|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Sunday, 11 November 2007 |
I mentioned in a post to this thread that a catalyst for joining the Exo community was it's collective aim to move things forward in a way the UFOlogy movement had not really attempted to in some ways. Part of UFOlogy's failure was due to the fact that it allowed terms like 'evidence' and 'proof' to be filtered through conventional scientific models for concluding what was 'real' and worthwhile leading to a very restricted idea of what was valid [eg. sightings by military aircrews for example] and what was kooky and invalid [citizen contactee individuals and/or groups].
So Exopolitics takes an immediate risk by trying to shift the things we can agree on as worth research if it introduces new methods of validation outside of the narrow lens defined by linear scientific methods - it's not that these methods are wrong, more they need using in conjunction with many other validation systems. I've just converted a video presentation by remote viewer Ingo Swann called Human Super Sensitivities and the Future, in which he goes through a lot of these problematic issues of truth and evidence. We also have the problem of obtaining 'proper' evidence from what are essentially black structure projects - how do we begin defining what elements are real and what are misinformation?!
There's a fair distance between putting forward a totally unfounded piece of data and making an informed decision to release something that may have no direct link to 'proof' but has been made from pulling together strands of information and experience - these are the fragmented pieces that Ed mentions here and unfortunately we have to perhaps risk ridicule occasionally and take this option or we move nowhere.
Posted to Exopolitics Institute List as part of thread - Nov 2007
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 15 July 2008 )
|
Other Articles of Interest
