If you don't sound nuts then you haven't understood the situation.
We're in a mystery sandwich. Underneath there's a fundamental layer that might relate to consciousness and perception (rather than simply being the product of neural networks) and above we have the possible mysteries presented by space-faring civilisations eons ahead of us (who we hope to emulate some day, even if they don't actually exist).
A colleague mentioned looking after a neighbour's tortoise, that was found running around in circles on the top of the table where it was kept. It couldn't cope with being alone in a normally noisy home. We all learn to function within parameters that eventually become our comfort zone, but does that make it the sum total of reality or even an average existence?
Like the tortoise, we can hide in our shell and pretend nothing is happening, run around in circles freaking out, or perhaps go and explore and risk falling off the edge of our own little world.
I'm reading "Blue Latitudes," Tony Horwitz's accounting of Captain Cook's odyssey through the South Pacific. Well in excess of 99 percent of Cook's peers back home would've had neither the aptitude for nor the inclination to push themselves through the brutal and life-changing rigors of expanding the boundaries of the known world. It only takes a few to lead the way. I guess the question is, what are those few willing to risk in order to reach the far shore?
Yeah - it's easy for me to point out that people should explore, but the complexity, of what motivates (or inhibits) each of us, is probably as complicated as the most mysterious aspects of UAP.
It's also a little ironic that the advent of drones (creating more 'false' sightings) has provided cover for politicians to demand answers (including politicians who have a personal interest in/experience of UFOs).
No doubt drones account for some UFO sightings, but how convenient, ay? During the so-called "northern tier" wave in 1975 over U.S. SAC bases, the explanation was "helicopters," when in fact no helicopter could behave the way the witnesses described.
Don't know why this shouldn't go in as an Appendix to the next UAP Bill thingy. Ticks a lot of boxes and a good laugh. The subject is way too serious.
funny and informative. Not either or but both and more.
Thanks Billy!
ummmm... Keep your day job, man.
But, seriously, it's an apt pastiche for the clown show being passed off as "transparency."
I'm waiting for them to trot out a kid in a little-green-man suit at the next briefing, like they did in Phoenix in '97 after the "lights" incident.
...
I have a new theory about inertia... but it doesn't seem to be gaining momentum.
...
There are ten kinds of people in this world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.
bada-boom...tishhhhhhhhhh
I have no day job.
:-(
I feel like you channeled Hunter S. Martian on this Substack. What have YOU been drinking at the bar? Great, compelling read.
If you don't sound nuts then you haven't understood the situation.
We're in a mystery sandwich. Underneath there's a fundamental layer that might relate to consciousness and perception (rather than simply being the product of neural networks) and above we have the possible mysteries presented by space-faring civilisations eons ahead of us (who we hope to emulate some day, even if they don't actually exist).
A colleague mentioned looking after a neighbour's tortoise, that was found running around in circles on the top of the table where it was kept. It couldn't cope with being alone in a normally noisy home. We all learn to function within parameters that eventually become our comfort zone, but does that make it the sum total of reality or even an average existence?
Like the tortoise, we can hide in our shell and pretend nothing is happening, run around in circles freaking out, or perhaps go and explore and risk falling off the edge of our own little world.
I'm reading "Blue Latitudes," Tony Horwitz's accounting of Captain Cook's odyssey through the South Pacific. Well in excess of 99 percent of Cook's peers back home would've had neither the aptitude for nor the inclination to push themselves through the brutal and life-changing rigors of expanding the boundaries of the known world. It only takes a few to lead the way. I guess the question is, what are those few willing to risk in order to reach the far shore?
Yeah - it's easy for me to point out that people should explore, but the complexity, of what motivates (or inhibits) each of us, is probably as complicated as the most mysterious aspects of UAP.
It's also a little ironic that the advent of drones (creating more 'false' sightings) has provided cover for politicians to demand answers (including politicians who have a personal interest in/experience of UFOs).
No doubt drones account for some UFO sightings, but how convenient, ay? During the so-called "northern tier" wave in 1975 over U.S. SAC bases, the explanation was "helicopters," when in fact no helicopter could behave the way the witnesses described.