Released Videos From The Pentagon's First Batch Of UFO Files

[Lance Payette]

Physical laws apply all over the cosmos. Nothing can be done that is physically impossible. Just because someone can't explain what they saw doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. It means the explanation isn't known.

I'm not sure of the point being made here. As a matter of fact, we do not know that "physical laws apply all over the cosmos." This is an assumption of science, without which science would be virtually impossible. So-called "laws" are actually subjective models that are sufficiently accurate to make science possible. One oft-cited example is that the laws of physics as we understand them simply do not operate ("break down") inside a black hole.

When I say UFOs have been observed and recorded doing "physically impossible" things, implied in this statement is something like "assuming our present understanding of the nature of reality is at least in the ballpark of being correct." If it isn't, then all bets are off - what seems physically impossible to us may be entirely possible in the context of a reality that is far different from what we now understand reality to be. One possibility that physicists no longer regard as implausible is that we actually occupy a virtual (i.e., simulated) reality or a consciousness-based reality rather than one that is fundamentally material.

The more highly regarded UFO theories include interactions with other dimensions or universes, time travel (wild as that may sound), or manipulation of our reality from a higher reality (be it a deity, a cosmic software programmer, or whatever). Any of these scenarios could produce phenomena that appear to us to be physically impossible - but only because our understanding of reality is actually far off-base.

UFOs have been observed and recorded exhibiting instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous disappearance and reappearance and numerous other "physically impossible" characteristics. Psychic effects have been repeatedly reported. Credible witnesses have reported UFOs that were vastly larger on the inside than they appeared from the outside.

A little novel from 1884 called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions has always fascinated me. The premise is that a world of two-dimensional circles, squares and triangles is interacting with a world of three-dimensional spheres and boxes and whatnot. When you think about it, what the denizens of a two-dimensional world would experience if a three-dimensional sphere were interacting with their world is almost exactly what UFO witnesses actually report.

I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm merely claiming to have a sufficient base of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon to know it defies simplistic or mundane explanations (and is way more mysterious and interesting than the JFKA). In fact, I regard even the ET hypothesis and Royell's "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis (as it's known) as among those that are too simplistic to explain the phenomenon. One ET hypothesis I regard as at least a mild possibility is that the phenomenon as we experience it is not the real phenomenon at all but rather a staged phenomenon generated by perhaps a single highly advanced ET source for purposes known only to it - more or less Jacques Vallee's control system idea.

[Michael Capasse]

Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.

I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:

1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.

I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.

  Witness testimony is the most unreliable. You were mistaken.

[Lance Payette]

Witness testimony is the most unreliable. You were mistaken.

Be that as it may, I heard two shots, saw one alien with a 30.06 in the third-portal window, and saw a different type of alien in a helmet exit the back door at a fast pace. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. My buddy heard three shots and thinks it was the fifth-portal window.

(My actual eyewitness testimony would be curious, even to me. This event was more than 50 years ago. I can recall it more vividly than any event in my life. I can tell you EXACTLY what I was thinking in the minute or so in which it unfolded, including how I tried to rationalize it. I can tell you EXACTLY, word for word, what I and my friend said. What I CANNOT tell you is what the craft looked like as it paced our car at close range. The best I can do is an extremely vague "dark, kinda thin and angular." That's it, as though the craft itself had been wiped from my memory. Whatever it was, both my friend and I IMMEDIATELY recognized this was something weird. There was NO conversation like "What's that funny-looking plane?" The actual conversation was "What ... the hell ... is THAT?" (me) followed by "Jesus Christ, do you see it too? I thought I was seeing things!" (my friend).)

[Michael Capasse]

Be that as it may, I heard two shots, saw one alien with a 30.06 in the third-portal window, and saw a different type of alien in a helmet exit the back door at a fast pace. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. My buddy heard three shots and thinks it was the fifth-portal window.

(My actual eyewitness testimony would be curious, even to me. This event was more than 50 years ago. I can recall it more vividly than any event in my life. I can tell you EXACTLY what I was thinking in the minute or so in which it unfolded, including how I tried to rationalize it. I can tell you EXACTLY, word for word, what I and my friend said. What I CANNOT tell you is what the craft looked like as it paced our car at close range. The best I can do is an extremely vague "dark, kinda thin and angular." That's it, as though the craft itself had been wiped from my memory. Whatever it was, both my friend and I IMMEDIATELY recognized this was something weird. There was NO conversation like "What's that funny-looking plane?" The actual conversation was "What ... the hell ... is THAT?" (me) followed by "Jesus Christ, do you see it too? I thought I was seeing things!" (my friend).)

Incredible isn't it? Someone could stand right next to you and claim the exact same thing. It could even be a stranger.
  In JFKA World, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Lance Payette]

Incredible isn't it? Someone could stand right next to you and claim the exact same thing. It could even be a stranger.
  It doesn't mean a damn thing.

I'm not following what windmill you're tilting at. Who said it meant a damn thing? It is what it is. Whether we're talking about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, the nature of ultimate reality, the ontological truth about the UFO phenomenon or even the historical truth about the JFKA, all we each can do is diligently inform ourselves, weigh the evidence and arguments as best we can, and arrive at the best set of convictions of which we are able. My direct experience with the UFO phenomenon is obviously going to factor into my thinking more than the thinking of anyone else, but even here I have to examine the event itself and my own thought processes and biases. That's why epistemology is such a fascinating branch of philosophy, at least to me.

An interesting philosophical question, it occurs to me is why posters such as yourself, who deal almost exclusively in snide one-liners, seem so perpetually dismissive and angry about almost everything - as though every thread were some sort of emotional, hot-button issue for you? It's quite fascinating. Perhaps you could seriously address why you consider this a worthwhile use of your time?

[Michael Capasse]

I'm not following what windmill you're tilting at. Who said it meant a damn thing? It is what it is. Whether we're talking about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, the nature of ultimate reality, the ontological truth about the UFO phenomenon or even the historical truth about the JFKA, all we each can do is diligently inform ourselves, weigh the evidence and arguments as best we can, and arrive at the best set of convictions of which we are able. My direct experience with the UFO phenomenon is obviously going to factor into my thinking more than the thinking of anyone else, but even here I have to examine the event itself and my own thought processes and biases. That's why epistemology is such a fascinating branch of philosophy, at least to me.

An interesting philosophical question, it occurs to me is why posters such as yourself, who deal almost exclusively in snide one-liners, seem so perpetually dismissive and angry about almost everything - as though every thread were some sort of emotional, hot-button issue for you? It's quite fascinating. Perhaps you could seriously address why you consider this a worthwhile use of your time?

it's quite simple really. A nutter's creed, often times abused:
Witness testimony is the most unreliable. Therefore mistaken. whenever.

[John Corbett]

I'm not sure of the point being made here. As a matter of fact, we do not know that "physical laws apply all over the cosmos." This is an assumption of science, without which science would be virtually impossible. So-called "laws" are actually subjective models that are sufficiently accurate to make science possible. One oft-cited example is that the laws of physics as we understand them simply do not operate ("break down") inside a black hole.

When I say UFOs have been observed and recorded doing "physically impossible" things, implied in this statement is something like "assuming our present understanding of the nature of reality is at least in the ballpark of being correct." If it isn't, then all bets are off - what seems physically impossible to us may be entirely possible in the context of a reality that is far different from what we now understand reality to be. One possibility that physicists no longer regard as implausible is that we actually occupy a virtual (i.e., simulated) reality or a consciousness-based reality rather than one that is fundamentally material.

I find it far more probable that the witnesses' judgement of flying objects doing things that are physically impossible is flawed.

The more highly regarded UFO theories include interactions with other dimensions or universes,

Again, it makes far more sense to question the judgement of the witnesses than to question our understanding of physical laws.

time travel (wild as that may sound), or manipulation of our reality from a higher reality (be it a deity, a cosmic software programmer, or whatever). Any of these scenarios could produce phenomena that appear to us to be physically impossible - but only because our understanding of reality is actually far off-base.

Either that or the eyewitness accounts are FUBAR. I know which one I am betting on.

UFOs have been observed and recorded exhibiting instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous disappearance and reappearance and numerous other "physically impossible" characteristics. Psychic effects have been repeatedly reported. Credible witnesses have reported UFOs that were vastly larger on the inside than they appeared from the outside.

What makes these witnesses credible?

A little novel from 1884 called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions has always fascinated me. The premise is that a world of two-dimensional circles, squares and triangles is interacting with a world of three-dimensional spheres and boxes and whatnot. When you think about it, what the denizens of a two-dimensional world would experience if a three-dimensional sphere were interacting with their world is almost exactly what UFO witnesses actually report.
[/quote]

All theoretical. No proof of additional dimensions.

I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm merely claiming to have a sufficient base of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon to know it defies simplistic or mundane explanations

It doesn't defy the explanation that eyewitnesses are very frequently wrong about what they thought they saw.

(and is way more mysterious and interesting than the JFKA). In fact, I regard even the ET hypothesis and Royell's "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis (as it's known) as among those that are too simplistic to explain the phenomenon. One ET hypothesis I regard as at least a mild possibility is that the phenomenon as we experience it is not the real phenomenon at all but rather a staged phenomenon generated by perhaps a single highly advanced ET source for purposes known only to it - more or less Jacques Vallee's control system idea.

The parallel with the JFKA is that a lot of people would prefer to believe something fantastic over the plain old boring truth.