The Extradimensional Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis: Superstition Masquerading as Science

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
as assessed subjectively from images of particle trails,

It's not really subjective. Strength of the fields inside collider's sensors is very precisely known. So when shower of particles flies into that precisely known field, field bends particle trajectories in a very specific way, that is predicted from equations in QM and electrodynamics. If, say Higg's boson, has certain predicted energy, it's trajectory will curve in a predictable way within some range and that trajectory-curvature would be unique only to Higg's boson. No other particle could do that.

But scientist are human, many theories are incomplete, and scientists can get territorial. That's why experiments are done.

I won't say any more after this but your claim that Psychology is "pretending to use scientific method because it can't make predictions" is patently absurd.

Oh please, just one more. Give me just one prediction that psychology made that wasn't already accepted as a common sense by all practical people (excluding idealists and book warms). I mean something that was unimaginable and earth shattering like radio waves, or transistor, or aeroplane.

I absolutely have no problem with people getting paid to do jobs they love, if they can get away with it, as I am sure many psychologists do. But, I have a big problem with psychology adding more confusion in already confused subject of ufology. Suffice to say, ufology is in a desperate need of earning public trust. Only a deterministic science, like old school classic physics and maths, can offer us some solid ground to step on and show us a way out of the mess that thousands of UFO witnesses testimonials inadvertently created.
 
Last edited:
It's not really subjective. Strength of the fields inside collider's sensors is very precisely known. So when shower of particles flies into that precisely known field, field bends particle trajectories in a very specific way, that is predicted from equations in QM and electrodynamics. If, say Higg's boson, has certain predicted energy, it's trajectory will curve in a predictable way within some range and that trajectory-curvature would be unique only to Higg's boson. No other particle could do that.

But scientist are human, many theories are incomplete, and scientists can get territorial. That's why experiments are done.



Oh please, just one more. Give me just one prediction that psychology made that wasn't already accepted as a common sense by all practical people (excluding idealists and book warms). I mean something that was unimaginable and earth shattering like radio waves, or transistor, or aeroplane.

I absolutely have no problem with people getting paid to do jobs they love, if they can get away with it, as I am sure many psychologists do. But, I have a big problem with psychology adding more confusion in already confused subject of ufology. Suffice to say, ufology is in a desperate need of earning public trust. Only a deterministic science, like old school classic physics and maths, can offer us some solid ground to step on and show us a way out of the mess that thousands of UFO witness testimonials created.
Just one more, then. What findings have psychologists made that are contrary to common sense? What could be more common sense than that we see things as they are? Yet numerous experiments have shown that what we imagine to be perception is more like a reconstructive process, fitting fleeting perceptions into a clever illusion, almost. Show subjects stimuli that contradict expectation (e.g. playing cards with the reds and blacks reversed -- red spades and black hearts -- and their response speed slows and becomes less accurate. When this experiment was first run int the 50s, before we got used to weird films and TV shows, some subjects were actually disturbed and one had to be hospitalised). Things that we expect to be big (such as the moon) change in apparent size with their proximity to known objects (when high in the sky and isolated it seems small, but when close to nearby objects such as houses it appears bigger. Even knowing that this is illusory doesn't prevent it happening. Memory too has turned out to be more of a reconstructive process than common sense would expect. This is one reason why eye witness testimony turns out to be unreliable. We think logically, don't we? Well, the overwhelming majority of subjects are unable to draw even the simplest logical inferences from stimuli shown to them. They make a guess (a belief, if you like, or even a hypothesis) and tend to stick with that, seeking only stimuli that support their theory and ignoring those that contradict it when the effective thing is to do the exact opposite. This sounds a lot like Science actually.
Are these things as explosive as radio or other physical discoveries? They might not seem so dramatic but their implications for our thinking processes, our logic, our perception, in fact our entire lives, are immense. If you really think that only things like classic physics and maths can help us out in the investigation of UFOs, then you need to think about these things as well. How witnesses perceive, interpret, and remember UFO sightings is surely a question of major interest. Yes, there have been physical traces, radar tracks, and photos, but has that convinced a majority in the scientific community that UFOs even exist, never mind that they are extraterrestrial craft? Have any of those ufologists with a background in the hard sciences really made any significant progress in understanding the phenomenon?
Incidentally, none of the examples you give -- radio, transistors, and aeroplanes -- reflect purely scientific experimentation, they are actually technological advances. Neither Marconi nor the Wright brothers were scientists, they were inventors.
 
It's not really subjective. Strength of the fields inside collider's sensors is very precisely known. So when shower of particles flies into that precisely known field, field bends particle trajectories in a very specific way, that is predicted from equations in QM and electrodynamics. If, say Higg's boson, has certain predicted energy, it's trajectory will curve in a predictable way within some range and that trajectory-curvature would be unique only to Higg's boson. No other particle could do that.

But scientist are human, many theories are incomplete, and scientists can get territorial. That's why experiments are done.



Oh please, just one more. Give me just one prediction that psychology made that wasn't already accepted as a common sense by all practical people (excluding idealists and book warms). I mean something that was unimaginable and earth shattering like radio waves, or transistor, or aeroplane.

I absolutely have no problem with people getting paid to do jobs they love, if they can get away with it, as I am sure many psychologists do. But, I have a big problem with psychology adding more confusion in already confused subject of ufology. Suffice to say, ufology is in a desperate need of earning public trust. Only a deterministic science, like old school classic physics and maths, can offer us some solid ground to step on and show us a way out of the mess that thousands of UFO witnesses testimonials inadvertently created.
As a p.s. and going back to your comments about UFOs, I looked at Wikipedia and found that Vallee holds the following qualifications: B.SC Maths, M.S. Astrophysics, and Ph.D. Computer Science. He began his career as astronomer at the Paris Observatory, after going to the US he became a Research Assistant in Astronomy under Gerard de Vancouleurs at U. Texas, where they compiled NASA's first comprehensive map of Mars. Following this he worked as Systems Analyst and helped to develop a computer network that predated the Internet. I think most people would regard him as a scientist on this basis.
 
OK, gravity produced by gravitational super-loadstone (GSR) will create acceleration without additional energy input.
No you’re still not getting this straight, and you’ve mutilated my analogy beyond recognition – the magnetic lodestone in my analogy is analogous to naturally occurring mass-energy generating very weak fields, whereas a simple inductive coil produces a much stronger field with very little current.

I’m suggesting that we’ll make a similar breakthrough with gravitation, and eventually figure out how to build a gravitational inductive device analogous to an electromagnetic coil. It’s evident that other civilizations have already figured out how to do this, so it can be done.

But it will not do anything for oncoming Hadron collider beam of interstellar particles. Additionally gravitational super-loadstone (GSR) can not be even imagined with modern physics.
First of all, drop the useless and impertinent GSR idea and listen to what I’m actually saying.

We already know of several theoretically viable approaches to amplifying the gravitational field; 1.) by concentrating the density of mass-energy – the density and not just the magnitude of mass-energy attenuates the strength of the gravitational field, and 2.) by modulating the coupling constant in the Einstein field equation, as Dr. Jack Sarfatti has recently proposed in his Low Power Warp Drive paper, 3.) pressure - positive pressure generates gravitation, and tension (negative pressure) represents a negative gravitational term, and 4.) stress, strain, and momentum - the other terms in the stress-energy tensor. So yes, such approaches can “be even imagined with modern physics.”

Additionally, we would need gigantic amounts of energy to divert the beam of oncoming interstellar particles.
That’s wrong. Once a gravitational field exists, it takes no energy to operate. A negative gravitational field on the front side of a craft would divert matter out of its way without any expenditure of energy. Just as the Earth doesn’t expend any energy to attract meteors, but in this case the effect is reversed.

Ball lightnings are a good candidate for macroscopic quantum object.
Ball lighting isn’t a quantum object, it’s just a plasma sustained by internal electrical currents. Small versions have been produced in the lab, and very small versions can be made in a microwave oven at home.

Constructive criticism, you forgot: McCarthyism, Ku Klux Klan, Fascism, Gulags and Ethnical Cleansing.
Good point. I find it revolting and frightening that many of those are still going on right now.

Well said, but @humanoidlord is one of us and he contributes some good material, from time to time.
I haven’t seen it. All I see him doing is defending his cosmic trickster mythology, and attacking everything that refutes it (which is pretty much everything).

I don't think that suggesting the existence of other dimensions or universes or realities (not including Santa Claus) is at all incompatible with scientific reasoning.
I didn’t suggest that it’s incompatible with scientific reasoning, I was pointing out that there’s as much evidence for other universes as there is for the existence of Santa Claus, unicorns, and mermaids – i.e., none. I’m not saying that it’s impossible or illogical (unicorns could exist, for example), I’m saying that we have zero reason to believe that they do exist.

ESP, psychokinesis, precognition, clairvoyance, time slips, and glitches.
The evidence for these things is so tenuous at this point, that it’s quite possible that these are some as-yet-unidentified cognitive aberrations like déjà-vu, rather than actual objectively real phenomena. But I’m keeping an open mind. Still, they’re a very weak motivation for developing new theories of physics and postulating entire other universes (Occam’s razor and all that).

Sometimes UFO incidents occur that appear to be associated with such phenomena. For example, Jenny Randles in her Supernatural Pennines makes a good case that all these phenomena may be generated from a common source.
I just explained the conjunction fallacy. That’s what that is. Bad logic.

But you have a strange notion that by widening our viewpoint and trying to study phenomena that you personally regard as unacceptable we are going back into the Dark Ages, and will end up burning witches and hunting werewolves or something. We don't have to adopt belief systems at all, just try to think of all possibilities and go on from there.
I’m not saying “unacceptable.” I’m just pointing out that the empirical basis for such considerations is empirically insubstantial. I’m an empirical thinker – I want to see evidence or a compelling theoretical motive for exploring an idea in terms of physical science.

I enjoy idle speculation about other universes and new physics all the time – it’s fun. But I draw a clear distinction between that stuff, and meaningful empirical reasoning. So while I enjoy a good Stargate episode about alternate realities, I see zero empirical or theoretical reason to seriously consider that such a thing exists. But the moment that changes, if that changes, I’ll be happy to delve into it. And meanwhile I find that there are plenty of fascinating mysteries to focus on which merit serious consideration, like the dark energy effect – something we have compelling empirical reasons to take seriously.

Your analysis of Vallee's anti-physical concept is a bit optimistic. Yes, we can launch smaller craft from larger ones and they can -- in a sense -- merge together. But can physics explain how two discoid objects merge into one that remains the same size?
Well now you’re getting into details which aren’t in evidence: show me two objects of the same size merging, and remaining the same size afterward. At best we probably have an anecdotal account to go by, which may or may not be true, or may or may not have been a misperception of some kind.

Humanloidlord makes this error constantly: he accepts every crazy close encounter story as absolute fact, indiscriminately, and then tries to explain them all via the magical action of some supernatural divine invisible omnipotent entity. Data has to be culled, or you end up with more noise than signal. And then you find yourself trying to explain things that didn’t actually happen, or didn't happen the way you thought they did.

And as for Dr Who's Tardis -- if physics can get the inside of anything larger than its outside, I would be very impressed -- please tell us when they do it!
We don’t have the technology to pioneer the field of “applied general relativity” to any significant extent yet. But the theory is solid, so we can describe what’s possible under specific conditions. Engineering a device which is larger on the inside than on the outside is possible under specific configurations of gravitational field. This has been known for decades. We can’t do it yet, but we can’t make a craft hover silently in mid-air yet either, and for the exact same reason – we don’t have a gravitational technology yet. One day we will, if we survive as a technological civilization. Because others do, and they’re visiting our planet with some frequency, evidently. So if they can get here, then they also have the technology to build craft which are larger on the inside than on the outside – the same technology is required for both; it’s just a different application of the same field effects.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
How witnesses perceive, interpret, and remember UFO sightings is surely a question of major interest.

Hmmm, very interesting. It's pity that these current memories can not be determinedly reversed back to real memories. I don't think hypnosis can do that.

Have any of those ufologists with a background in the hard sciences really made any significant progress in understanding the phenomenon?

ABSOLUTELY!!! I've gave you a link few posts back. But I am sure you didn't read it because it is boring :). Most of truth is really boring. What can be more "significant progress" than actually having a tool to control UFO crafts? No other branch of UFO research can come even close.

Human psychology is a big problem :). People don't want to learn physics (except myself), they want exciting killer flight-or-fight narrative that is going to keep them awake at night. Problem is, lets admit it, is that most people are lazy or don't have time, they want to explain everything quickly and within content already present inside their comfort zone.

Second human downfall is adulation of authority. Nobody wants to dig and check facts, they want authority with a strong branding to give them one simple and final cut.

Explained bellow.


Because classic physics (not including QM) is so deterministic, these papers on that link, show clear cut and sequential physical phenomena. Thing A happens, than thing B happens, than C and so on, just as it would be predicted by a seasoned physicist. That's the hidden beauty of thousands of UFO witness testimonials. Testimonials are in a perfect harmony with classic physics, or Maxwell's electrodynamics to be precise. And these A-B-C steps from electromagnetism make actionable predictions and practical deterrence tools.

For example, to cut the boring stuff :) a bit short, UFOs produce a range of sequential EM phenomena with confirmed high statistical significance. A good haunch, like a policeman's or journalist's, would be that UFO propulsion has, at least in a part, to do something with electricity. So, (as UFO lore goes, from Col. Corso and few other sources) military had started pointing a strong, already available, radar pencil-like beams at UFOs in a hope to either bring them down or at least disrupt them. Idea is that radar's EM waves would produce electrical effect on UFOs. And according to at least Col. Corso they were successful. Essentially, it worked first time (because chain of electro-magnetic causalities is deterministic) and gave governments a practical and powerful tool to menage or threaten UFOs. This practical tool (strong pencil beam radar) immediately translates into a government's political tool, where UFOs can be controlled, crashed or denied access to any given areas and even maybe used for some kind of negotiated settlement between government and aliens. Obviously, this would be unknown to general public.

Weather we use physics or psychology and discounting for character assassinations, we here always have to work from a basis of UFO lore and have to accept these sources at a face value. We count on some scientific tools, like statistics and big data analysis, to weed out delusions and hoaxes. In the above case, UFO lore is back-to-back supported by scientific determinism of classical Maxwell's Electrodynamics. 99% of people don't see that, because unfamiliarity with electricity, but anybody schooled in EM fields would suss it out on the spot.

And this is not just information that came out of a single testimonial, so somebody can say: "ohhh, this crooked engineer cooked it all up, to make money ... " or whatever. This is all pieced together from many different, but scientifically consistent stories, which increases it's credibility.

Essentially, you give an electrical engineer or familiar scientist that link to read it and I guarantee he'll come out dumbfounded. Like: "Nobody ever told me this???", implying that that info is too real to bear. Engineers and scientists depend on shared verified knowledge so they don't need "authority" or "brands" to do thinking for them. Very unlike people in humanities who are unashamed suckers for "authority" and "brands".

And I hope, we all implicitly agree, that "authority" or "brands" are deep down just head-fakes. But that's a whole new topic for another day.

As a p.s. and going back to your comments about UFOs, I looked at Wikipedia and found that Vallee holds the following qualifications: B.SC Maths, M.S. Astrophysics, and Ph.D. Computer Science. He began his career as astronomer at the Paris Observatory, after going to the US he became a Research Assistant in Astronomy under Gerard de Vancouleurs at U. Texas, where they compiled NASA's first comprehensive map of Mars. Following this he worked as Systems Analyst and helped to develop a computer network that predated the Internet. I think most people would regard him as a scientist on this basis.

Well, than it's all Vallee's fault, because in that interview he made it all sound as if he was college dropout. Maybe he wanted to be modest etc.

That’s wrong. Once a gravitational field exists, it takes no energy to operate. A negative gravitational field on the front side of a craft would divert matter out of its way without any expenditure of energy. Just as the Earth doesn’t expend any energy to attract meteors, but in this case the effect is reversed.

Don't agree with that all, because that's only descriptive thinking.

Yes, to accelerate spaceship one can do with relatively small gravitational field. But to deflect oncoming particle beam moving at c or even FTL, one would need very strong gravitational field. So it's very unlikely that gravitational field be at all used for oncoming particles deflection. Which, in turn means, that GR warp-drive still has oncoming particle beam problem. Not a show stopper, just something to think about.

That's why I am saying, very speculatively, that these 8D Quantum Gravity theories might be onto something, because they would completely avoid oncoming particle beam problem. Possibly-maybe they might enable worm hole type of jumps through interstellar voids, because 8D theories thrive on non-locality. Non-lociality being this non-physical timeless and spaceless spooky action at distance property of QM systems, that is, in laymen's terms, explained as "one is all, all is one" etc.

And that's why I am now gona listen to that podcast with Cohl Furey.
 
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
That is just one theory which cannot account for all abductions or scenarios, for instance there are many instances where the abductee has allegedly been abducted throughout their lives...I doubt the abductors are looking for genetic material in those type of cases...If the alien visitors wished to stay incognito as it seems evident, then raiding a hospital or other facilities of that nature would not be convenient or an option for them...

...
both false, while i believe a lot i believe that a lot of abduction cases (specially those persons who claim multiple experiences) are purely psycological in nature, all the ones that seem real have clear genetic motivation, apparently to give the illusion that the human race is being taken over by a superior hybrid race
also the UFOnauts can easily blend without being seen in a crowd, as many of the cases studied by john keel show
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Yep. The latest analysis of the average age of other warm habitable Earth-like worlds in our galaxy (and by extension, the universe at large) is around 3 billion years older than our planet. That's an awful lot of time for other civilizations out there to surpass us technologically by an unimaginable degree.


I've exhaustively explored this notion of other dimensions from a physics standpoint, and there remains zero evidence that such a thing exists. And if they do exist, then they would have to exist as knots at the Planck-scale as described by superstring theory, otherwise we would be able to detect their influence on known physical interactions. For anything to exist in "other dimensions," those dimensions would have to be macroscopic - i.e. large enough for things to exist in. But it's easy to show how the laws of physics as we know them would break down if any extra macroscopic dimensions existed. We recently published a Physics Frontiers episode about this:

The Dimensionality of Space-Time | Free Podcasts | Podomatic"

My stance is very simple: it's one thing to idly speculate about things for which no evidence exists, like extra dimensions - after all, string theorists do that every day (although they've never come up with anything useful in over half a century, so I question the wisdom of that exercise). It's another thing to formulate a scientific hypothesis and argue for it as an alternative to other scientific hypotheses (like the ETH for example). The notion of beings from other dimensions visiting our world is not a valid hypothesis because no means has been found to simultaneously A.) explain how such dimensions could exist without ever being detected, 2.) explain how those dimensions could exist in reality breaking all of the known laws of physics, and 3.) explain how anything could exist in those dimensions. Until somebody can do those three things, the notion of visitors from other dimensions fails to rise to the level of a valid scientific hypothesis.

It's easy to be cavalier about it and just say "details, details - one day we'll figure it out." But in truth, the more closely one scrutinizes the idea, the less viable it appears.

On the the hand, the ETH has grown increasingly viable as an explanation as astronomy and astrobiology and several other scientific disciplines have progressed. In fact the scientific consensus about the existence of life elsewhere - and even technological life like us, has quietly shifted to one of favorability as our knowledge has grown. That's the hallmark of a successful theory. The concept of extra dimensions, however, started with a flurry of enthusiasm and has been slowly petering out as increasingly elaborate ad hoc models have been required to explain why we see no evidence of those dimensions - enormous experimental and theoretical efforts have been made to find any evidence or significance for that idea, and all such efforts have met with dismal failure. That's the hallmark of a failed model.

"Parallel dimensions" of reality and the many worlds interpretation make for great science fiction stories, but they make for lousy science. So whatever weirdness is going on in this reality demands other explanations which are couched in the 4D reality that we know and love.

And if somebody someday somehow finds any empirically or theoretically compelling reason to re-open the book on extra dimensions, then we can do that. But right now, nobody knows how to make that idea make physical sense - so the most reasonable thing to do is forget about it until we have a reason to do otherwise. That's the bedrock of empirical reasoning, which I advocate (after all, that's how we clawed our way from the Dark Ages to manned Moon landings).

I'm also bewildered by the appeal of this notion - people seem to favor it because they don't understand the recent advancements in the theoretical physics of interstellar spaceflight - they still think that the distances between stars are too great to traverse (this is wrong, btw). But for some reason they think that travelling between parallel dimensions would be much easier. The exact opposite is true: we already have a viable theory for traversing interstellar distances, but nobody has the faintest idea about how travel between dimensions would be possible (assuming that such dimensions actually exist, which is a huge and groundless assumption). Presumably we'd have to tear some kind of hole in two universes (assuming without any evidence that there's more than one universe in the first place) and make a stable bridge to connect them together. Frankly that project makes the attainment of a gravitational field propulsion technology sound like a walk in the park by comparison. So we're back to Occam's razor - the ETH is the vastly simpler explanation (and it's fully consistent with the entire body of scientific knowledge across multiple disciplines) so it's probably correct.
i ain't talking about dimensions in the flatland sense, i am talking about other dimensions in the other universes sense
why is it so hard for you to understand that?
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
I think most people who speak of "other dimensions" really intend to be referring to other universes. Are you favorably inclined to multiverse theory?
THIS RIGHT HERE
i am talking about other universes, not more mathematical dimensions, those are impossible in your 3D world
 
i ain't talking about dimensions in the flatland sense, i am talking about other dimensions in the other universes sense
why is it so hard for you to understand that?
What page are you on humanoidlord? Because we already went over this.

You were using the word "dimension" wrong. Words mean things. And none of the definitions of "dimension" means "universe," so we had to figure out wtf you were trying to say:

Definition of DIMENSION

Like I said before, I think it's insane that people like yourself have some big problem with the idea of intelligent beings arriving here from neighboring star systems...and yet wholeheartedly embrace the idea of other intelligent beings arriving here from another universe.

Not only is there no evidence of any kind that other universes actually exist in the first place, or indication that intelligent life could exist there...but obviously traveling between universes would be far more difficult than making the jump between stars - we haven't got any idea how interuniverse travel might be achieved, or if such a thing would be possible at all (my guess would be "not possible" since even the highly speculative wormhole concept only links two points in the same universe).

By comparison we know that billions of other star systems have Earth-like planets orbiting Sun-like stars in their habitable zones in our galaxy alone and the average age of those worlds is about 3 billion years older than our Earth (so the existence of highly advanced civilizations is essentially a statistical certainly), and we have an explicit theoretical proposal based on one of the most successful physics theories of all time, for traversing interstellar distances at faster-than-light speeds (so we know that it's physically possible and theoretically attainable for any sufficiently technologically advanced civilization).

So based on everything that we know today, it would be far more bizarre and inexplicable if we weren't being visited by other technological civilizations, than it would be if we are being visited by our interstellar neighbors.
 
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Technically correct, but psychologically catastrophic. Alien's are smart, that would be silly way to do it, primarily because than aliens would be seen by many people (hospitals are full of people) and they would leave traces (like missing sperm storage flasks). Just imagine panic that would create. So far, aliens were proven to be very shy and operate mostly in very remote areas.
3 words: personal cloaking device, if they can make one for their ships, why can't they do a portable one?
also i doubt anyone would notice the missing sperm flasks, they probally would think they forgot to store them or something
so in the end, yep abductions make no sense
This criticism is on a level of UFO skeptic. Thomas
thomas is very close minded sometimes, i told him a while ago that he should read some vallee or keel to open a bit his mind, but apparently he din't hear my call
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Yeah, but that is a fully malarkey. Even if it is going to be possible, in say million years, currently we have to ignore that argument, because we simply have to move one step at a time, while only stepping on a what we know is solid ground. Abduction cases are hugely subject to free-wheeling imagination of witnesses and downright plain attention seeking.
there are also cases where the UFOnauts were seen going trough walls
Vallee is not a scientist. According to one of his interviews he's a dropout from astrophysics college that ended up working as a programmer and eventually as a venture capitalist. According to that interview, he disliked the idea that time is a dimension that can be drown as a Cartesian coordinate on 2D plane. He definitely can not become scientist with that kind of mindset.
keel wasn't a scientist either and frankly that means nothing, it's almost impossible for any serious scientist to investigate IDH due to the ridicule
According to that logic UFOs can be a culinary problem, because aliens were seen on many occasions collecting plants from woods and fields. They must be eating something, so it might be interesting what cooking recipes they do.
very bad comparison, IMO
 
thomas is very close minded sometimes, i told him a while ago that he should read some vallee or keel to open a bit his mind, but apparently he din't hear my call
Actually I've been reading Vallee and listening to his interviews frequently over the last few months, and I've given detailed rebuttals to many of his arguments right here in this thread over the last couple of days. I started to read one of Keel's books but it didn't hold my attention, so I'll have to get back to it when I have more free time. But Keel isn't a scientist, and this is a scientific question, so I don't expect to find anything of significance in his hypotheses. I'm willing to check it out though, to find out what he has to say. However it's not encouraging that literally everyone who cites him as an authority in this area has totally failed to provide a compelling argument.
 
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
He himself said that he left astronomy course. Other assignments that you mention could had been in a role of IT professional, which is not science but engineering. And even by simply listening to him speak, he makes more references from literature than from science. That's typical of engineers, because they usually have narrower view of science in line with their specialization, and broader view of culture. I am not saying that to belittle Vallee, I quite like his approach and he always treated subject with seriousness that it deserves.
keel was a journalist, so his best was talking and interviewing people and i can assure you that with that mindset he has gone to places no scientist has ever gone before (well except, maybe, the military contractors that investigated skinwalker)
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
It’s always frustrating when we have to find a way to make other people’s arguments make sense. I agree: it sounds like people mean “other universes” not “other dimensions.”
ok, *sigh*, i will try to say universes or realities instead in the future
And until somebody can explain how that would work physically
its like the radiation spectrum, except bigger and possibly infinite
the "cosmic trickster" somehow has found a way to "tune the radio"
I appreciate Jacques Vallee’s intellect in many respects, but he and Keel have both fallen prey to a logical fallacy known as the conjunction fallacy. Lots of bright people succumb to this one. Basically, we humans like to have one explanation for a wide variety of different things – but logically, the more things you try to explain with one theory, the less likely your theory becomes. Let’s look at a mundane example to clear this up.
again you should read their work before saying anything, you probally will be as impressed as me
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
It's not a "hand wave" when A.) myriad independent credible reports describe hypersonic speeds with no sonic boom or a streak of blazing plasma trailing these objects, and B.) I've offered a perfectly rational physical explanation which is fully consistent with the general theory of relativity and well-established cosmological observations (the dark energy effect cannot be explained without negative gravitation). We already know that these craft exhibit precisely the unique predicted performance characteristics of gravitational field propulsion, which requires a negative gravitational field as well as a positive one. So it's perfectly reasonable to expect that that these craft use the same field effect to overcome the problem of incident matter upon the craft.
that is a handwave, because we have no idea, what a civilization far in the future would have, its even possible that they would discover that there is something in the universe that makes gravitational propulsion a impossibility
...you really mean "by magic." So your criticism of "hand waving" is not only unfounded, it's also outrageously hypocritical.
there are various cases where UFOs were seen being first manifestations of radiation crossing the entire visible spectrum (changing color) before the materializing as solid atomic masses that left imprints in the ground
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Yes you are very biased and try to fit everything into your belief of your god Loki and I see there is no amount of evidence which will pry you from your archaic evangelistic belief in your God...It is no different than a Muslim worshipping Allah or Christian worshiping Jehovah so good luck with that I rather stick with scientific truths and understandings than some barbaric belief in a fictional God of tricks...
you are as biased as me, i have never seen someone that likes ETH turning into a IDH believer either
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Well said, but @humanoidlord is one of us and he contributes some good material, from time to time.
exactly, you may not like my conclusions but my research is interesting!
What's that Loki thing?
for some reason nivek like to make fun of IDH just because i say cosmic trickster (wich is in itself a tongue-in-cheek term because i can't find a better word to describe it) and so he mentions the nordic god loki who also said that he was the great trickster
 
Top