UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, May 23, 2016

Plants with NI (natural intelligence) are more dangerous that machines with AI (artificial intelligence)

This goes to the heart of my meager theses posed here earlier that intelligent plants may be piloting UFOs: The Thing From Another World scenario.

A number of books and documentaries, going way back to a Disney treatment in the late 1950s, indicate that plant life is sentient (conscious and thinking).

This book – What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses by Daniel Chanovitz (Ph.D, Director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences, Tel Aviv University) [Scientific American/Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, NY, 2012] -- is a must read for those inclined to think plants may be a thinking species on this planet (and maybe elsewhere).

My academic pal, Bryan Sentes, is enamored of hallucinogenic derivatives from plants, and not too inclined to accept the potential dangers of machine intelligence (AI).

But let me propose this…

Plants have been on the Earth, evolving from the earliest eons of Earth’s existence, making it through the asteroid catastrophe that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs and also living through The Great Death that wiped out over 90% of Earth’s living creatures.

Proof that plants think is a given in most scientific quarters.

Let’s assume that plants decide to take over this planet or have evolved elsewhere in the cosmos and are visiting us with he goal of taking control of our watery planet for their own salvation and progeneration – The Thing From Another World scenario, again.
Plants, now, can drug humanity – Bryan Sentes and his academic cronies, for example – by addicting them to the point of stupor. Or plants can provide toxins that eliminate Earth’s species that feed or who struggle to eradicate plants (weeds et cetera).

A wholesale assault by plant life, coming together to protect its life-forms, or to inhabit the planet, from afar (via UFOS), is much more nefarious than the potential danger from intelligent machines via AI.

And my friend Bryan Sentes should be more concerned, adopting entheogens as a path to human transcendence, than by denying the death march coming our way by AI machines.

We should all be worried that advanced, evolved plant life from another world may already be scouring this planet for a take-over. After all they do seem awfully interested in plant life here, as many UFO witnesses report.

RR

Saturday, May 21, 2016

For Bryan Sentes, Joel Crook, Jose Antonio Caravaca, et al.

I ordered this book:
Although The U.S. Postal Service reported it was delivered, it wasn't and I have to check why it wasn't in our mail box when I got home Saturday [5/21/16].

You can see, from the content listing, that many of the questions posed by Bryan Sentes and Joel Crook in their commentary debate in my Sci-Fi posting (about AI and computers) are addressed.

I will provide some of that material when (and if) the book is found.

Meanwhile, if you think the book may be interesting, you can find it, new or used (for $1.04), at Amazon.

RR

Friday, May 20, 2016

What do AI (Artificial Intelligence), Memory, and Virtual Reality (the Matrix simulation) have to do with UFOs?

Regular readers here know I propose the possibility that intelligent machines (AI oriented) either pilot UFOs or are the UFOs themselves.

UFOs may be von Neumann probes from another dimension, a parallel universe, from the future (or past?), or from advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy or Universe itself.

The plentitude of UFO reports indicate, to me, that ETs from afar seem ludicrous, as I’ve often noted. Spending such time, even if economies allow it, scouring this backwater planet would diminish the idea that the visitors are advanced.

Memory is important for the recreation of details about classic UFO cases (not just Roswell) and even for current UFO sightings. A memory flaw affects “evidence.”

Living in a simulation – a current conversational topic (and even an academic topic) – opens the door to debate about reality (or consciousness).

The question arises, however, for me, as to why the Programmer (God we can call it) would insert UFOs into a simulation filled with excruciating minutiae such as wars (genocide), natural disasters, political mayhem, and other vicissitudes of what we think is life (reality).

That’s the modus for inserting the titled topics in a blog ostensibly about UFOs.

(Image above from Crystalinks.com)

RR

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Artificial Intelligence in [classic] Science Fiction

My academic pal, Bryan Sentes, who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, doesn’t take kindly to his friends and others who are enchanted or afraid of the current splurge in conjectures about Artificial Intelligence.

Yet, the great and not-so-great Sci-Fi writers have been enraptured by the idea of AI and here is a list of those brilliant writers from The Science Fiction Encyclopedia edited by Peter Nicholls [Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1979], Pages 133-134, under the Computers rubric. There are more under Robots and Machines:

Edward Page Mitchell’s The Ablest Man in the World [1879]
Edmond Hamilton’s The Mental Giants [1928]
John W. Campbell’s The Mental Horde [1930]
Miles J. Breuer’s Paradise and Iron [1930]
Don A, Stewart’s The Machine [1935]
Isaac Asimov’s The Evitable Conflict [1950]
Francis G. Rayer’s Tomorrow Sometimes Comes [1951]
Arthur C, Clarke’s The Nine Billion Names of God [1953]
Frederic Brown’s Answer [1954]
Isaac Asimov’s The Last Question [1956]
Pierre Boulle’s The Man Who Hated Machines [1957]
Mark Clifton and Frank Riley’s The Forever Machine [1957]
Philip K. Dick’s Vulcan’s Hammer [1960]
Dino Buzzati’s Larger than Life [1960]
Michael Frayn’s The Tin Men [1965]
Gordon R. Dickson’s Computers Don’t Argue [1965]
Frank Herbert’s Destination: Void [1966]
Robert Escarpit’s The Novel Computer [1966]
Olof Johannesson’s The Great Computer [1966]
D. F. Jones’ Colossus [1966]
Robert Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress [1966]
Harlan Ellison’s I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream [1967]
Martin Caidin’s The God Machine [1968]
Robert Silverberg’s Going Down Smooth [1968]
Charles Harness’ The Ring of Ritornel [1968]
Ira Levin’s This Perfect Day [1970]
D. G. Compton’s The Steel Crocodile [1970]
R.A. Lafferty’s Arrive at Easterwine [1971]
David Gerrold’s When Harlie was One [1972]
James Blish’s Midsummer Century [1972]
Isaac Asmov’s The Life and Times of Multivac [1975]
John Brunner’s The Shockwave Rider [1975]
Chris Boyce Catchworld [1975]
Frederik Poul’s Man Plus [1976]
Algis Budrys’ Michaelmas [1977]

Two anthologies are noted:

Science Fiction Thinking Machines [1954], edited by Groff Conklin
Computers, Computers, Computers: In Fiction and in Verse [1977], edited by D. Van Tassel

N.B. Italic listings above are stories in pulp magazines and Bold Face indicates books

The date of The Encyclopedia … doesn’t allow for all the books and stories published after 1979, which are ample.

Not to heed the prescience of Sci-Fi writers (as above) or the concerns of extant notables (Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, Nick Bostrom, Ray Kurzweil, et al) about the evolution of AI (Artificial Intelligence) or Thinking Machines seems short-sighted to me, but I know, my buddy, Bryan is absorbed by the Germanic Romanticists of the 18/19th Centuries, so I forgive him his disdain of the AI barrage here and all over the place.

RR

A book recommendation from NASA scientist Larry L....

Our friend, NASA scientist Larry L, left this comment, the other day, at my post "UFOs and Time":

"I am slowly picking my way through The Physics of Stargates by Enrico Rodrigo and can heartily recommend this book to you or anyone who is interested in understanding what modern physics says about all the questions you raise, and more. Enrico is a Caltech Physics graduate, who earned his PhD in Physics under John Archibald Wheeler. Wheeler, in turn was the graduate student who was deemed smart enough to be Einstein's student at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and went on to pioneer the wormhole concept. This book is a systematic attempt to deal with the questions that are raised by the existence or non-existence of wormholes, including the various different varieties of time machines. The book is densely packed with ideas but is non-mathematical specifically to be accessible to those who never took the higher math courses which constitute the natural language of--for instance--General Relativity. Because it is so densely packed and I haven't finished it yet, It's impossible to summarize it here in a few sentences; I simply recommend it for your consideration if you want to take your conjecture to the next level."

The book just came today, from Amazon, and it's a killer, one I recommend to readers here, who have a tendency to intellectualize and also have a penchant for mathematics.

I'll be providing excerpts, from the book, and commentary, upcoming

Thank you, Larry, for the suggestion...

RR

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Callow, evangelical scientists

While watching, today [5/18/16] a series of shows about the Universe on the Science channel, I was disturbed by something I’ve noticed during NASA’s moonshots and other scientific endeavors, mostly those involved with space, the cosmos….and it’s this.

Scientists, not all, but many, exude a mind-set that isn’t far from that of evangelical Christians: a euphoric state of mindless ecstasy, steep in belief and faith and an optimistic joy that is adolescent.

The scientists used in the Science channels show I watched [The Big Bang, Life on Saturn’s moons, and Dark Energy] were gaga about the possibility of travel to far off places in the Solar System (and Universe), something that they will never be able to enjoy in thiir lifetimes, but still a giddy adventure they anticipate, for humans.

Such mental (emotional, psychological) excitement is so like the rapture of goofy Christians hoping for a sojourn in Heaven after death that it belies the intellectual caution and dignity that is supposed to be the essence of science.

One scientist, so enraptured by space travel (using interplanetary hotel stops and interstellar taxi cabs) was beside himself, shaking with juvenile excitement like that we used to enjoy, as kids, at Christmas time.

Science and its practitioners are just as faith-oriented and often ridiculous as Christians who think Jesus is still extant and paying attention to them.

I think UFO buffs can ignore the plaints of scientists about ufology and the interest  of UFO believers, because science is just as intellectually immature, and maybe more so.

RR

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Plato anticipated The Matrix and UFOs?

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the Socratic “Cave Allegory” in Plato’s Republic.

But you might re-acquaint yourself with the material, and note that the scenario provided by Socrates via Plato gives a protracted metaphor about intellectual enlightenment that looks an awful lot like a run-down of what appears to be a computer simulation or Matrix, just not in technological terminology:

Human beings live in a den (cave), chained at the neck and legs, and they can’t turn heir heads. Behind them is a fire which casts shadows on the den/cave walls. Men move between the fire and the chained humans, carrying vessels and statues which provide the shadows on the walls. This is deemed to be reality by the chained humans.

When some of the humans are liberated, they strive towards a light at he opening of the den/cave, and arriving at the opening, they, painfully, see the Sun and real existence

Becoming acclimated to the displayed real reality, humans realize that the shadows on the walls, that contained their captivity, were an illusion. And they now must ascend into the intellectual world of reality. {Paraphrased from Philosophy Made Simple by Popkin and Stroll, Dooubleday, Garden City, NY, 1956, Pages 122-123]

Is this not what we experience now: the illusion of reality, which we strive to overcome, the simulation (Matrix)?

As for UFOs, in Plato’s doctrine of Forms or Ideas, he writes that “Forms are eternal patterns of which the objects that we see are only copies.” [Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy by Samuel Enoch Stumpf, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1966/1975, Page 61]

That is, Forms “have more being than things … the real world is not the visible world but rather the intelligible world. The intelligible world is most real … because it consists of the eternal Forms.” [ibid]

UFOs are Forms, obviously, and seem, as the record shows, to be eternal; that is, present in our reality from the inception of planet Earth’s pre-historical life (those images on cave walls) and historical life (as recounted by UFO lore).

That UFOs cannot be explained, in any sensible way, they mimic Plato’s Forms and represent a reality that is above our reality, the simulated reality that we are subject to, as we are held captive in The Cave.

The Platonic dialogues are not, and could not be, technological but if we extract Plato’s ideas from them (the dialogues), we may apply his concepts to help us determine the Real Reality that eludes us at every turn.

RR

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Seeing things

I am of the persuasion that people who say they saw or see something actually do see something.

How they interpret (describe) what they see or saw is another matter, but that they did, indeed, become aware of something they think their mind received visually is a matter of reality (subjective or objective, take your pick) for me.

Did Ezekiel see God in that famous chariot-like thing he recounted in The Hebrew Scriptures (the Holy Bible)? Did the disciples of Jesus walk with Him, after his death on the Road to Emmaus?  Did the children of Fatima see a woman [The Virgin Mary] clothed in white? Did Bernadette Soubirous also see The Virgin Mary at Lourdes? Did Juan Diego see, also, the Virgin Mary in Guadeloupe?
Did Kenneth Arnold see a line of flying things near Mt. Rainier in 1947? Did the Lonnie Zamora see an egg-shaped craft sitting on the desert floor in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964? Did the May boys and others actually see, in 1952, The Flatwoods “monster”?
Did people see something fall from the sky in Kecksberg, Pennsylvania in 1965? Did a number of people see something odd over Chicago’s O’Hare Airport in 2006?

Note, I’m excluding such iffy observations as the Trent/McMinnville sighting (and photographs) or the alleged Rendlesham incident or the Betty/Barney Hill episode among others, because they are encrusted with a patina of confabulation.

Do schizophrenics see the things they say that intrude on their being and minds? Do people see apparitions (ghosts)?
Do we see what we think we are seeing? (This goes to conscious awareness and the questions of consciousness, which I don’t want to belabor at the moment here.)

For me, when a credible, and seemingly normal person or even a supposedly mentally disturbed person says they see something, I think they really have seen something.

This goes to lots of things, but it’s UFOs we’re dealing with here.

So, if I read or hear that someone, a rational being by our usual standards of measurement and dictates, I take them at their word, until or unless something otherwise presents itself to make me squirm.

For instance, I think the Pascagoula fellows saw what they said they saw. Even if it was a folie à deux, they saw, in their minds, what they say they saw. [Tim Hebert, help me out here.]

And all those little creatures that French men and women saw in the 1950s were actually visually present to them as they reported.

(I’ve excluded the infamous Lotti incident as a real bona fide ET encounter and have explained why in several postings here and elsewhere some time ago.)
It seems that a kind of outrageous reality has occasion to intrude on our consciousnesses.

Eric Wargo, explains the mechanisms of those intrusions at his site – thenightshirt.com.

So, did those who saw the Virgin Mary or the observers of flying saucers [UFOs] actually see what they say (think) they saw, or were their sightings merely hallucinations, or are hallucinations real onto themselves inesse?

We can’t say – no one can – for sure, but I’m giving the observers the benefit of the doubt(s).

RR

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Everyone wants to entertain or be entertained

I suppose that some of you are familiar with the HGTV Channel (here in the U.S.) which has a couple of nightly segments, House Hunters and International House Hunters.

In those segments, persons look for a house to buy and invariably want granite counter tops and a place to entertain.

That is, one of their sole preoccupations is a room or basement in which they can entertain guests.

Now, even if they “entertain” 65 times a year, that leaves 300 days of living without a need to entertain or accept guests over for drinks, food, and whatever else one does to “entertain.”

But the "entertainment" need trumps their housing want list.

The entertainment need isn’t confined to house hunters. Streaming outfits are rife with shows that they beg viewers to binge on (to be entertained): NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, et al.

The town where our office is goes to extremes to provide venues that entertain: music, food (a big enticement), and a gaggle of insipid activities, including sports or visitors plying audiences with speeches and talks to make them happy with their forlorn lives.

And my Facebook pages, the UFO one and the Media one, are fraught with postings that hope to induce “likes” and favorite reviews or comments. Facebookers hope to entertain their new found or old-time friends, with photos of themselves, preening or eating or doing banal things.

Recently I visited a blog suggested by my friend, Chris Savia via The Anomalist listings.

The blog was a merry-go-round of leaden humor and twisted views on the paranormal, but the blogger received encomiums from his few visitors, saying his blog was the best ever, with writing superior to anything they’ve ever read.

God bless the fellow, who offered multiple thank yous to those who praised his variegated prose.

My point here is that we no longer, as a society, wish to be enlightened. We just want to be entertained or want to entertain.

UFO enthusiasts, via books, blogs, web-sites, podcasts, or radio shows now hope to attract those who have a need to be entertained, not made smarter, and in the process they become persons who entertain, which is all they need to feel fulfilled.

We, all, have descended into an abyss of stupidity and frivolity, just happy to be pleasant rather than intellectualized.

It’s much like the Roman era, right before the so-called barbarians removed entertainments and entertainers from society and civilization altogether.

Let’s hope that something similar will happen to our society and civilization before we all become clowns or vacuous receptacles for prattle and granite counter tops.

RR

A Chatbot acts as Teacher's Assistant, unbeknownst to students (who are wowed)

My pal, Bryan Sentes, who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, found this laughable:

AI teaching Assistant

But it is the insidious germ of AI which will take over the world, and dominate humans, as Stuart Armstrong warns in Smarter Than Us: The Rise of Machine Intelligence [2014].

RR

Friday, May 13, 2016

Hillary's UFO promise

Hillary and UFOs

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Got this notice from YouTube


Hi Rich Reynolds,

Due to a copyright claim, your YouTube video has been blocked in some countries.
This means that your video is still up on YouTube, but people in some countries may
not be able to watch it.

Video title: UFO Hoaxes
Includes: Visual content
Claimed by: Crowley Media


Why this can happen
  • Your video might contain copyrighted content.
  • Copyright owners can choose to block YouTube videos that contain
  • their content.
- The YouTube Team

Considering UFOs….rationally!

We often go far afield here with the UFO topic, as do other internet sites and blogs.

But the UFO phenomenon can be isolated to a few, rather simple considerations, all of them rehashed over and over again, here and elsewhere.

Firstly, let me dispense with the ETH, extraterrestrial hypothesis.

That anyone believes UFOs have been and are the visiting vanguard of an other-worldly, alien culture is looniness in a most salient form.

The reports of UFOs – reports, which skeptics such as Zoam Chomsky, among many others, decry as worthless (for reasons skeptics often enumerate) – are so numerous as to discount, sensibly, visitations.

That an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would visit or keep visiting planet Earth, when there are so many other spectacular cosmic venues in the galaxy and Universe, itself, boggles common sense.

And I’m talking about an advanced civilization, one that has to be intellectually astute to reconnoiter limitless space.

And also, while we’re at it, if ETs were prominent enough to badger planet Earth with so many alleged visitations, that would indicate humans are not unique to cosmic existence: other humanoid or thinking species would contend with us for specialness.

So, let’s throw out the ETH.

If UFOs are a matter of psychological operations (psy-ops), they have done a lousy job in that department, even if it’s just the denoting of UFOs and not any tangible manifestation of things said to be UFOs (or flying saucers/disks).

UFOs, as a manifestation of psychological warfare or societal manipulation is undermined by the mad (insane) ballyhoo that has encrusted UFO tales since the supposed initiation of psy-operations.

That UFOs are hallucinatory events or visions (sightings) may be the case in some instances, maybe many instances, but that can’t account for the reasonable and credible observations (reports, if you will) that have been made over the years.

While society is intrinsically mad, as Foucault and others delineate in their books on human insanities, even insane persons see real things.

UFOs as a new, unknown phenomenon is possible but unlikely, as science and thoughtful “ufologists” (yes, there are a few of those around), have found no decent construct, meteorological, astronomical, quantum-related or in any other disciplined study which might account for the odd appearance(s) of bizarre things in the skies, some of which have interacted with machines and humans to a more or lesser degree, if one accepts witness accounts as accurate, or fairly so.

That UFOs represent advanced technology of some Earth governments is laughable, only because such technology would not remain secret for all the years in which UFOs have been reported, not to mention the historical record(s).

That UFOs come here from the future or somewhere outside our time or dimension can be discounted for the same reasons that the ETH can be dismissed.

UFOs, as a categorical discussion topic, can’t be set aside as a total fabrication of human imagination. There are too many concrete, reasonable reports – Zoam Chomsky’s anti- predilection about reports aside – to discount that UFOs are real, as real as the Grand Canyon is for those who have never seen or visited the great geological fault.

But what they [UFOs] are is open to speculation, unique speculation, as the current speculations are woefully lame, even those made by me, here.

RR

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Science subliminally believes in God?

When some scientists – more than one might expect – suggest we’re living in The Matrix or our existence may be a computer simulation, they are acknowledging that something beyond us – something greater than us – is responsible for our existence, for reality.

What is suggested, therefore, is that the Universe and us, in it, are the algorithmic creation of the gods or God. (There is no other way around it.)

And for those who are familiar with The Kabbalah will note that the Kabbalistic conception of the nature of God is mimicked by science’s conception of The Big Bang.

From The Zohar (about the Sefiroth) in The Kabbalah: The Religious Philosophy of the Hebrews by Adolphe Franck [Bell Publishing Co, NY, MCMXL]:

“Before having created any form in the world, before having produced any image, He was alone, without form, without resemblance to anything. Who could conceive Him as He was then, before the Creation, since he was formless?” [Page 86]

“He began by forming an imperceptible point; that was His own thought … He then began to construct a mysterious and holy form; finally He covered it with a rich radiant garment – that is to say the universe …” [Page 89]

So, let’s not pretend that science and its practitioners are atheistic because, in their heart of hearts, they believe in God.

RR

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The back story about Frank Scully's book on the Aztec "incident"

Kevin Randle, at his blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com], has a small piece on JP Cahn, the journalist that unmasked the Newton/Gebauer scam that was The Aztec incident.

I looked up JP Cahn via Google and came across the Reality Uncovered website [http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/tag/jp-cahn/] with this insightful article by Stephen Broadbent.

The Scully tale was the first book I read about "flying saucers" [Behind the Flying Saucers, 1950] and my first oral book report in high school.

Today, some people see the Aztec story as a derivative of the Roswell tale, used by Silas Newton and Leo Gebauser to bilk investors in a fake oil business.

Others see Aztec as a total confabulation from the get-go by Newton/Gebauer.

And a few others [Scott Ramsey/Frank Warren] insist that the Aztec incident is a real event.

No matter what, we can very likely set aside the alleged 1948 flying saucer crash as a well-told tale that is even more useless when it comes to the UFO phenomenon than Roswell.

(But, like Roswell, there are elements of the story that intrigue, and some, including me, will continue to ruminate upon those elements, because that's ufology, as French skeptic Gilles Fernandez so often adroitly tells us.)

RR

Another Artificial Intelligence "warning"?

Viv

Sunday, May 08, 2016

UFOs, The Singularity Dooms-Day Scenario and why I like Zoam Chomsky [Aaron Sakulich]

Our friend Zoam Chomsky offers counter arguments, with supporting citations, to views expressed here (and elsewhere).

For instance, as a kind of rebuttal to my AI obsession, Zoam brought to bear, in an earlier comment here, John Searles’ view about Artificial Intelligence:

“A consequence of biological naturalism is that if we want to create a conscious being, we will have to duplicate whatever physical processes the brain goes through to cause consciousness. Searle thereby means to contradict what he calls "Strong AI", defined by the assumption that as soon as a certain kind of software is running on a computer, a conscious being is thereby created.

Searle argues that this is impossible, since consciousness is a physical property, like digestion or fire. No matter how good a simulation of digestion you build on the computer, it will not digest anything; no matter how well you simulate fire, nothing will get burnt. By contrast, informational processes are observer-relative: observers pick out certain patterns in the world and consider them information processes, but information processes are not things-in-the-world themselves. Since they do not exist at a physical level, Searle argues, they cannot have causal efficacy and thus cannot cause consciousness. There is no physical law, Searle insists, that can see the equivalence between a personal computer, a series of ping-pong balls and beer cans, and a pipe-and-water system all implementing the same program.”

You can read about John Rogers Searle here, from Wikipedia:


My counter to Philosopher Searle and Zoam would come from documentary film-maker James Barrat, who has accumulated the current thinking about AI and The Singularity in his book Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era [Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Griffin, NY, 2013]

Barrat offers too much to input here so I suggest interested persons get the book (from Amazon, where independent book sellers there offer it at good prices) but Barrat offers Ray Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns (about computer evolution) writing that he (Barrat doesn’t think that Kurzweil’s view that The Singularity will bring about paradise but, rather, “... the shortest possible distance between our lives as they are and the end of the human era.” [Page 131]

Barrat open his Chapter Ten: The Singularitarian [Page 148 ff.] with these quotes:

“In contrast with our intellect, computers double their performance every eighteen months. So the danger is real that they could develop intelligence and take over the world.” – Stephen Hawking

“Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.” – Vernor Vinge

Now I could offer reams of counter material buttressing my belief that The Singularity and Artificial Intelligence are topics to conjure with….and I shall input more upcoming.

But for now, let me re-assert that UFOs may be AI constructs or piloted (manned) by AI constructs, either from our future, other dimensions, or, perhaps, alien (extraterrestrial) civilizations/worlds.

UFOs seem to have a fascination with other flying machines (aircraft, missiles) and facilities where such things are housed (airports, like O’Hare and atomic facilities as enumerated by Robert Hastings).

I’ve provided, earlier here, a few UFO episodes where the things seen or encountered seem like machines, with intelligence, rather than vehicles containing humanoid creatures:

The 1979 Robert Taylor encounter in Scotland’s Dechmont Woods and the encounter of Stefan Michalak near Falcon Lake, Manitoba in 1967 et cetera.

Zoam has written about the Michalak event here:


I noted other machine-like encounters earlier here:


Our friend Zoam presents viable counter arguments to my views and the UFO communities views about UFOs but one can offer counter arguments to Zoam (and other anti-UFO people).

That’s the nature of debate, intelligent debate, and usurps the blather that generally encompasses ufological dialogue.

So, that’s why I like Zoam. He keeps me (and others) on our toes, and requires us to bolster our viewpoints with actual sustenance in place of inane opinion and wayward nonsense.

RR

Friday, May 06, 2016

Blue Book's Captain Ruppelt: A Personal Remembrance by George ...

Hi,

I happened to stumble across your blog today and saw a year-old exchange between you and a doubter regarding the authenticity of an email from a "95 year old woman" who claimed to have been Capt. Ruppelt's neighbor.

When I was 12 years old in the summer of 1956, I submitted a report to the USAF regarding UFOs that I had witnessed.  In less than a week after submitting this report, Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt and Lt. Robert Olsson appeared at my doorstep to question me.  The interrogation lasted several hours.  During this time I was shown many audio-visuals that I found quite shocking.

Now I fully realize that by July 1956 Capt. Ruppelt had been out of the USAF and was working in the private sector.  Apparently, he suffered his first heart attack also in 1956, which might be a reason why he always had Lt. Olsson go to their car to dispatch various pieces of equipment.  Both men were dressed as USAF officers.

In those several hours I developed a wonderful rapport with Capt. Ruppelt, which to this day I remember very well.  As I am now fully retired, I would like to learn more about the circumstances that brought the good Captain to my home that day.  Any help would be appreciated.

His two daughters may still be alive, and I would like to get into contact with them.

Best,

George [Personal information held back, by me, RR] for privacy issues]

U.S. White House worried about Artificial Intelligence too

White House and AI

Thursday, May 05, 2016

The Roswell Kite?

This fair use excerpt from the copyrighted photo, owned by the University of Texas at Arlington, of the alleged Roswell "debris," shows Haut's "flying disk" (and Brazel's gathered materials) to be a kite:
Did anyone check to see if some (Proctor?) kids were flying a kite, near the Brazel farm, on that July day in 1947?

RR