Demarcating UAP hypotheses

Copyright ©2014

Regularly updated Homepage

(List of all posts)

Deutsche Version: Abgrenzung von UAP -Hypothesen

As I made it clear in my introduction, I consider it a gross mistake to uphold the dichotomy between „known causes“ on the one hand and „extraterrestrial spaceships“ on the other hand.

This hinders fruitful discussions between honest seekers and all too often leads to confrontations very reminiscent of the American culture war.

Picture of a UFO seen in Hessdalen, Norway. It looks like a yellow trail.

The mysterious UFOs of Hessdalen.

And so I set out to provide my readers with an (incomplete) list of all options one can envisage while encountering an unknown aerial phenomenon.

It is by no means absolute and I am willing to modify the list as time goes by if I deem it useful.

Let us suppose you’ve recently been frightened, delighted or puzzled by a strange thing between the sun and your head you could not identify.

Here are several (non-exhaustive) possibilities.

1) IAP: an (Identified Atmospheric Phenomenon) you did not recognize, perhaps owing to a lack of knowledge

  These IAPs include natural events as well as known human creations.

2) Illusions or false perceptions related to a known phenomenon

3) Full-fleshed hallucination: you saw something which purely sprang out of your mind. 

 

4) UNAP (Unidentified Natural Atmospheric Phenomenon): you attended to a yet undiscovered natural spectacle.

5) a) SAP (Secret Atmospheric Phenomenon): your weird experience hearkens back to a purely earthly secret man-made phenomenon very few people under the sun are aware of. 

5) b) PWE (Psychological Warfare Experiment): the sighting (or at least its publication) is an experiment of psychological warfare.
6) UPE (Unknown Psychological Experience): the sighting was caused by inner mental processes which are not yet understood while being compatible with our current mainstream psychology. 


7) UPPE (Unknown ParaPsychological Experience): the sighting was caused
by inner mental processes which are not yet understood and cannot be accounted for by reductionist neuroscience. 

8) UI (Unknown Intelligence): the cause of your encounter was an unknown form of intelligence, which in turn might be a(n):


8) a) EI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence): Space Alien

  8) b) II (Intra-dimensional Intelligence): intelligent being from another dimension or parallel universe

 8) c)  SI (Spiritual Intelligence): spiritual, immaterial being 

8 d)  TT (Time traveler): one of our far descendants visiting us
The green lines regroup what I call the „Null Hypothesis“: the sighting can be entirely accounted for with our current knowledge.

The blue lines regroup unknown phenomena which are not (too) outlandish.

The yellow lines regroup all explanations at odds with our current worldview.
An UAP is any atmospheric phenomenon not accountable by the null hypothesis.
While many debunkers frenetically attempt to pigeonhole every case into the „Null Hypothesis“ by resorting to incredibly unlikely ad-hoc hypotheses, a very small minority of them is open to the possibility there are genuinely unknown cases belonging to the blue category.

But if you opt for the yellow category transcending our current worldview, there is no doubt they’ll see you as a crank crackpot and often treat you accordingly.
Of course, there are many cases where we don’t reliably know into which category a given sighting should fall owing to a pervasive lack of information.
I think that while debating about a particular sighting, the first question should always be:

I) „Can the sighting be taken into account through the „Null Hypothesis“ or does it stem from truly unknown causes?“.

If the second case proves true, we might ask:

II) „Is the unknown cause consistent with our present knowledge?“

If not:

III) „Is it only the product of our own extended mind?“

If not:

IV) „What kind of unknown intelligent beings is he or she or it?“
I think that in the overwhelming majority of cases I’m going to analyze, I will only try to answer to Question I) using reasonable standards of evidence employed in mundane fields of inquiry.

I might perhaps be able to negatively answer Question II), but I strongly doubt I could further go in the analysis due to the incredibly meager amount of data  such far-reaching conclusions must stand upon.
I do hope, however, you now have the feeling we could be spending delicious moments discussing on these themes 🙂

Smiling ET in a saucer.

(I presume that many of my readers would be delighted to encounter this funny ET)

 

Regularly updated Homepage

(List of all posts)

Advertisements
Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

2 Antworten zu Demarcating UAP hypotheses

  1. Pingback: Homepage | Shards of Magonia / Scherben von Magonia

  2. Pingback: Valentich’s disappearance: case closed? | Shards of Magonia / Scherben von Magonia

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s