Ultraterrestrials vs. UFOs

A theory exisits that may indeed be more logical for the UFO Phenomenon then ETs; Ultraterrestrials.

This theory states that these may, in fact, be right here from our very own earth. A species that has always been here, evolving along with Humans, but far superior. Keep in mind some of the more 'organic' looking UFO reports. I was motivated by the Nasa UFO thread where members have posted some compelling, organic looking ufo pictures.

Hey NASA UFOs

You could think of how a group of monkeys in the wild would perceive humans and our own aircraft. Because of limited consciousnes, they may think of an airplane as some kind of magical bird and we being just another animal. They relate to it with the level of understanding of their own enviroment.

Like the monkey, we just don't have the ability, advanced consciousness, to comprehend the true nature of UFOs. Admittingly, we are a bit on the egotistical side, assuming that we are the species at the top of the food chain. It's not a stretch to consider we are just another link in a vast chain.

This could explain why UFOs have been seen throughout history. Mentions in the bible and appearance in ancient art forms. Also explaining folklore and myths of fairies, brownies, demons, gods ect. Fairies were well known for kidnapping people and those abducted reported missing time. Faries were said to be especially fond of children, sometimes replacing the real baby with a doppleganger. Faries, like the greys are small with large eyes.

Mathemeaticians are beginning to find existance of additional dimensions. If Ultraterrestrials can exist above and beyond spacetime they could easily outwit us. Only allowing glimpses of themselves when they want.

If you think this concept is a little far out there, just ask a monkey what it thinks about humans and aircraft. Ah, but we are more evolved then the monkey and they can not comprehend our language.

Originally posted by Whisper67
Like the monkey, we just don't have the ability, advanced consciousness, to comprehend the true nature of UFOs.

/thread idea fail



Anyway, that the UFOs come from earth is quite a common theory beside them being aliens from other planets and/or dimensions. Personally I just dont buy that another humanoid race, advanced to the point of space/dimensional travel would WANT to live next to us.

If you think this concept is a little far out there, just ask a monkey what it thinks about humans and aircraft. Ah, but we are more evolved then the monkey and they can not comprehend our language.

Some monkeys/apes have learned to communicate pretty darn well with impressive vocabularies...

So, if we were to accept your theory....then what about ecological footprint? Why don't these super-advanced beings (who seem to be unusually imperceptible to our five senses) leave any signs of impact to the world around them? Surely making these crafts, feeding themselves, etc. must leave some kind of ecological footprint? But they don't.... This doesn't support the idea of shared tenants....

I've said this several times over the years, both here and on various other forums, but I don't understand why so many people who are interested in the subject became so partisan in their thinking on this. I don't understand why often people subscribe to a 'nuts and bolts' only paradigm or an ultraterrestrial theory. I don't see why they should it should be a mutually exclusive 'either/or' situation. I personally think both paradigms have their merits.

There is a former catholic priest called Salvador Freixedo.

inexplicata.blogspot.com...

He wrote several books about UFOs where he claims their origin can not be explained as extraterrestrial. Perhaps this might be an interesting reading for you.

Originally posted by stephan76
There is a former catholic priest called Salvador Freixedo.

inexplicata.blogspot.com...

He wrote several books about UFOs where he claims their origin can not be explained as extraterrestrial. Perhaps this might be an interesting reading for you.

An extraterrestrial explanation might not suit some alleged sightings &c, but to dismiss it outright as an explanation for others? That potentially leaves us in the very unlikely position that were completely alone in the astonishingly massive universe.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by stephan76
There is a former catholic priest called Salvador Freixedo.

inexplicata.blogspot.com...

He wrote several books about UFOs where he claims their origin can not be explained as extraterrestrial. Perhaps this might be an interesting reading for you.

An extraterrestrial explanation might not suit some alleged sightings &c, but to dismiss it outright as an explanation for others? That potentially leaves us in the very unlikely position that were completely alone in the astonishingly massive universe.

Here you are assuming that everyone shares the same vision of the universe, what if I do not share it?

Some doubt about evolution, some doubt about the global warming, some about the science behind political issues from today.

I may disagree about some scientific "facts" from the outer space that are taught on schools. I may doubt NASA's credibility, for that matter.

However, I was not even meaning to challenge the existing world view about the outer-space. I am only speaking about the possibility of parallel universes as an explanation for this phenomenon, I never said I had the final word about it. It was just a recommended reading about that topic.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I don't understand why so many people who are interested in the subject became so partisan in their thinking on this.

I did state "versus" didn't I? Bad thread title on my part. I was suggesting an alternative theory. I wasn't trying to exclude all others. This was an error on my part.

Personally, I think many possible theories are plausable. This being one of them. Other theories being, the usual suspects of: humans from our future; natural phenomenon; Extraterrestrial; Deception staged by governments for disinformation; USOs; Underground bases; UFOs from hyperspace/wormholes; Antii-matter UFOs from a parallel universe; Nazi technology; Tibetan & Indian origin; UFOs being that of an advanced technological advanced subterranean civilization; quantum manifestations; and finally - they don't exisit.

I can find many of these above theories plausable, except the last one. For me to try and present each one of these theories in the same thread doesn't make much sense and I'm not sure I could do it. At least with any relative points. I picked this theory to explore with my fellow ATSers. Knowledge is power and once we debunk all other explainations, what we are left with is the real mystery and perhaps the road to truth.

Again, it was not my intent to make it seem this theory along with others were not mutually inclusive. If you have seen a UFO or had an abduction event I am in no way trying to discredit or invalidate your experience. For me, all I'm saying is I don't know. I find it mentally stimulating to explore all theories. I've never had an experience myself and continue to look up at the skies night after night, hoping, mind filled with wonder.

Originally posted by Gazrok
[So, if we were to accept your theory....then what about ecological footprint? Why don't these super-advanced beings (who seem to be unusually imperceptible to our five senses) leave any signs of impact to the world around them? Surely making these crafts, feeding themselves, etc. must leave some kind of ecological footprint? But they don't.... This doesn't support the idea of shared tenants....

This was my support line:
Mathemeaticians are beginning to find existance of additional dimensions. If Ultraterrestrials can exist above and beyond spacetime they could easily outwit us.

Agreed it's an easy out but, if they were able to exist in other diminsions, or perhaps be natural to the oceans, inside the earth along tectonic plates or even deeper, we may not yet see evidence of these creatures. Some of the UFOs pictured in the mentioned thread look a lot like jellyfish as if it's not a ship at all but an organic being in itself. Again, I'm not saying this accounts for all sightings. Just a theory.

Thanks for everyones input so far, it's good for me to listen to other minds besides my own.

Originally posted by Whisper67

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I don't understand why so many people who are interested in the subject became so partisan in their thinking on this.

I did state "versus" didn't I? Bad thread title on my part. I was suggesting an alternative theory. I wasn't trying to exclude all others. This was an error on my part.

Don't worry about it. My post wasn't aimed at you specifically, please don't take it personally! I was more commenting on the fact that I've seen such polarised 'either/or' views many times over the years. As I said in my earlier post, I'd made the same or similar comments here (and elsewhere) in the past prior to your own post.

Excellent theory! S & F

You will be not surprised when the time comes, which will be soon.

Need evidence, check closely the artifacts in google earth. They can be found everywhere on earth.

They have been here much longer than man and they live in this dimension.

They have been called the 'Watchers', the 'Jinn', as well as the 'Old Ones'.

They have been here a long time and are much older and much more advanced than man.

Use your camera near wooded areas, the sky in the daytime, the water anytime.

Science knows them well, so do some people.

Follow your instincts and hunches, for you are thinking clearly, you will see them.

An amazing race of unbelievable technology.

There is not a person born of earth who they do not know by their first name.

Hard to prove here, but not hard to prove to yourself.

Originally posted by stephan76
Here you are assuming that everyone shares the same vision of the universe, what if I do not share it?

And what if I don't share the conclusion that Salvador Freixedo makes, and one which you perhaps support? Stalemate?

I'm not sure whether you are actually understanding my view here anyway. I am proposing that there is room for a 'nuts and bolts' approach to ufology as well as the ultraterrestrial take.

I'm not saying Freixedo is out-and-out wrong otherwise I'd not be giving an Ultraterrestrial explanation any credence at all. If fact, my past posts here support how I've pointed people towards the likes of Jacques Vallée if they've wanted an alternative to 'nuts and bolts' &c.

I saw some youtube vids with Jason Martell, and he talked about how the 'greys' could be the ones talked about as the 'Igigi' in the old times.
Igig is astronaughts, and the drawings look similar to the greys.

Maby they are the 'watchers' or the 'helpers' that takes 'samples' of us to make sure we are 'evolving' in theyr likeness....

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by stephan76
Here you are assuming that everyone shares the same vision of the universe, what if I do not share it?

And what if I don't share the conclusion that Salvador Freixedo makes, and one which you perhaps support? Stalemate?

I'm not sure whether you are actually understanding my view here anyway. I am proposing that there is room for a 'nuts and bolts' approach to ufology as well as the ultraterrestrial take.

I'm not saying Freixedo is out-and-out wrong otherwise I'd not be giving an Ultraterrestrial explanation any credence at all. If fact, my past posts here support how I've pointed people towards the likes of Jacques Vallée if they've wanted an alternative to 'nuts and bolts' &c.

This is the UFO section from an Internet Conspiracy-Paranormal forum. Has anyone here the authority to call nuts anyone?

I think that this is a good thread and the OP has been very constructive in the proposition. I believe that the OP is correct, also, that the theory is not mutually exclusive with "real" aliens.

We may be talking about "ultra-dimensional" beings versus biological entities from different planets. In fact, considering the "contact" phenomena, it may be that "real" aliens are here to visit the "ultra-dimensional" beings rather than us.

There is a long history of anecdotal evidence that supports the claim and John Keel's investigations into this matter publicised the title of "Mothmen". Entities that are familiar with this planet, for whatever reason, but which exist within a different dimensional framework.

There may be suggestions that they can manifest in the 3 physical dimensions but are not bounded by our most perplexing dimension of linear time.

Just as we cannot discount all of the sightings of UFOs as simply "unidentified identifiable objects", so we cannot dismiss the myriad of anecdotal evidence for "Mothmen". The 2 theories are compatible and would explain many aspects of some so-called UFO phenomena.

I would give this a

Originally posted by stephan76
This is the UFO section from an Internet Conspiracy-Paranormal forum. Has anyone here the authority to call nuts anyone?

Are you even reading my replies? Who am I calling "nuts"? Strawman, much?

If anything, I'm the one that who has been who's shown a more open-minded attitude here. I'm not the one saying it has to be one thing or another, I'm saying there's room for both.

Are you trolling here or just not understanding what I'm saying?

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by stephan76
This is the UFO section from an Internet Conspiracy-Paranormal forum. Has anyone here the authority to call nuts anyone?

Are you even reading my replies? Who am I calling "nuts"?

Are you trolling here or just not understanding what I'm saying?

Okay Merriman, you be bolts and I'll be nuts. Agreed that this poster is either trolling or just is not comprehending your point. I'm thinking it's the latter.

Sugarcube - you've made some interesting points. I didn't even think to include in my op that the UFOs (extraterrestrials) could be coming here to visit the ultradiminsionals. For all we know they could be in communication with dolphins as well.

You stated: There may be suggestions that they can manifest in the 3 physical dimensions but are not bounded by our most perplexing dimension of linear time.

The implications here are mind boggling - at least to this mind. Thanks for your contribution.

Hi Whisper67,

The "time" thought comes from empirical (anecdotal) evidence. There are suggestions that such entities manifest using electromagnetic energy and seem capable of manipulating physical matter. Also, there is an interesting predominance of "prophesy" in encounter cases but not in a conclusive way.

I have wondered whether this is due, not to reticence on part of the apparent entities but of the nature of time and their ability to "see" into the "future". Time is often indicated as linear and proceeding in a specific direction, however, it may be that time is in fact a series of predestined events that link together, so that all eventualities co-exist at any point.

There is a conundrum concerning this since time is not necessarily a "forward only" dimension and if this is the case then predestination is almost a certainty. Think about our own time running backward and you suddenly realise that everything that has ever happened in our past and recorded as so would be predictable in the alternate-future. The same may be true for our "future" in that it is predictable for beings that live outside of the constraints of it.

Alternatively, in the "pocket time" theory such entities may be able to "hop" between "stepping stones" of point time but not so far that they have complete visibility of the future; rather, of relatively imminent events or events that are inevitable regardless of specific minor actions (i.e. negligible butterfly effect).

Such entities may centre themselves about biological lifeforms - why not since they seem capable of interacting intelligently with us. In this, I would assume that they would be of great interest to extra-terrestrial beings of the more "mundane" kind.

I would suggest that the majority of UFO activity we observe (certainly 3rd kind) is in fact "ultra-terrestrial" as in most cases, UFO evidence fits our expectations too well. It is like reading a book and understanding that the plot always leads you to the conclusion written by the author - the whole point of course in a book.