The Phoenix Lights

Do you believe that throwing together a concatenation of trite phrases makes you sound more intelligent? If so, I regret to tell you it is not working.
In this context what is an equipotential surface? What is the surface measuring/expressing? Why should such equality be a prerequisite for a link between observation and perception?
Perception is the very opposite of naked. To associate the two words is to demonstrate you do not understand what perception is. Perception is clothed with many physiological and psychological garments. It is never naked.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your not a psychologist and your experience means nothing here.

Ok let me rephrase the question since you still have not directly answered the question and seem to be dancing a bit.

Please elaborate on the principle/mechanism in psychology which dictates why humans who have repeatedly perceived an event several times have a sudden and new reaction to the same event.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I mean no disrespect whatsoever Read-Only, but I honestly don't feel that it's wise to divulge personal information via the Internet. I will say this though, my formal education is far surpassed by my personal education and a desire to further expand my intellectual horizons.

I would like to illuminate a perspective that I firmly feel convicted to convey.

In my real life I am professional of two specific skilled undertakings. One is a profession that provides my primary income. I have been actively employed within this profession for over 20 years and have advanced to the higher realms of leadership and responsibility. The second profession is more so a heart felt artistic passion that I am highly skilled at as a result of over 30 years of experience and participation within. This actuated interest branches off into several different specialties of performance, teaching and service.

Via both professions it has become evidently clear to me that one must first possess a certain degree of natural inclination in order to truly excel. This "aptitude", for whatever one indulges in by choice, is the real decisive factor with respect to accomplishment. Not education.

I have witnessed people who have spent bookoo money on formal educations and training, relating to all manner of specialized undertakings. Some of these very people actually did quite well with respect to testing and exemplified a high level of admirable aptitude with respect to learning what was required. Yet these same people failed miserably when put to the real test of hands on practical application because they lacked the natural inclination to perform the services their training entailed. Practical application requires levels if interaction that are seldom duplicated in the classroom. Natural talent/inclination is something that cannot be taught, although naturally, it must be developed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As you wish. Of course the same applies to you in spades.

It is never the same event. The reason that psychology and the like have such a poor reputation amongst the 'hard' sciences is the difficulty of replicating experiments. This is especially true when dealing with real-world actions. There are too many variables to fully account for. Your inability to understand this suggests that my experience may mean something here after all.

 

You just cant accept that these town people KNEW what flares looked like. They had observed flares SEVERAL times prior. I cant help it if you are unwilling to accept this fact.

But its hard to believe that one night hundreds of people independently on different sides of the city forget what flares look like and start crying UFO. Are you suggesting some sort of psychic mass panic consciousness? How else would people on different sides of the city come to the same conclusion over such a mundane object?

 

You find it hard to believe because you do not understand human psychology, at least en masse.

 

How does human psychology explain a sudden mass hysteria from independent and isolated persons over such a mundane object?

You apparently understand "en masse" psychology so please enlighten me.

 

Lol. Grumpy old man slaps on label from a perceived notion of a self-appointed jurisdiction over matters of perception beyond his scope. He toots his exclamations in the grand style of established institutions—otherwise thought of as trite observations.

Well if it's so very trite you should be able to figure it out.

You expect me to elaborate further on this issue after you flung your grumpy trite temperament at me? What a cheek.

There's no equality between you and I on this surface—you already established that in your opening remark. Perhaps if you tried a different surface of approach we might be able to, uh, link.

To what degree of association are you referring to?

I plainly said:

Nakedness is an initial approach, a first movement, before the cross-referencing of established observations begin. Inotherwords, naked perceptions precede perception-cum-observation because they are not hindered by already established references to observational phenomena or modes of observation. The senses—without which you couldn't observe—must first light up—perceive—before being engaged by observation. Hence nakedness before slipping into something more comfortable for the benefit of one's dutiful conscience.

People first perceive UFOs as unrelated phenomena before engaging themselves with observing a "UFO" phenomenon. Only logical.

 

flares. flares. and maybe FLARES.

 

If you post crap you must expect to have someone call you on it. If you are not mature enough to handle that, perhaps you should not be posting at all.
You deliberately avoid saying anything meaningful in your first half dozen replies. You then attempt to say something meaningful in regard to perception, but all you do is reveal you haven't the slightest idea what it is. Do you have a liberal arts degree by any chance?

Let me summarise for you: bollocks.

fedr808 - the post is for Ripley, not you - timing issue.

 

Waiting for an answer Ophi.

 

And once I've recovered from flying half way round the world I shall answer you.

 

Umm okay. Makes me feel kinda awkward u no me that well but okay.

 

Tis a long flight?

 

Then question was rhetorical because the thing that spurred panic and phone calls to the police, etc. were not the lights at all , but rather that they were attached to one massive black triangular structure that was said to block out the night sky completely by the people directly under it.
This also was the description of the alleged craft in Stephenville, Texas by the closest witnesses. A sighting in which an unidentified object in the sky was confirmed by radar in not only directional proximity but also altitude and time frame.

And as for my own anecdotal experience, the very same thing was described to me by two extremely frightened teenage friends in the early nineties, with the exception that it was seen in broad daylight.

Many of the same features each time. Black, triangular with lights on the corners or perimeter, silent, able to hover very low yet accelerate with speeds that appear physically impossible. Size has been compared to such things as a "football stadium", "an aircraft carrier", "a holiday parade" , "a large shopping mall." or " a mile wide".

I've found that sightings of these alleged craft are so frequent they have a designated name in the UFO community. They are referred to as Big Black Deltas.

Perhaps Ophi could give us some insight on multi-locational mass hallucination while he's on the psychology subject.

 

There is one other extremely important element that accompanies mass hysteria that is missing from this case. That would be communication between those experiencing the mass hysteria. Most of the reports occurred over night making it impossible for the idea to have been communicated via the TV or other sources. A the time reports were made, no communication had taken place to "infect" the populous.

Mass Hysteria is truly post hoc in this case. It doesn't apply like it might have in a 3 year UFO reporting flap back in the late 50s/early 60s.

 

Still waiting Ophi.

 

Mobile phones

 

I may be too conspicuous for your taste, but I’m not in the habit of baiting people so conspicuously.

Is that all you're observing; the mere result of posting?

Is that an objective observation? Perhaps it's less tedious than you think: your misinterpreting a result, being bluffed by a double entendre, observing the crinkling cinders of my moments passed.

I was thinking of trying a different approach in saying something meaningful regarding observation. If, as you claim, relevant observation is conducted without a prejudiced mind, with an accurate focus unhindered by emotional content, then I would conduce that any member of the wild animal kingdom may be ideal candidates to supervise something as drab as psychoanalysis.

No, I know what you meant. But I was addressing—or attempting to address in this instance of aerial phenomena—the distinct differences between studying something afield versus witnessing something strange, at close range, and intermingling with one's psyche. —I'm sure the latter of witnessing something strange couldn't be as clear cut as you’d suppose. Yet to observe is not without its emotional content too, for one must feel detached from one’s subject, feel superior, feel untainted. One must appreciate as well as depreciate. And one must feel the necessity to prove something. —It’s that something that worries me: how far afield are you capable of going to permit evidence? Rather, isn’t it the will to evidence that feels ambiguous, beholden, intentional, rather than objective?

 

Why was the presence of mobile phones different in this particular case?