Spaceman Photo

I remembered this photo as the "Spaceman Photo". I don't know much about this episode, other than the photo. And that it is a rather perplexing photo. Strange enough to be true??
http://www.ufologie.net/indexe.htm

The Universe and the Need for Life

We live in a day and age where theoretical physics is indistinguishible from nonsense. Wormholes, alternative universes, string theory, M-Brane theory, quantum theory, etc. It seems the world around us at the simplest levels is quite simply beyond reason. Beyond comprehension, beyond even basic logic. We keep searching for, and have done for decades, particles that we don't know exist. We don't even understand light, gravity, and the birth of the universe in any satisfying way.

Perhaps I'm being too critical. These problems are quite complex and we have basically only begun. I admire the scientific endeavors. Maybe it is surprising to some, the amount of bizzare diversity we find when looking for explanations to seemingly simplistic problems. One question I have internally pondered recently is the existence of life. And I suppose I'm assuming there is life throughout the universe, but it doesn't matter much in the consideration.

What is it about the universe that life needed to develop?? Would it not be a functional universe if life had not developed?? Did life need to develop?? It seems the only answer is yes, because it indeed did manifest. So while we look at possible reasons how life sprouted: RNA configurations to DNA molecules, evolution, primordal soup, simple to complex, it doesn't answer the why. WHY??

Why is it that mass (atoms, physical stuff) developed into something that could move around, look for sustenence, replicate, observe and adapt?? The whole idea of non-living stuff somehow turning into useful, living stuff is spellbinding. It seems to me that there is a reason why this came to be. Randomness doesn't answer the why question. Is there, at the most basic level, any difference between life and non-life?? Quite possibly they are the same thing. But people distinguish the two because they appear and act quite differently. Rocks are not alive. People are. Plants are. Crystals are not.

Some new agers like to say how the universe is becoming aware of itself. I am decidedly not a crystal rubber, but they may actually be on to something. Because the thought also occurs to me that a universe where observations are made are among the aspects we find. We make plenty of experimental observations. Light changes depending on what an observer is doing. Time changes based on observer speed. Perhaps the whole point of the universe is that self awareness is a pervasive growing spectrum through space and time. A sort of seed, dormant in some areas and firmly rooted in others. Maybe the universe is one big organism that has become transformed. And is continually growing, .. and learning.

And while we recently find that observations may indicate a holographic nature to the universe, however ridiculous that might sound, those observations might be clues into the true working of what we experience. Call it randomness, call it god, but the apparent NEED for life among the cosmos is more than we can comprehend at this time.

What did Lonnie Zamora see??

There are a few things about this case that don't seem to be in question.
1. Lonnie Zamora is of the highest caliber of witness. He was a police officer, rather quiet, and performed his job well. To nearly all investigators, his credibility is impeccable.
2. Lonnie Zamora saw something. Taking into account his credibility and the evidence left behind, it has become increasinly clear that, indeed, the incident did happen as Zamora described.

The first two videos give a synopsis of the case.

Zamora Part 1

Zamora Part 2

This last video has three parts. One attempts to explain what might have been seen by looking into technologies that were being tested at the time the sighting occurred. The next part of the video shows clips from principal investigators including Hynek. And some classic Rod Serling as well. The last part includes excerps from Unsolved Mysteries seen in the above two videos.


I can't say what he might have seen. A lunar module seems unlikely given the morphology of craft described and sketched. A very interesting case indeed. Especially interesting is the sound and propulsion. At least when the craft lifted off the ground. After that, Zamora describes the sound stopping. Apparently complete silence. So, while I look further into this, my questions:

1. If it were a lunar lander wouldn't the sound be continuous??
2. By this time, couldn't we measure the dimensions of lunar landers or other known craft being tested and compare them with the landing feet dimensions of the Zamora craft?
3. Was such known craft operated with and tested with two people??
3.

Japan Airlines UFO and Related Alaskan Sightings

I do solemly swear that I acknowledge that this film was produced by the History Channel. The programs purpose is to get people to watch. I know a little about this caes as I post this. I'll look into it some more. Interesting if true.

In the meantime here is the NICAP Report by Bruce Maccabee

Several points in this case seem to be in dispute.

1. Weather Radar- from the aircraft, weather radar was used and verified a target. However the target was faint. Present, .. but faint. It was almost as if the target was rain, but there was no rain. Speculation on this point posits that the target may have been ice crystals, but this seems unlikely.

2. Ground radar confirmation. Conversations during the sighting revealed that ground radar had identified a target. Apparently, after the FAA investigation, this target was confirmed to be uninvolved with the sighting. I have no verification of this, but was allegedly in the FAA report. I haven't been able to locate this report anywhere online and don't know where to look. Any help would be appreciated either pointing me to the report or confirming this discrepency.

It is still an interesting sighting. Apparently also the pilot has had numerous "UFO" sightings after this initial one. And he even said that one of them was likely refraction from frozen ice crystals. Skeptics like to point out these numerous sightings, one of misidentification, to squash out any credibility on his observation skills. But other co-pilots saw the UFO in question albeit at a different, less visible, vantage point. And something WAS caught on weather radar. And it is not the only sighting we have seen in Alaska.

Father William Gills UFO Account

I find this to quite an interesting account that many people have never heard of.

Is the Singularity Possible??

I can't say that I'm any type of expert on this singularity business, but I'll give it a go. The singularity is a point we may or may not reach where technology and computing power becomes so sophisticated that the machines themselves might not be distinguishable from man. And, in fact, man and machine may merge into a cyborg type of creature. We may basically render ourselves immortal in that a consciousness may survive and live in the empty computing world or may be planted into any number of forms as so desired.

There are many different configurations of what the singularity may entail. And while I do deem some of it wishful scientific fiction, I can't say that we would not see at least some of the singularity unfold. Even as soo as the current generation. Computing power is still building fast. Genetics and bioengineering is becoming big business. We are learning and revising the way we look at living organisms on nearly a daily basis. Cosmology has taken giant steps to uncovering the mysteries of the universe. Physics is in the same boat and perhaps in the giant cruise ship to the land of barely detectable pieces of fundamental matter. LHC for short. Science is just plain busy.

I recently listend to a Scientific American podcast about this issue. They claim that the singularity is plain old fiction. It just won't and apparently cannot happen. They say that the mind and consciousness is too complex to ever foresee it on DVD any time soon. Then they go on to say that they really know NOTHING about the mind-body relationship. They have no clues why consciousness exists or even HOW it exists. But for some reason they are determined to undermine the notion of a singularity. In a nutshell they posit, "We know nothing about consciousness, but we know it CAN NOT go on indefinitely and will never become part of some technology". So, ... they know nothing, but they know something. Got it.

They might be right. But the fact that they acknowledge their ignorance then reject possibilities doesn't make sense to me. The mind is complex. Perhaps the mind cannot exist without the body. But maybe it can. Either way we have an extravagant, lovely, poetic arrangement of elements, compounds, molecules, organs, and so forth that make up us. Living, breathing, thinking, self aware, intelligent humans. So, if this complex configuration of molecules is the natural substances that make up our consciousness, then why couldn't it be theoretically be copied?? We are basically copying a database of points. An unbelievable one, but still a natural set of data points. With the advancement of already intricate technologies, is it beyond comprehension that we might be able to do this someday?? Perhaps not in Kurzweils lifetime, but maybe his grandsons son??

I don't find reason to reject this idea. If it is theoretically possible, then science should meet the challenges that the question poses. Science is about answering questions, but sometimes it seems as if the scientific community by in large has it's mind already made up. I think science should embrace this idea. It is one way to try and study what consciousness really is. Is it a complex arrangement of molecules?? Because if it isn't, then that opens another avenue. Consciousness comes from elsewhere and is not indicitive and local to the physical body. That type of conclusion might have creationists hopping for joy and scientists leaping from ivory towers. And for the Buddhists, the song will remain the same.

Layers of Perceptual Reality

I was out for a walk with my kids. We were at a nearby state park ambly making our way around a small lake. Stooping to pick up various autumn leaves and anything else that seemed of interest. Enjoying the sunshine and the coolness the shadows provided on this October mid day. What I saw and heard next was surprising, out of the ordinary, and left me to ponder what reality really is.

From my periphery I sensed movement down the concrete walkway towards myself and kids. My back, or rather my sdie was faced towards the oncoming party. I then heard some low growling like that from an unsure dog. Not expecting nor desiring an experience where my daughter, in a zombie like trance, is immediately involutarily drawn to this dog, I wheeled around. I was surprised, not to see a dog, but a lady running down a slope of the trail making these sounds.

She was carrying a bag and in tattered clothes, presumably homeless. Running. Feet flopping. Head straight, Growling. Something was going on inside her head, I could but guess what it might be. Another younger girl walked behind her. And I thought maybe this was a mental patient out for a walk with her "gaurdian" or something. But the young girl paced up in front of the other and walked by without any type of aknowledgement. As if she wanted to get in front and be gone. I think the growling lady was by herself. And seeing something like that is ....

Hard to describe I guess. You feel bad for the lady and even sad for her. And as I'm enjoying the warmth of the periodic shafts of sunlight I am thrown into the uncomfortable position of pondering her reality. In each case, while our perception of her is becoming of sadness or helplessness, her perception is decidedly different. But probably no less important. As the subjectiveness of our own percieved realities are the only basis for the scaffolding of discovery and inquiry to our world, we must admit and realize that a part of this, perhaps a large part, is chemically induced. Hormones, drugs, and other environmental conditions can and do affect the reality of those surrounding. And reality is in the mind of the beholder.

And when we try to strip away the onion layers of perceptual reality we might find that no layer is unimportant. And if we strip away all the layers, is there an ultimate reality or is it contingent on an observer?? And as this post is a mess of fragmented thoughts from my perspective, I almost envy those with a more distinct vivid sense of what I determine to be lunacy. Life may be much simpler if you succumb easily to grand ideas, religions, philosophies, and ideologies. And life may be quite subjectively skewed with the presence of altering molecules. While the question of behavior and perception is usually a nature or nurture answer, the fact seems to be both of these play significant parts with neither one playing less of a role.

Yea, my most non-sensical post yet.