFO sighting, and then to report it to somebody or share the story somehow--and then somebody else will hear that I just saw one of them UFOs,and THEY will pay attention to the sky more, etc." (An alternate reaction is "I'll SAY I saw one so I can be cool and get attention, too!" Actually seeing something is not absolutely necessary to keep the chain going.)

Of course, some background activity like that goes on all the time. There may be sociological reasons why sometimes the chain reaction goes critical, as it were. But it may just be down to chance -- sometimes stories explode into the foreground, sometimes they don't.

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

At the risk of under-thinking this, it seems to me that the major stimulus for a flap is just "I heard somebody just saw a UFO, I'll pay attention to the sky more, and so will be more likely to see something I cannot identify, and then to interpret it as another UFO sighting, and then to report it to somebody or share the story somehow--and then somebody else will hear that I just saw one of them UFOs,and THEY will pay attention to the sky more, etc." (An alternate reaction is "I'll SAY I saw one so I can be cool and get attention, too!" Actually seeing something is not absolutely necessary to keep the chain going.)

Of course, some background activity like that goes on all the time. There may be sociological reasons why sometimes the chain reaction goes critical, as it were. But it may just be down to chance -- sometimes stories explode into the foreground, sometimes they don't.

This story exploded thanks to the Debrief. Not quite the NYT, but still.....

 

[Scaramanga]

And another aspect.....the ' we only have to have one valid sighting' meme. This allows the 99.999999% of UFOs that are debunked to just be ignored because that 'one valid sighting' is believed to be out there somewhere or someone will soon photograph a mile wide UFO in 4K right down to the 'made in Beta Reticuli' stamp in Beta Reticulan on the side of it. It's the same thing that spawns a dozen bigfoot shows and several dozen ghost shows......what Carl Sagan called ' belief in search of evidence'.

 

[LilWabbit]

Points 3-6 and 8 have significant psychological aspects to them. In compliance with Mick's request, the House Oversight thread is getting too messy. We were just getting into the psychological aspect there. Feel free to continue here in generic terms. No attempted psychoevals of particular individuals or persons.

The psychological and neurological factors inherent in points 3-6 and 8 that account for UFO observations, testimonies and belief could also be expressed as follows:

(1) The power of human imagination together with the brain's visual perception functions, fuelled by cultural fiction and myth, in filling information gaps
(2) Strong personal motivation (one or a combination of a-c):
(a) Supernatural motive: Strongly wanting to believe in something extraordinary;
(b) Narcissistic motive: Wanting to claim privileged access to special knowledge that sets one apart from others;
(c) Social neediness or neediness for an identity whereby to feel good about oneself: Wanting to belong to a group that accepts each other without judgment and who value each other's unusual experiences, thoughts and interests;
(3) Gullibility or superstition stemming from ignorance and/or a lack of critical/scientific thought
(4) Ego: Unwillingness to consider one might have been mistaken, misled, forgotten or even undergone a short-lived psychosis of some type and degree (suggestive, hallucinatory or otherwise)

I would say ufologists and skeptics variously share 1, 2a-c and 4. Some skeptics may even have 2a, whilst acknowledging having found no evidence for satisfying 2a.

But the main difference is usually with factor no. 3 -- at least with respect to UFOs. I'm really interested in hearing from the psychologists here.

 

[a_robot_kicker]

I mean, if you are going to "examine and articulate the big picture regarding the overall phenomenon", then you cannot just start with this current wave of interest. To approach the totality of the phenomenon, you have to go way back as well, wouldn't you?

...

WW2 combat airmen don't strike me as people who lack purpose, lack belonging, have a need for attention, and are grifters manipulating the foregoing for personal gain. What would be their motivation for just making stuff up, and still sticking to their false stories decades later?

There is a large historical component to "The UFO Flap" that, I would think, needs to be addressed as well.

These things do not exist in a vacuum. Once UFOs entered mainstream discourse, future sightings were influenced by previous ones. That current sightings bear resemblance to previous ones could be simply because the people making the sightings are culturally aware of the UFO phenomenon.

 

[Amathia]

Well, one psychological aspect revelant here is that Ufologists seem to have a higher need for cognitive closure than average. Cognitive closure describes an individual's desire for definite answers and aversion to ambiguity or uncertainty.

I saw a perfect example of this just yesterday on Mick's Twitter. He made a post regarding the "mothership" sighting being solved and identified as a starlink train, and one of the commenters responded with this:

Or course they absolutely would have been extremely interested in this "mothership" video if it had made the rounds before Mick solved it, but since it was solved before it even got a chance to go viral, suddenly the UFOlogist in question has absolutely no interest in the case. He then demands an explanation from Mick for a case for which we only have verbal testimony and no data to look at.

This is a pattern we constantly see, the UFO Mythos survives in the anomalous cases where a prosaic explanation has yet to be found. Michael Shermer refers to this as "The problem of the anomalies", essentially asking "what do we do with the anomalies?" His answer is a good illustration of what someone with a high need for cognitive closure looks like compared to someone with a tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty: we don't have to do anything with them. We just wait until we have more data.

A person with a tolerance for uncertainty can live with the fact that there are anomalous cases of unidentified things in the skies. He or she is interested in an explanation, but if there isn't one forthcoming, they're okay with waiting until such a time that more data can help she'd a light on what's happening. The person with a high need for cognitive closure on the other hand cannot tolerate the ambiguity and uncertainty, so if no prosaic explanations exist for an anomalous sighting, then an exotic explanation is invoked, no matter how improbable.

It's a similar phenomenon to "God of the Gaps" style cases for God's existence. They appeal to anomalies that have yet to find a good explanation within a naturalistic worldview (consciousness for example). Whenever science encroaches and explains phenomena that were previously the domain of the supernatural, they then appeal to those recalcitrant or anomalous pieces of data to support their favored explanation.

It's interesting because as with many psychological traits, the need for cognitive closure lies on a spectrum. We should feel some discomfort with ambiguity and uncertainty, that discomfort is what drives a lot of scientific discovery in the first place rather than humanity being disinterested in how the world works and persistently being okay with not knowing things.

But if you fall too far into one end of the spectrum it becomes maladaptive and the discomfort with anomalies drives your mind to seek closure by postulating exotic explanations for them.

So I think that's at least one factor worth considering that contributes to the prevalence and persistence of Ufology.

 

[grogpickle]

65% of americans believe in ufos/uaps, disclosure , or the promise of it's a vote winner. elections are close run things in america and dangling a carrot can make all the difference.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I am curious about the "scale" or size of evolved intelligent beings. Would they be of a size similar to humans? If so, why and if not, why not?

 

[Ann K]

I am curious about the "scale" or size of evolved intelligent beings. Would they be of a size similar to humans? If so, why and if not, why not?

Go to the new thread "Do UFOs have to be human-size in scale?".

 

[LilWabbit]

But if you fall too far into one end of the spectrum it becomes maladaptive and the discomfort with anomalies drives your mind to seek closure by postulating exotic explanations for them.

So I think that's at least one factor worth considering that contributes to the prevalence and persistence of Ufology.

Difficulty to cope with uncertainty seems indeed as one plausible psychological factor for some believers who'd rather have an easily digestible explanation to all unknowns than to accept these unknowns as 'unknowns'.

However, the hard problem of consciousness is an unknown in terms of not lending itself easily to any explanation including reductive materialism. We have also discussed and debated it on other threads. In other words, the self-identified skeptic is often the one that assumes a neurophysiological explanation to abstract cognitive human capacities such as 'morality' and 'ability to comprehend and discuss psychology and philosophy' without any evidence existing to that effect. In exactly the same way a dualist assumes such experiences must be born of some spiritual substance which evades all scientific scrutiny.

This is a topic more for a separate thread, but since your broached the theme, I will say this.

Materialism is a popular philosophical belief underlying much of skeptical thought and, in many ways, represents an understandable historical counter-reaction to fanatical, naive, frequently illogical, evidently ridiculous and superstitious religious beliefs imposed on the average person throughout history. However, materialism is not the foundation, nor any sort of requirement, of a rigorous scientific pursuit. Empirical falsifiability is.

Many scientists subscribe to materialist/physicalist beliefs, others don't. The alternative to materialism does not need to be superstitious, bigoted and moralistic religious dogma promoted by the more noisome denominations nor some fluffy feel-good spiritualism involving crystals, unicorns, mushrooms and manifesting that seems to be the latest trend. Unfortunately these intellectually jarring popular alternatives to materialism put all non-materialist ideas in a bad and unscientific light, and renders materialism as the only popularly known philosophical position that doesn't invite the stigma of a 'kook'.

Having said that, science is founded upon the philosophical assumption that only the physically observable universe lends itself to scientific scrutiny by the virtue of the hypothetico-deductive method of rigorously testing testable hypotheses through empirical predictions and experiments. It's also founded upon the philosophical assumption of a mind-independent reality (realism, as opposed to solipsism or phenomenalism) and that for every phenomenon there must be a sufficient reason to occur which science exists to explore (the Principle of Sufficient Reason, a.k.a. PoSR).

These are some of the philosophical beliefs underlying rigorous scientific pursuit which in themselves are higher-order philosophical axioms and hence scientifically unprovable.

But materialism isn't one of them. It's a separate unprovable philosophical belief that makes a sweeping claim on the underlying character / substance of all existence, as is the alternative claim that there must be 'spiritual' substance in addition to material that accounts for all things irreducible to material things, or the third option (which I am inclined to accept) that 'substance' (physical or non-physical) is an entirely inadequate predicate to describe all the weird stuff that's happening at a far closer level of observation and analysis of our physical world as well as of our own consciousness whilst, neither, do these two phenomena lend themselves to the same language of explanations.

Hence, to apply, say, quantum mechanical concepts (say, the wave function, decoherence, superposition, entanglement, uncertainty principle) to explain consciousness stops at its tracks due to its evident and immediate conceptual limitations. Conscious experiences being explicable through QM or neurophysiological processes is an unproven materialist god-of-the-gaps claim that can also be said to stem from a psychological need to counter 'spiritual' (non-physical) ideas due to the uncomfortable historical/cultural/religious baggage they often bring along with them even though they don't need to all go together as one big dogmatic ensemble. But one thing weird doesn't automatically account for another thing weird.

It'd be conducive to a more scientific and constructive discussion on consciousness if everyone just accepted: 'I don't know exactly what it is, but it has thus far persistently evaded reduction to known physical, including neurophysiological, phenomena whilst remaining intimately correlational to brain-processes'.

 

[Mauro]

......

Materialism is a popular philosophical belief underlying much of skeptical thought and, in many ways, represents an understandable historical counter-reaction to fanatical, naive, frequently illogical, evidently ridiculous and superstitious religious beliefs imposed on the average person throughout history.

While I agree on most of what you said in this thread (and found it very interesting), I don't agree with this part. Naturalism (I guess this is what you mean by 'materialism') is not a philosophical belief (nor an axiom) but a result of scientific investigation. Richard Carrier says this much better than I ever could:

Naturalism Is Not an Axiom of the Sciences but a Conclusion of Them

by Richard Carrier on January 24, 20201 Comment




I recently found an article from 2011 making a point I've long made myself, that the entire notion of a "presumption of naturalism" being axiomatic to history and the sciences is both an error made by some historians and scientists and an apologetic bluff by Christian apologists—and that, instead, naturalism is an evidence-based conclusion in the sciences reached by long experience, and thus is theoretically revisable; it is also based on evidence, and therefore cannot be "swapped out" by simply changing one's faith commitment or "preferring" a different axiom. [bold added by me]

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16193

The supernatural has simply never been a good explanation of anything (see, for example, my article on Bayesian Counter-Apologetics). Even conceptually it begins as an extraordinary claim rather than an ordinary one (see, for example, my article on The Argument from Specified Complexity against Supernaturalism). And yet no extraordinary evidence has ever been adduced for it, as logic requires (see, for example, my article on why Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence).


As I wrote long ago in Defining the Supernatural, this need not have been the case. If we lived in the world described by the Harry Potter novels, or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, or the film Constantine, we could have vast evidence confirming supernatural explanations are sometimes valid, and they would thus enter the repertoire of viable, testable scientific explanations of observations. Indeed whole sciences would arise to study them. What is remarkable is that we don't find ourselves in such a world. Every attempt we've made to test if we are has failed to find any evidence of it. And this has been going for hundreds of years. The odds that we are deceived in this are next to nil by now. And that's simply because that's the way the evidence went. It's not an axiom or a presumption or a faith commitment. It's a result.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16193

However, materialism is not the foundation, nor any sort of requirement, of a rigorous scientific pursuit. Empirical falsifiability is.

And this is true, as the quoted article clearly says.

 

[captancourgette]

WW2 combat airmen don't strike me as people who lack purpose, lack belonging, have a need for attention, and are grifters manipulating the foregoing for personal gain. What would be their motivation for just making stuff up, and still sticking to their false stories decades later?

Lack of sleep, high stress, and most importantly high on drugs.
Can easily lead to visual hallucinations

 

[LilWabbit]

This is not really a suitable topic for this thread, although I kind of suspected the triggers. I was merely responding to @Amathia 's reference to materialism (I'm not discussing naturalism, btw) in much the same vein as you are referencing which, however, (1) doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, nor (2) does it refute the point that materialism is a well-know philosophical position, something which most students/majors of philosophical ontology know but which non-students often mistake for science due to popular myth. It's a dogmatic declaration by a strong materialist that "materialism is a scientific conclusion". However, the materialist/physicalist core claim that "all that exists is material" has not been demonstrated by any existing scientific study, and probably never can. There is nothing even remotely radical or 'extraordinary' in stating this.

Article:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. Materialism directly contrasts with idealism, according to which consciousness is the fundamental substance of nature.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, some prefer the term physicalism to materialism, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

While I agree on most of what you said in this thread (and found it very interesting), I don't agree with this part. Naturalism (I guess this is what you mean by 'materialism') is not a philosophical belief (nor an axiom) but a result of scientific investigation. Richard Carrier says this much better than I ever could:

I didn't see this Mr. Carrier providing any scientific proof for the higher functions of consciousness (say, our very ability to philosophize about whether naturalism is a scientific conclusion or a philosophical belief) being neurophysiological processes. We can only demonstrate some correlations between such mental states and brain states. But there's yet no proof that consciousness (our mental states as they are experienced) is material in any known sense. Hence the so-called "hard problem of consciousness". Many materialist neuroscientists and philosophers readily accept that this is a real problem, and are therefore embarked on a mission to scientifically demonstrate said materialist reduction, whilst acknowledging not having arrived just yet.

Even if we accept that one day such a materialistic reduction of mental states to brain states can be done, we can't conclude materialism scientifically before such a successful reduction. At least insofar as we are attemping to be scientific rather than faith-based dogmatists about materialism.

The Bayesian argument on priors applies very much to consciousness. Until we have no valid scientific reduction of mental states to brain-states, the priors directly accessible to us (including our own experiences of philosophical or scientific ideas during this conversation) demonstrate a unique category of states which, whatever they are, are certainly not material in any known way (being composed of any known physical components or systems, whether quantum-mechanical or neurophysiological).