What I wrote makes perfect sense, unless one feels the need to literalize what is said in order to make some sort of pyrrhic debate point. I do not often think or write in absolutes.

Yes, anthropocentric thinking has gotten many things “right.” No philosophy or method has an answer for everything. I’m glad you say that it is often narrow. My point is that it may need to be given a rest in order to advance the study of UFOs and many other anomalies.

Also, I believe that we were discussing Keel’s reports of anomalous private airplane sightings, not all UFO reports. You shouldn’t change what you’re discussing midstream to make it appear that I am ignoring or misrepresenting your comments.

“Anthropocentric thinking also affects how we think about things…”

That does not make sense. Anthropocentric thinking is a philosophy of humans, not a property of humans. It is a narrow-minded way of thinking but it also happens to inadvertently have gotten some things right.

“Why didn’t you say ‘100 out of 100?’”

Because I believe a very few (less than 1%) unexplained reports of UFOs may have some truth to them.

Anthropocentric thinking also affects how we think about things, not just ourselves. Maybe I should say Earth-centric as well.

Why didn’t you say “100 out of 100?” Your statement leaves 10% as possible valuable data.

You left out misperceptions. Maybe that’s the missing 10%.

That possibly ninety out of one hundred reports are based on lies or hoaxes?

“Anthropocentric thinking is partly to blame for the stalemate in which ufology finds itself”

In evolution there are laws that apply to all living things, not just humans. Laws like “form fits function” or “only the fittest survive”. So it would not be presumptuous or inaccurate or illogical for make believe sci-fi programs to
depict the ETs as humanoid variations because of parallel evolution
converging on the same solution/form for the same (sentient) function.

I think that they might shift to conform to what we expect, at least some of the time.

Yes, I always liked alien spaceships from movies that look nothing like what we would think–but then again, what else would you expect from H.R> Giger?

Anthropocentric thinking is partly to blame for the stalemate in which ufology finds itself.

What you say is true, but there are very few examples other than that.

John Keel relates hundreds of reports of airplanes seen during UFO flaps which are either aerodymanically wrong, perform maneuvers that no airplane should or could, or exhibit brilliantly lit cabins which would ruin any pilot’s night vision. What are we to make of these sightings? I would submit that it is more fodder for the “we see what we expect” argument. Either that, of the Ufonauts want us to see them in that form. Perhaps it’s some combination of these things.

Why didn’t people see many flying discs before 1947? Sightings seemed to conform to the current ideas of structured objects which might be able to fly.

The subject was could UFOs be intelligent creatures, so without the ability to “pick up things”, intelligence cannot develop to the degree of humans. Look at dolphins.

What has always caught my attention are the reports of unidentified “craft” splitting into multiple craft, morphing shape, rejoining each other, etc. Such antics have been seen visually and at least seemingly equivalent behaviors have appeared on radar as well.

It makes one wonder; do they take their form as a consequence of the expectations (conscious or unconscious) of the observer(s)? Or do they genuinely shape shift as a result of environmental conditions?

For instance, the sphere is the most stable solid form of which we in 3D space are aware. But if these things don’t come from 3D space, or at least if they travel “outside” 3D space in some fashion, what would the most stable (or aerodynamic) shape be in that “other” space? Might they not shift shape to accomodate the space they find themselves in?

Also, I have heard that some studies have been performed using the classic saucer shape to see how aerodynamic it really is, and without some sort of stabilizer (i.e., flaps, a tail, etc.,) the saucer shape is very difficult to control. But that presupposes that these unknown craft are using lift in the same way our conventional aircraft use it. If lift is not a part of their equation; if they rely on some totally different mechanism, all bets are off. Maybe they could pick any shape they wanted because of the mechanism by which they “fly”. So it could be stricltly a matter of aesthetic preference.

Personally, I’ve always liked the shape of the alien craft in the original “Alien” (with Sigourney Weaver) movie. Actually, come to think of it, I really preferred Sigourney Weaver’s shape more.

~R~

There’s a famous UFO pic that appears to show a craft with a large black antenna on top. I saw another photo from France that was nearly identical.