Thursday, December 28, 2006

MORE CTH MUSINGS

Mac Tonnies, on his blog Posthuman Blues, has a
new entry on the CTH.


Here’s his succinct summary:


The CTH is a synthesis. In keeping with the "nuts and bolts" tradition, it incorporates what we know about our planet and its biology and arrives at a prospective anthropology of the "other." It eschews interstellar travel in favor of beings that may not be nearly as alien as we've been conditioned to expect -- by the media and (as I argue) by the UFO intelligence itself.


I agree with much of what Tonnies says with his CTH, and appreciate the clarification. For while it shares a lot of similarities with Keel, Vallee, Harpur and others, it isn’t the same idea. For one thing, as Tonnies states, the CTH is based on a biological/anthropological construct, and one where the “alien” may not be all that alien after all. In other words, sharing more with us than we -- or “they” --(you know, them) allow. The Ultraterrestrial theory for example, and its cousins, contain more fantastical elements that I don’t think Tonnies includes, from what I understand so far.

I like the CTH, even though I still hold to the opinion that the Keels, Harpur's, Vallee's of the world have a lot going for their theories as well. And I also hold to the ETH. That’s not the point however -- that I happen to like the CTH and am defending (as if he needs it) Tonnies’ theory -- the point is that the CTH, no matter what you end up thinking about it, is fresh. It offers new thinking about the UFO phenomena, and we can all use that.

Tonnies concluded with this:
Ironically enough, the CTH manages to alienate champions of the ETH and those who support a more esoteric, "interdimensional" explanation. It offers no clearcut reconciliation. It does, however, wield explanatory potential lacking in both camps.


I respectfully disagree that the other camps do not have the “explanatory potential” while the CTH does. All are speculation at this point, including the CTH.

As I
wrote in yesterday’s blog entry,
this fierce clinging to the dichotomy stops UFO studies from moving forward. And I happen to think all three are quite possible; the ETH, the CTH, and the more fantastical Ultraterrestrial theory. But that’s me.

Another issue is the response of many a UFO researcher, writer, witness, etc. to the CTH. Many have behaved badly, others have balked, some have said, like myself: “Hey, right on!” Or at least, “Wow, thank you for the intriguing idea on what could be.” Observing the reactions of those in the UFO field to this idea is certainly as interesting -- and revealing -- as the UFO phenomena itself. The UFO subject is a fringe topic with more than its share of denialbility, nay sayers, debunkers, disinfo and distraction artists. One of UFOlology's main problems is getting others to listen, to consider, to open their minds. It seems ironic then that there are those within UFOlogy who react to something new and intriguing with such stubbornness.

5 comments:

Mac said...

I respectfully disagree that the other camps do not have the “explanatory potential” while the CTH does. All are speculation at this point, including the CTH.

Hi, and thanks for the intelligent discussion.

I didn't intend to suggest that the ETH (and others) don't have *any* explanatory potential. They certainly do. I'm merely suggesting that the CTH lends itself to certain aspects of the phenomenon that the ETH (and others) don't.

Best,
Mac

R. Lee said...

hi Mac,

I've been meaning to post over at your place and send you the links here on my comments....thanks for the nice words, and the clarification.

Ray said...

Regan:

I've never believed in The One Solution when it comes to UFOs. It's trying to approach the problem from a strict scientific perspective, that the mystery could be solved by a formulating an equation like E=MC2 -- or in this case, UFO = ET. Maybe science can find The One Solution within a realm like physics, but the UFO field involves a variety of disciplines, from hard science to soft sciences such as psychology, sociology, history, etc.

So I agree with you that we should consider different answers and not be so narrow-minded to think that Nuts-And-Bolts is the only explanation. If the mystery is ever completely solved, it will probably turn out that different causes are behind it and these causes overlap at times.

Ray

Dustin said...

Well said on that one Ray. I try to say that all the time and I think you nailed it there.

Mike said...

New theory? Not really.

Much later than a book that came out in 2000, but this is some sort of amazing new theory?

I've referred to this theoretical race in print many times as "Hidden Neighbors" and Subterrestrials (divergent evolutionary types, as opposed to other-dimensional Keelian ultraterrestrials).

I am glad to see this idea gaining more acceptance--including the manipulation and deception factor. But this idea of subterrestrials with an advanced civilization goes back even farther than Richard Shaver--It goes all the way back to Gilgamesh.

Recent writers and supporters of the non-paranormal, hidden race hypothesis have included Timothy Beckley, Brad Steiger, Richard Shaver, and several others.

My writings and radio interviews have stated that there are a)unknown (sub)terrestrial races that are subterranean in habitat, with advanced technology; b)unknown (sub)terrestrial races that use humanity as a genetic stock and for other uses, as well as prey on surface-world resources; c) unknown (sub)terrestrial species that explain many "cryptid" sightings and encounters; d) subterrestrial humanoids who use misdirection, technological illusions (cloaking and holography, among others) and so on to MISDIRECT our attention to a DECEPTION about "extraterrestrials"; and so on.

Nothing new here, but the idea appears to be spreading and catching on. Pretty soon it may even be "hip".

I do look forward to seeing Mac's thoughts on this topic.

-Mike

p.s., See

CAVERNS, CAULDRONS, AND CONCEALED CREATURES:
http://tinyurl.com/yqk4zb
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns/

RADIO INTERVIEWS:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Mott_Radio_Appearances.html