It is only “indisputable” if it can be proven there was any such “examination” as you presented. You have interpreted history, rather then objectively described history, and you did so in such a way that it would appear the way you want it to be, and not as it actually happened. Imagination is limitless, but reality is limited, and it is limited in more ways then our imaginations would want it to be.

“We appear to be saying the same thing”

If you want to put it that way, then what we are saying is irrelevant to reality. When I was a kid, I thought the boogie-man was real. With new knowledge I learned that the boogie-man was imaginary. You cannot claim with any hint of reasonableness that maybe if we wait long enough, maybe some newer knowledge will prove the imaginary boogie-man is actually real. That is wishful thinking. If monsters are imaginary now, new knowledge will not make them real again.

“Imagining things differently begets action…”

Action is not imagination. No matter how hard you try, you cannot will the boogie-man into existence using imagination alone. What is imaginary always remains imaginary, even when you act on your imagination. A man can imagine building a bridge out of nothing but plastic straws that will withstand a four-lane highway, but the reality is that a plastic straw bridge will not withstand any such thing. Imagination and reality rarely intersect.

SAGE — “Francisco Goya produced a painting called ‘The Sleep of Reason Breeds Monsters’…How do you interpret that painting?”

GREG– “Too much reason without inspiration and imagination cuts us off from what it means to me human and delays progress of the human spirit and the development of compassion”

How interesting. I interpret that painting as if you put reason to rest, you will be susceptible to being overwhelmed by imaginary creatures.

- The phenomenon may be a honeypot to entrap the susceptible, for some reason.

- A thing that can’t be studied scientifically, is nonsense. By behaving nonsensically, one thing the phenomenon may be elaborately telling us, is to be/remain scientific, and get even more scientific, and pay no nevermind to nonsense, and to leave any vestiges of mumbo-jumbo thinking behind. If that’s the case, the characters behind all this play-acting may be quite “normal” characters, not too unlike us, or like the Wizard of Oz. By presenting intriguingly “psychic” and “other-worldly” scenarios that can never be fully pursued, they may be saying that many (all?) such weird thoughts are nonsense, and so they may be trying to encourage us to keep looking for the real fascinating things the universe contains, and not the theatrical versions, as well as telling us to remember to keep our feet on the ground–after all, what’s more valuable: being able to zip around the world as a ball of shifting energy, as fun as that sounds, or being humans organizing a country, raising our kids, or even going on a camping trip together?

- Then again, the partial opposite may be true: the sum total of their behavior may be a way of encouraging new ways of thinking that may be genuinely enlightened. Just as we can learn a whole new way of life from a single person (or a few, anyway), we may certainly be able to learn a lot from an entire other species. The phenomenon often invokes deep human feeling that sometimes isn’t felt in our “normal” lives. Then again, the anal probing, and stuffing things at the other end too, up people’s noses, leaves something to be desired.

- My personal experience tells me that all the above may be true. I also see some of these seemingly different possibilities in the writings of Vallee–I’m touched by his including personal stories in his book, “Forbidden Knowledge”, showing that he tried to live a good, human life, with his wife and kids, even as he was deeply involved in investigating the phenomenon with Hynek, etc. From a couple times I’ve been peripherally involved in some in-person discussions between him and a relative who communicates with him about the phenomenon, and knowing a little about the venture capital work he currently does, which brings him a lot of satisfaction, I also get that he still keeps the phenomenon in perspective.

You worte:
“There has been no such ‘examination’ that would lead us to the same conclusions as you have come to.”

Our thinking on what is possible changes as we discover new facts and the concepts that explain them. This is practically indisputable.

You wrote:
“What we can prove with our current knowledge will remain fixed and unchanging unless we can continue to add to that knowledge with newer knowledge.”

We appear to be saying the same thing. The difference is semantics. I do not think that all knowledge is “fixed and unchanging.” Some things change, others are redefined with new information and/ or theories.

You wrote (responding):
“‘Imagination’ sometimes begets reality”

For example?

Imagining things differently begets action which changes our physical and mental reality–like the invention of the light bulb or the discovery of a new planet. People know that things can be better or different, and act on their imagination.

You wrote (responding):
“Francisco Goya produced a painting called ‘The Sleep of Reason Breeds Monsters’”

How do you interpret that painting?

Too much reason without inspiration and imagination cuts us off from what it means to me human and delays progress of the human spirit and the development of compassion.

“This is backed up by an examination of the history of human thought”

There has been no such “examination” that would lead us to the same conclusions as you have come to.

“What we can ‘prove’ with our current knowledge changes constantly”

What we can prove with our current knowledge will remain fixed and unchanging unless we can continue to add to that knowledge with newer knowledge.

“‘Imagination’ sometimes begets reality”

For example?

“Francisco Goya produced a painting called ‘The Sleep of Reason Breeds Monsters’”

How do you interpret that painting?

Gavilan:

“The wave/particle koan of quantum physics tells us that observation is essential for the manifestation of reality”

Quantum physics tells us only subatomic particles are subject to quantum weirdness, not people or the things they observe outside of the subatomic realm. Unless you can get a people to pass through a dual-slit interferometer and appear on the other side in an interference pattern, quantum physics will never be able to be applied to everyday living.

I’ll try and pick up a copy of that book. Thank you.

I wonder if anyone has dealt with the subject in another way which would respectfully disagree with Hancock in a systematic manner?

What I am guessing at here is that existence is much bigger than we can even theorize as yet. This is backed up by an examination of the history of human thought. What we can “prove” with our current knowledge changes constantly. “Imagination” sometimes begets reality.

Francisco Goya produced a painting called “The Sleep of Reason Breeds Monsters,” which has always been a thought I keep as close as my respect for science, logic, and disciplined research.

I think we have a symbiosis with everything in existence. That is to say, I subscribe to the hyposthesis that the observer is just as important as the observed, particularly when we are not sure what the “observed” is.

From what I rememeber of Scott, he seemed like a reasonable and very intelligent dissenter to the official version of the JFK assassination. Apparently he wiped the floor with Gerald Posner in a debate a few years back.

I think that we have always been ready to understand, and will someday acquire the knowledge and techniques to do so. Everything that was supposed to be “the end” of the human race has at most caused a bump in history, although I am aware that it seemed like a lot more than that to those who went through it.