An Alleged 1953 UFO Crash and Burial Near Garrison, Utah

[Red]

People say that about me a lot.

Well, I don't know you, but haven't noticed that based on this forum. I guess people say that about me a lot as well, however.

There doesn't seem to be a broadly accepted definition of scientific materialism. How would you distinguish it from methodological naturalism?

Since I actually just had to look up "methodical naturalism", it's a new concept to me, and until or unless I study the concept, I'm at a loss to really answer your question. I do believe it is possible for humans to access both abilities and knowledge other then by the scientific method. I had an aunt, who was a nun, who in the days leading up to her death, levitated several times. We witnessed this. We were not hallucinating, we witnessed this. In fact, I believe there should surely be an rational explanation for this, and once found, it should not overturn science at all, but should instead constitute a learning opportunity where our understanding of the nature of reality, and our own nature, is concerned, but it's hardly a reproducible phenomenon, and only serves to hint at abilities not generally acknowledged by science. Studying such things should expand our understanding of reality. But, in general, all such phenomena are dismissed as impossible.

There was a Russian woman, who was filmed by Russian scientists demonstrating PK. I do not believe fakery was ever demonstrated to be taking place. There are several YouTube videos of this, so people can at least make some judgement of what they are seeing. There has to be a natural explanation for that ability, but many scientists place it, and other so-called "psychic abilities" over in the "woo" category. I think we do a disservice to the goal of better understanding the universe, and our own nature, by relegating all this to "woo", that it is somehow all fake and not worth looking at for one second, or worth trying to incorporate it into models of reality. I suspect this will change. But these are difficult to reproduce in a lab, or summon at will, and parapsychology, despite the existence of academic departments and institutes devoted to such studies, it's not exactly highly regarded, or generally accepted as worthy of any study at all.

Is there a difference between scientific materialism and scientism?

Well, I often have my own definitions for terms, and in the case of Scientism, I define it as the attitude that only through the scientific method can we learn anything fundamental about nature and the universe. I guess I see scientism as raising science to the status of a faith, but I would have to think about this more. There may not be a substantive difference in my mind between the two.

Scientific materialism excludes as at all worthy of study phenomena that could be studied, in fact are studied, if we think of disciplines like parapsychology, and scientism is a belief that science alone results in accurate pictures of nature and the universe.

I have just seen, or myself experienced, too many things that come under the heading of "psychic phenomena" to be as easily dismissive as they usually are by those who see it all as "woo", as utter nonsense. Experience won't allow me to do that. But I do believe such things point to a better understanding of our own nature, and perhaps the nature of consciousness and the influence of mind on the material universe, so, really, I see such phenomenon as not outside reality at all, but simply not yet incorporated into our understanding of reality. It's not that they threaten science at all, they just go against the philosophical grain of science, as it were. And since they are often experienced subjectively, and can't be reproduced at will in a lab, I can at least recognize that's a big handicap.

 

[One Brow]

Scientific materialism excludes as at all worthy of study phenomena that could be studied, in fact are studied, if we think of disciplines like parapsychology, and scientism is a belief that science alone results in accurate pictures of nature and the universe.

While there are several skeptics who believe in some form of scientism, there are also many (including myself) who recognize the fundamental questions of worth, value, human rights, etc., can never have an answer in science.

I referred to methodological naturalism because I see science as a fundamentally material process of investigation. That means that, were you to posit some non-material phenomenon, science is basically unequipped to investigate it.

 

[Red]

One does not have to apply the advice offered here, once again by Avi Loeb, Chair of the Harvard astronomy dept., to crashed UFOs, or things fighter pilots see that they cannot comprehend, but, since talk of dogmatism in science has been part of this conversation, I did think this short essay was a timely read.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...wants-more-scientists-to-think-like-children/

QUESTION: What is one thing wrong with the world that you would change, and why?

The one thing I would change about the world is to transform my colleagues in academia to kids all over again, so they would follow the sincere path of learning about the world.

We are born innocent and humble, wondering about the world around us and trying to figure it out, initially without even having a language to express our findings. There is no bigger privilege to being alive than this learning experience. As kids, we tolerate mistakes and take risks because these are inseparable from the process of expanding our knowledge base. These aspects make most childhoods exciting and authentic.

But somewhere along the way, when some of these same kids join academia and are accorded the privilege of tenure, they lose the traits of childhood innocence and unbounded curiosity. As senior professors, they can get attached to their egos and navigate in directions that maximize awards, honors, and affiliation with prestigious societies or organizations. To enhance their reputations, tenured professors often tend to create “echo chambers” of students and postdocs who study theses with references to their papers and conference contributions. The loud echo amplifies the mentor’s influence in the academic community.

Is there anything wrong in this progression from childhood curiosity to academic fame? By chasing self-interest, we often lose track of the real goal of academic pursuit: learning about the world. This conflict is apparent when the popular view advocated by authority is not aligned with the truth.

One inevitably makes mistakes and takes risks when exploring the unknown. Even Albert Einstein argued, toward the end of his career, for the lack of “spooky action at a distance” in quantum mechanics, and against the existence of black holes and gravitational waves. We now know from experiments that those assertions were wrong. But the benefit of science is that we learn by making mistakes. If we will not allow ourselves to venture into the unknown, by assuming that the future will always resemble the past based on our gut feelings, we will never make discoveries.

Research can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By forecasting what we expect to find and using new data to justify prejudice, we will avoid creating new realities. Innovation demands risk-taking, sometimes contrary to our best academic instincts of enhancing our image within our community of scholars. Learning means giving a higher priority to the world around you than to yourself. Without the humble attitude of a child, innovation slows down and the efficiency of the academic pursuit of the truth grinds to a halt. We all become static museum items rather than dynamic innovators.

As Galileo reasoned after looking through his telescope, “in the sciences, the authority of a thousand is not worth as much as the humble reasoning of a single individual.” I would add the footnote that sometimes Mother Nature is kinder to innovative ideas than people are. When we study the world, there is a lot to worry about. But at the same time, there is a famous quote by Nachman of Breslov: “The whole world is nothing but a very narrow bridge, and the key is not to be fearful at all.”

The fundamental purpose of tenure is to enable individuals to take risks and venture into unexplored territories of knowledge without concern for the security of their jobs. Honors should be merely makeup on the face of academia, but they sometimes become an obsession.

Despite the notion that is often advanced by textbooks, our knowledge should be regarded as a small island in a vast ocean of ignorance. The most efficient way to add landmass to this island is by not being afraid of the consequences of originality, by being dedicated to the thrill of finding the truth irrespective of whether it boosts our ego or reputation as tenured professors.

We live for such a short period of time on one small planet out of a hundred-quintillion other habitable planets in the observable volume of the Universe. Let us not pretend that we are so special. Let us maintain some cosmic modesty and study the world sincerely, just like kids.

— ABRAHAM “AVI” LOEB
Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science
Chair, Astronomy Department

 

[Archie Moses]

I hate to share a Fox news clip with Tucker, but this isn't about them.

@colton what do you think about this guy's comments or credibility?



Lol @ all the people that deny UFOs and make fun of people who believe in them.

 

[fishonjazz]

I hate to share a Fox news clip with Tucker, but this isn't about them.

@colton what do you think about this guy's comments or credibility?



Lol @ all the people that deny UFOs and make fun of people who believe in them.

Do a lot of people deny UFO's and make fun of those that believe in them?
I rarely ever ever ever hear or read that. Most everyone I have ever heard talk about the existence of UFO's accepts the possibility.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Archie Moses]

Has anyone been watching the History Channel this week? I think it's something like UFO/Alien week and I've been enjoying some of this shows.


I was watching Ancient Aliens the other night before bed and it was the episode about Juan Diego, the peasant from Mexico who has a vision to build a church and to prove it, was given a bunch of roses and his tunic was turned into a picture of Mother Mary. It's actually really interesting and I enjoyed reading about him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Diego After Juan Diego the episode continues to talk about Joseph Smith and his visions. Haha. Cringe. The only thing they had right about UFOs and aliens in that episode is the Native Americans and their history with the star people.

I tell my gf that half of the show is entertaining bull **** and the other half is super interesting and informative.

 

[Archie Moses]

 

[LogGrad98]

Just curious, why does Joe Rogan always look like he is looking at people over a pair of spectacles? He always seems to have his head bent over and looking up at people like his neck doesn't work properly. Weird.

 

[Archie Moses]

Just curious, why does Joe Rogan always look like he is looking at people over a pair of spectacles? He always seems to have his head bent over and looking up at people like his neck doesn't work properly. Weird.

He likes to lean into the mic.

@Gameface - you're a navy dude, listen to this video. Would love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Red]

@Archie Moses, you might find this of interest....

https://www.dailygrail.com/2019/09/...lligence-be-a-search-for-alien-consciousness/

Late last year, legendary ufologist Jacques Vallee uploaded a quite extraordinary paper to his website, with little fanfare.

What makes me describe it that way? The amazing fusion of the knowledge base of the co-authors, and the topics it discusses in relation to future SETI strategies.

Firstly, the three authors of the paper:

• Jacques Vallee himself – a polymath known mostly for his status in the field of ufology, but who also holds higher degrees in astrophysics and computer science, is an award-winning novelist, a venture capitalist, and contributed to the foundations of the internet via his work for the ARPANET.
• Federico Faggin – physicist, engineer, entrepreneur and inventor, perhaps best known for designing the first commercial microprocessor, the Intel 4004.
• Garry Nolan – a renowned professor of microbiology and immunology with Stanford University (head of the ‘Nolan Lab’). Nolan was in the news last year for his investigation of the Atacama ‘alien mummy’ (and is also rumoured to be the pseudonymous ‘James’ in Diana Walsh Pasulka’s American Cosmic).

As for the topics? While the title of the paper – “Towards Multi-Disciplinary SETI Research” (PDF) – might sound like a generic call for astronomers to work with academics in other fields, in actuality the authors are suggesting that SETI consider ideas from fields including parapsychology, consciousness research, anomalies and ufology.

 

[Zombie]

Federico Faggin

High School must have been brutal for this guy

 

[Gameface]

He likes to lean into the mic.

@Gameface - you're a navy dude, listen to this video. Would love to hear your thoughts.

I watched some of the video. I've also mentioned a couple times I was on the Nimitz when that happened. It was definitely a buzz on the ship for a day or two.

 

[babe]

I see some erudite knat-straining by OB a few posts up. Definitions of stuff, neat labels.

"Science" is not exclusive of material or natural things we can test, it covers everything. It's root is "knowing", presumably knowing things as they are.

Some things are within reach by our observational powers and instruments, where we can discuss the equipment design and capabilities and measure things like precision vs. accuracy and compile data if we will. Some things are not.

We can still posit hypotheses and logically expound on any subject all we want, but as always our ideas are no better than our data, so far as proof goes. But having ideas is always better than just not bothering.

I consider tales like levitation, psychokinesis, and other stuff like that marginally within reach of our observation and equipment, but subject to a large number of unknown variables we cannot really deal with.

I consider spiritual things real enough, and comprising a set of principles for knowing stuff that is outside of our present sphere of investigation, but solidly within the definitions and methods of science in an ultimate, or future sense of our capabilities. But it is good to remember the difference between stuff we can objectively study and stuff that just happens inside our brains or hearts. Should not just expect anyone to be convinced on our say-so.

Probably a good thing to classify our efforts with precise definitions and labels, but expect the definitions to sorta fail sometimes.

I still think the Garrison report is just false. Made up story. I went there and kicked around. Great tales on Coast to Coast include a lot of pure spinning imagination.

Having seen some UFO-like stuff, I just think it's me that doesn't know. Probably some folks around who do know but should not tell.

As a veteran CtoC student, I'd say about 50% of the stuff is just made up tales. Aliens, remote viewing, abductions, most of the UFOs. But then I don't doubt some are real. I wonder about levitation, in the case of proto-cadaver.... as being gas somehow. Could be good or evil in it if it's not just gas or whatever. What I've known of it, I consider evil.

I do think there are demonic beings who can make home in some people and do stuff. A non-demonic being(angel?) would not be doing stuff for an exhibition to wow a crowd. But I have personally been protected by angels, given facts beyond my other ways of knowing..... warned, led.... I think the Kiva spirits are evil, not good..... but know nothing about them, really. Mental states induced by fasting, any kind of drug.... impaired. Bad "driving", as I suppose it could be.

I could not disbelieve in God or angels. Or the Devil. uhmmm..... about "remote viewing"..... as a power of human will, no. As a gift from God, yes. Literally, a true dream. As an evil imitation, if we are trying to exert power ourselves, likely. Might not be a true view then.

I accept loose logic when people are talking about non-material stuff. I require data for conclusions on climate..... enough data to reliably describe the whole system, which we are far from having at present.

But wow, is there a lot of study going on. Good times.

 

[Gameface]

@Archie Moses

I had actually watched a different Rogan podcast about this. So I just got done watching this one.

Starting at around 17:45 I think he says something that I can confirm. First, this was a topic of conversation on the ship, but it was in casual conversation. My Senior Chief I think talked to the guy in the video, and he was the biggest gossip (scuttlebutt if we want to use Navy terms) about this that I had direct contact with. As I've said a bunch of times here on Jazzfanz (and I think the first time I mentioned it was at least 5 years ago) they were not calling it a "tic tac" when I heard the story, they were calling it a "twinkie." I know that's not an important detail, as both those things are shaped roughly the same, but I'm just saying, the day this event happen I never heard the term "tic tac," the story I heard was about a flying twinkie.

But the thing I want to say is that, as he says in the video, this info was never controlled or contained. It was all over the ship (over 5000 people) and there was never any kind of effort to stop anyone from saying anything they knew, heard, whatever. There was also not any acknowledgement of it from the captain or anything in any official capacity that had any contact with me. It was a peculiar thing that happened that people talked to each other about and it created a buzz and that lasted about a day, then it was back to the daily routine of being on a ship.

 

[Archie Moses]

@Archie Moses

I had actually watched a different Rogan podcast about this. So I just got done watching this one.

Starting at around 17:45 I think he says something that I can confirm. First, this was a topic of conversation on the ship, but it was in casual conversation. My Senior Chief I think talked to the guy in the video, and he was the biggest gossip (scuttlebutt if we want to use Navy terms) about this that I had direct contact with. As I've said a bunch of times here on Jazzfanz (and I think the first time I mentioned it was at least 5 years ago) they were not calling it a "tic tac" when I heard the story, they were calling it a "twinkie." I know that's not an important detail, as both those things are shaped roughly the same, but I'm just saying, the day this event happen I never heard the term "tic tac," the story I heard was about a flying twinkie.

But the thing I want to say is that, as he says in the video, this info was never controlled or contained. It was all over the ship (over 5000 people) and there was never any kind of effort to stop anyone from saying anything they knew, heard, whatever. There was also not any acknowledgement of it from the captain or anything in any official capacity that had any contact with me. It was a peculiar thing that happened that people talked to each other about and it created a buzz and that lasted about a day, then it was back to the daily routine of being on a ship.

Tic tacs have the exact same shape as twinkies other than twinkies are flat on the bottom. I imagine someone said, if you want people to take you seriously stop calling it a damn twinkie.

That's cool you were on the same ship. There are skeptics that say it was radar malfunctions or natural phenomenon. The thing that gets me is 4 different guys watched it with their naked eyes.

The 2015 Gimbal video is even better. Those guys were seeing UFOs every day. They split one and almost hit it.

The other creepy thing is and the video doesn't show it, there was a fleet of them flying in formation.

 

[Archie Moses]

I referred to methodological naturalism because I see science as a fundamentally material process of investigation. That means that, were you to posit some non-material phenomenon, science is basically unequipped to investigate it.

It's man, not science that's unequipped to investigate it.

Mankind is still in the infancy of understanding science. As we advanced, we'll be better at investigating it.

 

[Gameface]

Tic tacs have the exact same shape as twinkies other than twinkies are flat on the bottom. I imagine someone said, if you want people to take you seriously stop calling it a damn twinkie.

That's cool you were on the same ship. There are skeptics that say it was radar malfunctions or natural phenomenon. The thing that gets me is 4 different guys watched it with their naked eyes.

The 2015 Gimbal video is even better. Those guys were seeing UFOs every day. They split one and almost hit it.

The other creepy thing is and the video doesn't show it, there was a fleet of them flying in formation.

Advanced radars, and especially the ones I had first hand experience with (and I was in the Combat Direction Center as my "battle station" sitting next to the composite radar display of the SSDS operator) have anomalies. The SSDS system would try to create a single "target" from multiple radar and other sensors and you'd get "doubles" "ghosts" and anomalies. The USS Princeton had AEGIS and I've never worked with that system at all. I can only assume they saw abnormal things and thought they were anomalies.

The pilots accounts are absolutely the most credible things I've ever heard to suggest something other than "normal."

That said, it leaves me at... things were seen that can't be readily explained. That's where I'm at.

I mean I could get into ghost stories from when I was a kid. Freaky ****, but I don't think ghosts exist. I just think I had experiences that got interpreted by my mind in weird ways. So I'm a skeptic, even when I see things with my own eyes.

 

[Archie Moses]

Advanced radars, and especially the ones I had first hand experience with (and I was in the Combat Direction Center as my "battle station" sitting next to the composite radar display of the SSDS operator) have anomalies. The SSDS system would try to create a single "target" from multiple radar and other sensors and you'd get "doubles" "ghosts" and anomalies. The USS Princeton had AEGIS and I've never worked with that system at all. I can only assume they saw abnormal things and thought they were anomalies.

The pilots accounts are absolutely the most credible things I've ever heard to suggest something other than "normal."

That said, it leaves me at... things were seen that can't be readily explained. That's where I'm at.

I mean I could get into ghost stories from when I was a kid. Freaky ****, but I don't think ghosts exist. I just think I had experiences that got interpreted by my mind in weird ways. So I'm a skeptic, even when I see things with my own eyes.

I don't believe in ghosts and never had an experience, but learning about different dimensions and quantum physics, who knows. There are many who think they've been abducted by aliens who I believe are simply experiencing sleep paralysis.

DMT is another thing that gives me chills. I've seen and read dozens of accounts and the different stages of tripping. There's some weird **** that people see, but they all see, pretty much the same things - just like the natives. I'm definitely skeptical of interdimensional beings and travel, but it's an entertaining rabbit hole to go down. Lucid dreaming, astral projection, shamanic travel, spirit guides, out of body experiences are all wild to me too.

If you're comfortable, share your ghost story.

I'm not sure if I've shared my UFO story, but I will later. I saw one in Provo of all places.

 

[Gameface]

I don't believe in ghosts and never had an experience, but learning about different dimensions and quantum physics, who knows. There are many who think they've been abducted by aliens who I believe are simply experiencing sleep paralysis.

DMT is another thing that gives me chills. I've seen and read dozens of accounts and the different stages of tripping. There's some weird **** that people see, but they all see, pretty much the same things - just like the natives. I'm definitely skeptical of interdimensional beings and travel, but it's an entertaining rabbit hole to go down. Lucid dreaming, astral projection, shamanic travel, spirit guides, out of body experiences are all wild to me too.

If you're comfortable, share your ghost story.

I'm not sure if I've shared my UFO story, but I will later. I saw one in Provo of all places.

My "ghost" stories are from when I was very young and mostly happened as I was trying to fall asleep. But the memories I have, one in particular, are very powerful and it's hard to just shake it off.

I'm going to go to sleep but I have no problem recounting one or two of my odd experiences maybe today or tomorrow.

 

[jazzrule]

Rosewell - I believe there were more than one craft discovered there too. The more I've researched Rosewell the more convinced I am that there was a UFO crash and the crafts, along with aliens were recovered. There are a lot of credible sources (to me) who witnessed something far different than weather balloons.

I could list a ton of alleged UFO crash recoveries from the Aztec, NM crash (I'm not sold on this) to 1967 Sudan Cube crash to the Russians, but I'm sure some of them are either hoaxes or not as credible. To me though, there are a lot of credible US military officials who's accounts make believing in UFOs well, not all that hard.

I've witnessed a UFO myself that 100% was not of this world (at least to my knowledge.)

Utah has a lot of UFO history if you're interested in learning about. I'm in Great Falls, MT right now and there's been a lot of cool UFO incidents that have happened around here and Helena too. There's just a lot of unexplainable **** that happens regarding UFOs. I believe.

Here's a cool breakdown of a UFO sighting near Beaver, UT.

It is Roswell not Rosewell. Your right though one crashed there. Many vehicles and men showed up to the crash site and took everything away, then they claimed it was a weather balloon. Why would you send many vehicles and men to pick up a downed weather balloon.
I think I saw a UFO myself. I was on guard duty in a foxhole in the desert of New Mexico close to the Mexico border. I saw a red object going super fast over the mountain range in the distance and it suddenly made a 90 degree turn straight up and disappeared. That happened back in the late 60s, and we had nothing capable of that.