UFOs: A Componential Overview – Part 2 Now let’s take a look at the two basic components of an UFO sighting: PERCEIVER – SUBJECT (Note: I use the term “subject” instead of object because it doesn’t necessarily infer physicality.) Usually emphasis is placed on the perceiver after an event. And for an obvious reason: the UFO doesn’t hang around to be interviewed. But for the moment – while acknowledging the importance of the perceiver – we can flip the relationship around and consider the event from the other end: SUBJECT – PERCEIVER After gathering information from the witness (or witnesses) an investigator tries to figure out from the available data what the subject could be. In some cases it turns out a better way to view the situation would be: CONTROLLER=SUBJECT – PERCEIVER Back during an UFO flap in the 1970s some boys got together and hoaxed some sightings. They constructed a latticework within a transparent plastic laundry bag and then placed candles inside their improvised ho...
Posts
UFOs: A Componential Overview – Part I Call this a mental exercise. I haven’t thought this all out in any great detail. Also, I doubt what I am proposing will provide any great philosophical or metaphysical insights. Many others have probably made similar observations but with different terms. But at the same time this componential overview is a quick way for me to look at the UFO issue. When I say UFO I mean Unidentified Flying Objects, i.e., something unusual is observed in the sky that can’t be readily explained. I’m not limiting my use of the term to nuts-n-bolts ET vehicles. Up front: this overview assumes an objective reality. Some people don’t believe in such a concept. These individuals think that “reality” is a shared illusion. Fine. To such a thinker I say go outside, locate a brick wall and then smash your forehead into it. Then ask yourself as the blood runs down into your eyes if objective reality is a valid concept. To get a grasp on what happens during an UFO ...
C-PAP: The Sequel Three nights and counting. Maybe I’ll eventually get some proper rest, finally dealing with my sleep apnea. I’m trying to adjust to another C-PAP machine. They’ve made progress in the design of the units: the new one is smaller, lighter, portable. But I still have to sleep with a facemask attached to a long hose, a cyborg elephant man. Once again I’m using a nose mask. With the other unit the mask just clamped on around my proboscis, held in place with straps. It didn’t move; it just sat there. The new mask has a bellows-seal that slowly pulsates in and out as I breath. Remember the face-hugger from the movie Alien ? That’s what I think about as I drift off, that some living ET glob has attached itself to the center of my face. But I have slept with this hi-tech hook-up. The first time I kept waking up every couple of hours. The second time I slept with only one interruption during an eight hour stretch. Last night I only slept maybe four hours hooked up an...
Two Questions Recently the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal has announced it is changing its name to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. So CSICOP is becoming CSI. When referring to the organization by its original name, some would pronounce the abbreviation CSICOP as sie-kop (Psi-Cop). Ergo, one could pronounce CSI as sis-see. So if someone representing CSI acts petty and irritable, could that person be called a pissy Sissy? Also, if a CSI representative keeps tirelessly repeating the same dogma over and over, creating a minor commotion that doesn't change your mind, could you call him Sissyfuss? [Note: Ray X will be appearing at the Purple Elephant Comedy Club this weekend.] Comments via email: rayxr@yahoo.com