electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
jpappl,
You are truly a breath of fresh air with respect to "average" or "common place" skepticism. Your skepticism is not steeped in sarcasm and belittling emotional pseudo comedic tones, which admittedly, I have grown exceedingly tired of.
I beg your patience to contemplate the following, POSSIBLE misappropriation of analogy:
I like your example about the man & the bear. In review:
The problem with your analogy is in the form of evidence you use to exemplify the effectiveness, in absolute terms, regarding the expert witness.
Let me explain please.
The bear in typical form must be removed from the attack oriented analogy equation because the bear represents an animate form of reality (ET). The expert witness in the case for UFOs is not examining ET or something animate, they, the expert witness, are examining a technological format apart from any form of life. They are not deducing the origin of the UFO either, they are strictly accessing by means of factual expert deduction what the technology is NOT. Therefore we must rearrange your analogy to fit the real context of the applied expert witness by allowing the bear to represent that which is inanimate.
We can still use the bear, but we must put the bear in context. This context (atmosphere/space) as an imaginary environment that is only occupied by ONE SINGLE form of technology as represented by the bear. That of mankind. So in fact, the bear is a monotypic species whose space/atmosphere bound populous consists of many different morphs, but only ONE origin of specie. So the victim in our analogy MUST be killed by a bear, or....????
Enter the expert:
Since we know in our present reality that only one earth bound species (mankind) has progressed to the point where his level of technological understanding has acquired him the ability to artificially navigate the realm of atmosphere/space, the bear in this analogized equation represents this monotypic origin of technology.
Men that are fully, and at the highest level of human understanding, trained in the recognition, design, navigation and all manner of scientifically monitored instrumentation of the bear, are called experts. When these men accompany and operate the bear in it's native environment, they must also be critically schooled in accurate perception within the bear's actuated atmosphere/space bound environment. When said expert deduces via his/her level of expertise, that what they themselves are witnessing is not in fact a bear, we are forced to arrive at the conclusion that there is more than one form of scientifically recognized technology/bear. This is called a paradigm shift.
Such a shift has occurred, whether recognized by skeptics as real or not, it has occurred nonetheless.
Now what this means, as I originally attempted to explain to SkinWalker, and subsequently lost patience doing so (my fault), is that there is in fact now two legitimate forms of recognized technology. One of human/bear origin and one that is not.
This does not mean that the origin of this technology is specifically ET. To go down that path is no less speculative than to purposed the hypothesis that possible via our own evolution as a species, we are just starting to recognize and perceive a different form of intelligence that originates right here on Earth. So you see, ET is NOT the only plausible explanation for that which is responsible in origin for what is seen in countless UFO sightings apart from mankind.
The theories for what are multi dimensional realities far and away exceeding the 4 basic dimensions we presently take for granted are STRONG. Very strong.
I will leave you with this my respected friend:
Who's to say or not, that on this earth that we live, intelligence as we understand it may in fact be an artifact of the human evolutionary process rather than a pentacle result. What if the human intellect itself is an environmental bonding agent for our present placement within this dimensional format? Maybe the intellect within mankind is no different than the facilitation for what was once aquatic life that evolved into more advanced land fairing life forms.
Just speculation, but worthy of consideration nonetheless.
You see, this may in fact not be a consideration for what is physical distance, but rather what is the state of humankind's present environmental adaptability and subsequent understanding.
You are truly a breath of fresh air with respect to "average" or "common place" skepticism. Your skepticism is not steeped in sarcasm and belittling emotional pseudo comedic tones, which admittedly, I have grown exceedingly tired of.
I beg your patience to contemplate the following, POSSIBLE misappropriation of analogy:
I like your example about the man & the bear. In review:
A man claims he was attacked by a bear in the park, others saw the bear as well. The park is miles away from the woods. The first call that would be made in that instance is to a local Zoo or wildlife shelter etc to determine if a bear is missing. They will assume there is a bear on the loose.
If the same man claims he was attacked by an ET, they have no basis for what that would be or where to even start looking, even with a description, they have no prior evidence of anything to draw any kind of conclusion other than the witness testimony. We have no proof that can substantiate it's existence the way it can for the bear, because we know not believe but know bears exist.
The closest I can relate it to is a court case trying to prove someone is guilty of a crime. If you are the prosecutor and you know there is not enough information to convict do you go to court. No. I am not ready to commit to that level of a belief yet.
In the court case you would make sure that you have all your ducks lined up.
The problem with your analogy is in the form of evidence you use to exemplify the effectiveness, in absolute terms, regarding the expert witness.
Let me explain please.
The bear in typical form must be removed from the attack oriented analogy equation because the bear represents an animate form of reality (ET). The expert witness in the case for UFOs is not examining ET or something animate, they, the expert witness, are examining a technological format apart from any form of life. They are not deducing the origin of the UFO either, they are strictly accessing by means of factual expert deduction what the technology is NOT. Therefore we must rearrange your analogy to fit the real context of the applied expert witness by allowing the bear to represent that which is inanimate.
We can still use the bear, but we must put the bear in context. This context (atmosphere/space) as an imaginary environment that is only occupied by ONE SINGLE form of technology as represented by the bear. That of mankind. So in fact, the bear is a monotypic species whose space/atmosphere bound populous consists of many different morphs, but only ONE origin of specie. So the victim in our analogy MUST be killed by a bear, or....????
Enter the expert:
Since we know in our present reality that only one earth bound species (mankind) has progressed to the point where his level of technological understanding has acquired him the ability to artificially navigate the realm of atmosphere/space, the bear in this analogized equation represents this monotypic origin of technology.
Men that are fully, and at the highest level of human understanding, trained in the recognition, design, navigation and all manner of scientifically monitored instrumentation of the bear, are called experts. When these men accompany and operate the bear in it's native environment, they must also be critically schooled in accurate perception within the bear's actuated atmosphere/space bound environment. When said expert deduces via his/her level of expertise, that what they themselves are witnessing is not in fact a bear, we are forced to arrive at the conclusion that there is more than one form of scientifically recognized technology/bear. This is called a paradigm shift.
Such a shift has occurred, whether recognized by skeptics as real or not, it has occurred nonetheless.
Now what this means, as I originally attempted to explain to SkinWalker, and subsequently lost patience doing so (my fault), is that there is in fact now two legitimate forms of recognized technology. One of human/bear origin and one that is not.
This does not mean that the origin of this technology is specifically ET. To go down that path is no less speculative than to purposed the hypothesis that possible via our own evolution as a species, we are just starting to recognize and perceive a different form of intelligence that originates right here on Earth. So you see, ET is NOT the only plausible explanation for that which is responsible in origin for what is seen in countless UFO sightings apart from mankind.
The theories for what are multi dimensional realities far and away exceeding the 4 basic dimensions we presently take for granted are STRONG. Very strong.
I will leave you with this my respected friend:
Who's to say or not, that on this earth that we live, intelligence as we understand it may in fact be an artifact of the human evolutionary process rather than a pentacle result. What if the human intellect itself is an environmental bonding agent for our present placement within this dimensional format? Maybe the intellect within mankind is no different than the facilitation for what was once aquatic life that evolved into more advanced land fairing life forms.
Just speculation, but worthy of consideration nonetheless.
You see, this may in fact not be a consideration for what is physical distance, but rather what is the state of humankind's present environmental adaptability and subsequent understanding.