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.

Is Peace Possible???

We understand the concept of peace. We also understand that it is a fallacy. Or do we??

Our evolution, or really evolution in general, has it's basis on defining adaptations that allow a species to survive within a habitat. In so many words, evolution is about finding resources as effectively as possible in order to propogate a species own existence. And as determined by nature apparently, our bodies and the protiens associated can change over time as needed for successful generational livelihood.

In spite of the need to utilize certain resources, we are unique in the fact that we have defined this abstract idea called peace. Peace: a place or philosphy where all humans can get along without destroying each other or hording neccessary resources. A place where we can share the fruits of the planet. Where everyone has adequate shelter, food, medicine, and happiness. But is thes utopian ideology a realistic future?? And why would we have even defined such a philosophy if it were not possible??

I don't know that peace is a genuine probability. I think that embedded in our DNA is the code for aggressive behavior. We all need to eat. We all would like somewhere to live. We would all like to be happy. But in the pursuit of this comes competition. We can't all eat lobster. We can't all live on the beach in mutli-million dollar homes. The need and desire for certain resources is the death of possible peace. Until we can become a society that values equality across all resource needs we will never become a global peaceful civilization.

But the one thing I find interesting is the deep implications of DNA. We are on the verge of changing ourselves, perhaps in drastic ways. Can we find the aggressiveness gene? The one that neccessarily inhibits and snuffs out peace. It is beyond our control to try and become peaceful on our own (so to speak). That is, perhaps it IS within our grasp to become peaceful. But only by internal DNA manipulation. And this would create such a uniqueness to whatever species we might call it, that it would certainly be a one-of-a-kind. An organism that doesn't seek vital resources for itself only, but calmly and deliberately looks out for the good of everyone.

My thoughts are a bit mixed on this, because if we were to change ourselves into a non-aggressive entity, would it also change and undermine our individualism?? Our indivdual values, morals, and beliefs. As it would seem, this is the nature of being a conscious intelligent human. So, in a sense, perhaps peace is not all it is cracked up to be even if it were possible. So long as there are desireable things, peace will not exist. And without desireable things, what worth is life?? It seems to be quite paradoxical although superficially we attempt to look at peace as the ultimate rung of theoretical society. Hmmmm.

The Provenance of UFO's

One thing we find with UFO sightings is that they still don't seem to shed any light on the issue of provenance. Where do they come from?? What are they?? What is their origin?? This problem makes for unrealistic scientific inquiries. Science is based on observation, experiments, testable hypotheses and so forth. Usually, when presented with a scientific problem, observations help. In this case observations of UFO's hurts

The collection of sightings and continued observations is supposed to make the science better. It doesn't. And this is why UFO's, at this point, are not a scientific problem. Science as we know it cannot solve the UFO question until more verifiable data is unveiled. So what is the problem??

One of the problems is that UFO's are an evolving phenomena. Sure they tend to be discs, lights in the sky, triangles or boomerangs, or even weirdly constructed craft, but they continue to get mixed with all sorts of prosiac phenomenon as well. And that prosaic stuff is changing.

We have been in a technological age that builds new, many times secret, aircraft. And these aircraft have to be tested. We now have true drone craft. Unmanned craft that can pull off manuevers that human pilots cannot withstand. Again they need to be flown many times to test their construction. We also have satellites that can become highly visible from the ground. The Internation Space Station has been the culprit of many UFO encounters. So has the development and subsequent testing of American spy planes.

We also have many gadgets and toys that are airborn. We haven't always had all the different spectrum of flying objects in our sky. So as we are unfamiliar with many of these objects, they become the source for many UFO sightings. Then we also have even more complex hoaxers out ther as well. Lanterns in the sky. Balloons that carry timed LED flashing lights. More and more of this has been happening. All the while these hoaxes are observed by unsuspecting people and are reported.

Meanwhile if there are some real intelligently controlled non-human craft, it often or always, will be carried with the muddy array of the above mentioned. This is why, or at least one reason why, we cannot source UFO's. There is simply too much and more to come. I can't really propose a way aroud this. Ufologists have to be careful and perhaps try to classify better these sightings. Perhaps with responsible and detailed classification we can begin to recognize the lanterns, the ballons, the flares, and so forth. Not to mention the meteors, space junk, lenticular clouds, Venus, ordinary planes, flaming oil wells, and frisbees.

The subjectivity of humans seeing these phenomenon doesn't help either. Because what we may find is that people don't really describe what they actually objectively saw. They mix this in and distort the sighting with what they want to see. They may want to unconsciously be a part of something greater than themselves. And this feeling may seep into their descriptions of "something not from this world". When in truth it could have been something much simpler.

Newly developed aircraft, toys, satellites, and hoaxers all present us without a source for true UFO's. While I don't discount real UFO's, I tend to think that there is less in the numerous observations than more. It is up to the intelligences to reveal themselves if they so desire to be known. And that hasn't happened. I doubt it will happen any time soon. Until then, expect observations to weaken even the validity and acceptance of the UFO reality.

The Evidence Buildup on Mars

I'm just saying that we're certainly going to find life before it finds us. Or should I say that we will find life before any intelligent non-human life reveals itself to us??

Perhaps in the billions of years of our universes evolution there have been intelligent beings (besides ourselves, if we can count ourselves among the intelligent). Perhaps these beings have traversed space and maybe even time. Heck, thats what we are doing. At least the travel through space part. But I wouldn't bet the unveiling of intelligent hidden enigmatic beings precedes our exploration and curious will to hunt life down.

The one tipping point that might thrust a paradigm reality shift is the discovery of something alive. Or even evidence of something that used to be alive. And I think this is what the Mars research is building to. The evidence is starting to pile up. We think there was water. No wait, there seems to have been water. No wait again, there was a lot of water. Actually there was so much water that it formed deltas and large lakes as seen from the MRO.

So the elusive, while seemingly closer, remains elusive. Where is it?? Where is the life?? We're getting closer and I still hold out the probability that we find it in my lifetime. I say the odds are good. Wait and see.