The UFO syndrome is a mental impairment/limitation.

I had been doing regular observations for more than three years now, as almost anybody else I started making these observations with some preconceptions that unavoidably came from traditional Ufology, reviewing the first posts done in this channel from 2013 will reveal to anyone the presence of these preconceptions.

But usually some people making observations learn from these observations and adjust their preconceptions accordingly, by using better and better instruments you can get better empirical evidence, with more details and new things.

But also during these years I had been interacting with all kind of people around this area, the almost absolute majority of them are "contaminated" by what I will call the UFO syndrome.

This syndrome is really pervasive in almost anyone doing any kind of observations in this area and it is a sure thing in anybody no doing any direct observations, as the so called ufologists.

After more than three years interacting with many people around this area of interest I really only know one person making active observations and not contaminated by this syndrome: Mr. Anomalous.

Anybody else doing any kind of observations that I know is under the UFO spell and it is not hard to identify them.

The driving force behind these people is the religious belief in the reality of UFOs as some kind of extraterrestrials/aliens visitations, nothing else matter to them.

I will be talking only of the people making observations as they are the only ones providing some kind of new empirical evidence, the talking only individuals(as professional ufologists and UFO evangelists) are really irrelevant here since they do not have any direct experience doing active regular atmospheric observations and they are trapped in their limited experience.

When you make observations of Reality with preconceived ideas of what you will find it will make your observations biased towards what you expect to find: for a hammer everything looks like a nail.

And that narrow expectation is the filter used by all UFO believers when making observations or even watching somebody else footage, and that is the reason why even experienced observers get fooled over and over again by fake footage depicting something similar to their expectations. As it is very well known believers are always easy prey of con artists.

That expectation is exploited over and over with great success every single time by the popular UFO channels and sites, if experienced observers that are UFO believers are fooled by these fakes then any other believer will easily fall in the trap any single time.

That narrow expectation is what makes footage showing only glowing dots very popular in UFO circles since these glowing dots are imagined to be their beloved UFO gods, but if closeups are showed of these glowing dots then that popularity evaporates, that is why some people exploiting that expectation post footage showing only glowing dots, they are interested in driving traffic and glowing dots guarantee that traffic so there is no need to "ruin" the popularity with closeups footage.

And as a rule all UFO/ET believers being observers or not will evaluate any evidence under the light of their narrow beliefs, and also as a rule they will ignore or belittle any evidence coming from unsympathetic sources, a glowing dot footage from a believer is a lot more relevant to them than a morphing anomaly footage from a nonbeliever.

Objectivity never had been their forte.
Add a comment...

Hard Facts versus Soft/Indirect facts.

We call "hard" facts to anything that can be directly observed consistently across multiple independent observers, like for example:

- The Sun.
- Birds.
- Astronomical objects like planets, stars, satellites.
- Elementary particles as the electron, the old cathode ray tubes(CRT) television tubes were driven by electron beams hitting a luminescent phosphor.
- Anomalous redshifts associations between some quasars and active galaxies.
- Plasmoid Anomalies.

Note that the "reality" of hard facts is independent of any interpretation that we may have about their nature or origin.

And we call "soft" facts to anything that had been "derived" indirectly as result of our current understanding of Reality, the "reality" of these facts is not based on direct observations but as result of ideas/theories of Reality.

- Luminiferous ether; a universe wide filling substance that was considered as real by many physicists trying to explain electromagnetic waves transmission in empty space, later discarded as superfluous.
- Dark matter and dark energy, universe wide filling things.
- Black holes, even when many scientists talk about black holes as something very concrete there had not been any direct observation of black holes, their reality is derived by theoretical models that use our limited knowledge of matter on extreme conditions impossible to duplicate with experiments, and there are alternative explanations that do not use black holes in the same scenarios where black holes are used, so their "reality" is just on paper.
- The Big Bang, the "expansion" of the Universe, the inflationary period: all of these are "models" of the Universe subjected to change with new observational data, just the presence of anomalous redshifts associations place a big question mark on all of them.

Just note that as a rule all religions/cults are based on "soft" facts and not surprisingly many people advocating for the reality of "soft" facts behave many times as fanatic believers when somebody try to question the validity of that "soft" fact.

Another sociological interesting fact about hard facts versus soft facts is that many times soft facts are many times more "popular" than "competing" hard facts, as for example:

- Many more scientists and people with "higher" education accept the "reality" of dark matter or dark energy(soft facts) than the reality of anomalous redshifts associations(hard fact), or the reality of Plasmoid Anomalies(hard fact).

- For traditional ufologists and their army of clueless UFO/ET believers the "extraterrestrial activity" is real(a soft fact) but Plasmoid Anomalies are not real(a hard fact).
Add a comment...

Subjective approaches.

Subjective approaches suffer frequently of "unconscious self reinforcement": It is the tendency to only remember the cases that support the subjective claim; it is form of cherry-picking.

And the claim about the ability to "telepathically" be able to "call" Anomalies is a perfect example of that.

People tend to remember and reinforce only the cases were the "call" was successful and not the cases where nothing was observed.

But not only that many people making these claims ignore basic atmospheric facts in daylight: there are many more objects not visible to naked eye at any given location than objects visible to naked eye and the people making these claims usually only have in count the objects that they spotted by naked eye.

Now many people continue to mention "flying saucers" as a fact, but ignoring for a moment that this is one of the many myths of traditional ufology, if telepathically we can "call" for specific shapes why then we do not see any clear and recurrent anomalies with that shape?

For many that will be "the real deal" and some people for sure had "asked" for that particular shape, but where are them?

Socially subjective reinforcement is very common in traditional ufology approaches, as Rob Freeman claim of a "inter-dimensional craft" supported by just still pictures taken with a smartphone at night clearly shows, but the "nuts and bolts" interpretation even in clear footage is a fallacy, even more in any claim supported by still pictures at night.

As the history of science clearly shows subjective approaches and interpretations always are the result of lack of knowledge or poor objective analysis and the ongoing subjective claims in people following the traditional ufology approaches are textbook examples of that.
Add a comment...

Subjective approaches.

Subjective approaches suffer frequently of "unconscious self reinforcement": It is the tendency to only remember the cases that support the subjective claim; it is form of cherry-picking.

And the claim about the ability to "telepathically" be able to "call" Anomalies is a perfect example of that.

People tend to remember and reinforce only the cases were the "call" was successful and not the cases where nothing was observed.

But not only that many people making these claims ignore basic atmospheric facts in daylight: there are many more objects not visible to naked eye at any given location than objects visible to naked eye and the people making these claims usually only have in count the objects that they spotted by naked eye.

Now many people continue to mention "flying saucers" as a fact, but ignoring for a moment that this is one of the many myths of traditional ufology, if telepathically we can "call" for specific shapes why then we do not see any clear and recurrent anomalies with that shape?

For many that will be "the real deal" and some people for sure had "asked" for that particular shape, but where are them?

Socially subjective reinforcement is very common in traditional ufology approaches, as Rob Freeman claim of a "inter-dimensional craft" supported by just still pictures taken with a smartphone at night clearly shows, but the "nuts and bolts" interpretation even in clear footage is a fallacy, even more in any claim supported by still pictures at night.

As the history of science clearly shows subjective approaches and interpretations always are the result of lack of knowledge or poor objective analysis and the ongoing subjective claims in people following the traditional ufology approaches are textbook examples of that.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
On the "Astonishing simplicity of everything" lecture.

"The Astonishing complacency and dogmatism pervading scientific thinking today" should be a more accurate title for this lecture.

It has been a dream of many armchair experts for a while now the idea of a "theory of everything", that idea ignore relatively recent results in mathematical logic and the lessons from the history of science.

The Godel incompleteness theorems and the history of science clearly point to the conclusion that any theoretical model of Reality always will be incomplete.

Even very apparently simple and ideal models in Mathematics are intrinsically very rich, Reality complexity is orders of magnitude beyond any mathematical model that we may conceive of any particular aspect of it.

But complacency and its inseparable companion dogmatism lead to the idea that Reality is "simple": nothing could be more far from the truth.

Reductionism is intrinsically flawed since "emergent" properties that are not explainable by any existing model always will appear and nothing can replace the constant observation and testing of Reality since what is true today no necessarily will be true tomorrow and any objective and scientific approach to reality must embrace that fact.

Nothing has presence over Reality only Reality itself, no preexisting ideas, theories, dogmas, assumptions, any particular individual or institutions, fresh and consistent observational data has precedence over anything else including older data.

Living beings already function under these principles: an immediate response to a changing environment or die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9lgX8GaE
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

As an example of the active suppression and shunning that the so called "UFO Community" had been doing for many years.


- This was a text post at subreddit UFOs explaining why dual optical systems are a very effective tool, but even that kind of post was deleted by the censors at reddit, they want to keep people in the dark because in that way they are more easily fooled.


https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/6c3kps/dual_optical_systems_are_the_best_configuration/


And this is a post at "AboveTopSecret" where all links to video evidence had been deleted, for the people in this forum to know about Reality you need a "Beyond Above Top Secret" secret clearance.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1172027/pg1
Add a comment...

The UFO entertainment.

For many people any UFO site or channel is a source of entertainment not different than watching any other source of entertainment and almost any UFO channel format is designed as an entertainment channel.

And as in any entertainment provider pleasing people's expectations is on the top of the priority list and that automatically kills any pretenses of objectivity.

Jacques Vallee quoting an interview with Steven Spielberg:

"Vallee: When I met Stephen Spielberg, I argued with him that the subject was even more interesting if it wasn't extraterrestrials. If it was real, physical, but not ET. So he said, "You're probably right, but that's not what the public is expecting--this is Hollywood and I want to give people something that's close to what they expect." "

And exactly Spielberg's thinking had been the thinking of traditional Ufologists and the many people providing UFO entertainment and that is one of the reasons why nobody can take Ufology seriously.
Add a comment...

Each single clear footage showing Anomalies is a blow to the "movers and shakers" of the "UFO Scam" scheme and many more are coming, the better ones are always waiting in the future, that is unavoidable and there is nothing that they can do to stop what is coming.
Add a comment...

The Debunkers that UFO/ET believers and the enablers of the "UFO Lies" really are afraid of are not the many armchair "experts" that claim to be "debunkers" but the people doing regular observations without preconceptions, an open mind and critical thinking.
Add a comment...

Debunkers.

"Debunker" in this field always had been a codeword for talking-only-people, almost exactly as ufologist, these people as a rule have zero or close to zero observational experience using optical equipment with high magnification, without that observational experience they had not been exposed to the very weird world of anomalies.

And this experience is critical as the Lavoisier case clearly shows: you can be a renowned scientist in a given field but that do not make you an expert in another field where you lack experience; Lavoisier denied the reality of meteorites simply because he went beyond his area of expertise and experiences and made claims based on preconceptions and beliefs exactly as any debunker had done in this field.

So the only valid assessments in this field can be done by the people with real experience observing anomalies using optical equipment with high magnification anybody else are just (or worst ) like Lavoisier making assessments about meteorites and Lavoisier actively denied the reality of meteorites.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded