Betty and Barney Hill

[Anonymous22]

Betty and Barney Hill were victims of an experiment in mass psychological profiling by a division of the military. They were selected both because of their friendship with local servicemen and also because they were an interracial couple. Would they immediately conclude that their experience was "extraterrestrial" and how would the public perceive their story knowing that they were an interracial couple? Would that effect the ability of the public to swallow the story? The rest, as they say, it mythological history.

[Gene Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Anonymous22

Betty and Barney Hill were victims of an experiment in mass psychological profiling by a division of the military. They were selected both because of their friendship with local servicemen and also because they were an interracial couple. Would they immediately conclude that their experience was "extraterrestrial" and how would the public perceive their story knowing that they were an interracial couple? Would that effect the ability of the public to swallow the story? The rest, as they say, it mythological history.

Nice theory, one I've considered. So how did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Anonymous22]

The ET Hypothesis is false but an understandable human reaction to these phenomena. The entire Roswell situation stemmed from the misidentification of a covert launch of an experimental aircraft from White Sands and the "bodies" were in fact Japanese prisoners of war who were illegally used in this and other tests. Hence the deformity. Some of the scientists "recruited" from the defeated Nazi ranks were rather experienced in the field of human experimentation, ie. they weren't all from the field of rocketry. It's a sad but true fact that they were allowed to use Japanese POW's to continue their research. The misidentification of these poor souls during the crash of the experimental aircraft gave birth to the Roswell myth and it's a myth that certain people would like to perpetuate. For obvious reasons.

The association between these phenomena and the ET Hypothesis is in itself simply a side effect of the psychological immaturity of the species. "UFO's" are a psycho-sociological phenomenon related to human extra-sensory perception and psycho-spiritual evolution. The desire to associate it with ET is as false as the desire of those in ages past to associate it with "God" or his "angels." Both are false categorizations stemming from cultural fear and primitivism. The simple fact is that evolution relies on the human mind being given a gentle push from time to time, and it's the human mind itself that's responsible for this action. The process encapsulates a primal quandary of action/reaction. Consciousness can only perceive time in the context of a beginning and an end, ie. action leads to event. We're hard wired to perceive chronology and not comprehend events that have no precursory reasoning. The truth of this matter might ultimately be very disappointing to many. The ET Hypothesis could be a bad side effect in the part of the species that can't handle the medicine.

[Anonymous22]

(Contemplating the externalization of reality in comparison to perception can help one understand the phenomenon with greater ease.)

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by Anonymous22

The ET Hypothesis is false...

The association between these phenomena and the ET Hypothesis is in itself simply a side effect of the psychological immaturity...

You keep cutting and pasting the exact same stuff - are these your own words or somebody else's?

[Anonymous22]

There's only one aspect of this subject that any Government knows more about than the majority (note - not all of) it's populace - and this concerns the relationship of the phenomenon to the human mind which cannot be underestimated, ie. it's a two way street. How can you qualify an unknown when the only thing that can be known about it is that it has an imbedded relationship with individual understanding, perception, memory and belief systems?

[Anonymous22]

I simply cut and pasted that from my other post into this thread, rather than trying to rewrite it (for the sake of speed and ease as a response to your question.)

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by Anonymous22

How can you qualify an unknown when the only thing that can be known about it is that it has an imbedded relationship with individual understanding, perception, memory and belief systems?

Is that rhetorical?

[Anonymous22]

Rhetorical in the sense that if you fill the sky with prayers, you see Angels. Fill the sky with the latest advances in technology and you see the hopes and promises of that technology. A child's mind filled with images of fairy tales reveals "short, Chinese looking" creatures. The more our environment is saturated with the constructions that we hope will anchor us to that which we understand, the more fleeting such phenomena become. There was a time when humans accepted and worked with these forces. Unfortunately, we now hide behind "progress," failing to recognize our devolution from Nature. Ask Allen why he was so nervous about publishing his work. Ask him what happened to those people who handled his writing in its formative stages. He knows far more than most.

[Anonymous22]

(Ask Ritzman about what happens to him just before he has an experience, then discuss this with Allen.)