It's good to hear from Cal Roeker again in the comment section! Yes, seeing is believing - but much of what we believe is based on trusting what others have seen or discovered. All of history, for instance; and much of science. We see pictures of viruses but cannot see them ourselves. We trust our scientists and doctors to tell us the truth. DNA, black holes, molecules, atoms, electrons - we experience things and trust that our scientists are telling us WHY we experience certain things, and have particular results, but we never see them or knowingly touch them. Just what consciousness is a killer in science, so much so that some extreme materialists claim we have no consciousness, only reactions (including the scientist's). We know we have it only because we experience it - we cannot hold it in our hands. But others react to it, too, and seem to have it as well.
Thus with UFO's - others have experienced them, gotten little implants from them, gotten pictures of them, collected residue from their power drives, even demonstrated materials found near crashes. We don't believe because certain authority figures tell us not to believe. Yes, we have plenty of generals and flight officers and policemen and security agents and at least one astronaut who swear by their experiences of them, but they are then officially ridiculed or ignored. We follow this lead. It all comes down to who you believe.
Man-made Global warming, or AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a case in point, and one on the cusp. We know that there has been some warming, a degree or so since records have been kept. Certain experts tell us it is AGW due to increases in CO2 and other warming gases. Others, a skeptical minority, tell us that such gases are minute, fluctuate with time, and are present primarily from natural causes. The factual data - that which you can hold in your hands - has not panned out according to AGW theory from the 90's - but they now insist that this was a minor glitch and that we are headed for even worse AGW than first anticipated. Do we believe them? Is it influenced by politics or ego or research funding? The cost of decreasing CO2 is tremendous - do we trust in a theory that has not yet actualized and that will noticeably decrease our standard of living? And if we don't, will we regret the day? Can we do anything about it at all at this point, even if it comes to be true?
It all comes down to: who do you trust? With AGW, I just don't know; with UFO's, I do know - the real people who have experienced them - have in some cases actually "held them in their hand, " so to speak - seem far more convincing that government officials who regularly mock the issue. And I have my dad. I also believe the scientists that tell me we have DNA in our bodies and black holes in space.
I have mentioned this before, but it is apt - the crop circles. Today there was a video of a fantastic "crop circle, " or intricate design, found in a desert . Unfortunately, it wouldn't download, but the picture of it is convincing - it is beautiful, elegant and enigmatic. If made by humans - and it is possible - it would have taken days to complete, fighting with winds and shifting sands. There also would be sign of human activity around the sand. In this picture, there are no signs of human presence. In other circles investigated, there are indications of heat, of ionic residue, of many things that ordinary humans would not have access to - as well as other phenomena that cannot be easily explained by covert human activity (or, in some case, by any human activity). Yet a few weeks ago, there was another picture of a "crop circle," defined by the reporter as "beautiful and enigmatic," to match comments made about other crop circles. But even in the picture, one could see the entrance point of a tractor or some other large, thoroughly human device. There was symmetry to it and some exactness, but not that much; it was clearly not enigmatic. In fact, it looked like a computer chip. And surprise, we were "stunned" to find that it was made as an advertising gimmick by a computer company. "Fooled you again!" could have been the caption, but it was not of the same quality of the true crop circles. Yet someone wanted us to believe it was - and as such, that ALL are hoaxes. I'm not buying it.
Thus even in things that we can see and hold in our hands, there are multiple explanations. Again, it all depends on who you believe. The same, I have found, works with consciousness - it can explain the world in entirely different ways, ways so different they radically alter how humans, all with the same human DNA, see and deal with the world. We as a people have a consensus on reality - but it is not the only reality, by far, and can change, even among a group. Sometimes it might be altered by the alignment of the stars (for all I know), or a great leader - but fundamentally, it depends on who you believe. FK
Thus with UFO's - others have experienced them, gotten little implants from them, gotten pictures of them, collected residue from their power drives, even demonstrated materials found near crashes. We don't believe because certain authority figures tell us not to believe. Yes, we have plenty of generals and flight officers and policemen and security agents and at least one astronaut who swear by their experiences of them, but they are then officially ridiculed or ignored. We follow this lead. It all comes down to who you believe.
Man-made Global warming, or AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a case in point, and one on the cusp. We know that there has been some warming, a degree or so since records have been kept. Certain experts tell us it is AGW due to increases in CO2 and other warming gases. Others, a skeptical minority, tell us that such gases are minute, fluctuate with time, and are present primarily from natural causes. The factual data - that which you can hold in your hands - has not panned out according to AGW theory from the 90's - but they now insist that this was a minor glitch and that we are headed for even worse AGW than first anticipated. Do we believe them? Is it influenced by politics or ego or research funding? The cost of decreasing CO2 is tremendous - do we trust in a theory that has not yet actualized and that will noticeably decrease our standard of living? And if we don't, will we regret the day? Can we do anything about it at all at this point, even if it comes to be true?
It all comes down to: who do you trust? With AGW, I just don't know; with UFO's, I do know - the real people who have experienced them - have in some cases actually "held them in their hand, " so to speak - seem far more convincing that government officials who regularly mock the issue. And I have my dad. I also believe the scientists that tell me we have DNA in our bodies and black holes in space.
I have mentioned this before, but it is apt - the crop circles. Today there was a video of a fantastic "crop circle, " or intricate design, found in a desert . Unfortunately, it wouldn't download, but the picture of it is convincing - it is beautiful, elegant and enigmatic. If made by humans - and it is possible - it would have taken days to complete, fighting with winds and shifting sands. There also would be sign of human activity around the sand. In this picture, there are no signs of human presence. In other circles investigated, there are indications of heat, of ionic residue, of many things that ordinary humans would not have access to - as well as other phenomena that cannot be easily explained by covert human activity (or, in some case, by any human activity). Yet a few weeks ago, there was another picture of a "crop circle," defined by the reporter as "beautiful and enigmatic," to match comments made about other crop circles. But even in the picture, one could see the entrance point of a tractor or some other large, thoroughly human device. There was symmetry to it and some exactness, but not that much; it was clearly not enigmatic. In fact, it looked like a computer chip. And surprise, we were "stunned" to find that it was made as an advertising gimmick by a computer company. "Fooled you again!" could have been the caption, but it was not of the same quality of the true crop circles. Yet someone wanted us to believe it was - and as such, that ALL are hoaxes. I'm not buying it.
Thus even in things that we can see and hold in our hands, there are multiple explanations. Again, it all depends on who you believe. The same, I have found, works with consciousness - it can explain the world in entirely different ways, ways so different they radically alter how humans, all with the same human DNA, see and deal with the world. We as a people have a consensus on reality - but it is not the only reality, by far, and can change, even among a group. Sometimes it might be altered by the alignment of the stars (for all I know), or a great leader - but fundamentally, it depends on who you believe. FK
RSS Feed