Orientations and Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomenon

The Unreliability of Eye Witness Accounts:
Lost in Translation

“This must be what a parallel universe is like', I thought. Everything looked the same, but I suddenly felt like it wasn't. Like everything had been taken apart, brick by brick, flower bed by flower bed, and put back together in the wrong order. Just like me.”
― Jordanna Fraibergberg

Had Ufology as it was practiced , in effect, managed to send itself off on a wild goose chase?
The question seems to have been answered in the incoherent jumble of theories and belief systems it has acquired as unwieldy baggage. Is there a fundamental error behind this history of diminishing returns in discovery while this social movement created in effect, a zoology of mythological creatures, motives, conspiracies and crafts,simply because eye witness accounts are taken as gospel and further abstracted by judging what was seen by our own definitions of everyday realities?
Remember the old saying "seeing is believing?" Has Ufology fallen into this trap set by itself?
If I were pressed to come up with another title for this brief essay, it would be best described as "back to basics". What is interesting to me is that many of my peers ignore the fundamental issues of Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomenon, while wishing for a reformulation of the means by which it is studied. The result is an astonishing array of either \ or propositions which have at their root, an attempt to make the prosaic match the incommensurable. If this phenomenon could speak, it might be saying, "Don't look at what I am holding in my hand but rather what this is pointing to."

It's pointed at us. It represents perhaps both an open ended system and a closed system simultaneously. The human mind by the effects it creates on the surface of how we communicate to each other is a closed, self referential system based upon the semiotics of stereotypes, benchmarks and markers that must ( by their purpose) remain fixed in order that we can establish an orientation to a sea of energetic information.
This self referential system of adaptation by way of rationality as a product of thought is then exposed as revealing this process as it is constituted by the probing ( for lack of a better word) by an open ended system that leaves nothing in place other than the forensic deconstruction of how we assume the architecture of reality is dominated by how we have adapted to it in a provincialism of mistaking referents for realities.

Not surprisingly, this nexus of a meeting between an open ended system and one that must remain fixed creates caricatures in prosaic terms, that are completely out of context as they are presented within our normal orientation.  A deconstructive reflective surface from without that our own orientations are thrown back at us which we mistake by it's effects on a closed system for purposeful manipulations from without when they are more likely to occur from within us by an exposure to a orientation beyond our own.
The either\ or conundrum created false issues such as they either solid objects or they are not as another example of observers being hoisted by their own petards. The bottom line is perhaps we cannot trust our critical assumptions or at minimum, keep them at a arm's length which seemingly most are incapable of.

The Issue of The Observer
I suppose that if I had to chose one word for the nature of consciousness it would be “synthesis” based on biological simulations of our entanglement with the environment. Add to this the incomplete nature of the knowledge base of thought and our identifications and associations in this process, which appears to be more of an effect than a point of origin. 
This process being at the nexus of our adaptation to the environment leads an understandable confusion. The descriptors we use become the object described. How we measure and recombine information in this process of digestion by way of thought somewhat resembles the scroll that activates the keys of a proverbial player piano we term our personalities which on the surface of these matters, creates another false impression that we are the aggregate sum of this as an identity.
Then we add to this confusing orientation the relationship between image and imagination which plays a more important role than we give it credit for. Imaging is a key ingredient whose entanglement with thought leads us to imagine our environment rather than directly experiencing it with the blinders off. One thought leads to another linked to images, meanings, a synthesis of information based on our own self created definitions wrought out of simulating our environment 

All of this appears to be a conveyance rather than either a destination or having a existence of it’s own as it is based on both contingent relationships of inter-dependant phenomenon. All of the above leads to an equally contingent basis upon which we define reality as a singular entity, set in stone that rests on what is actually sand. Astonishingly enough most writers on paranormal subjects completely bypass this most fundamental issue in relation to accounts of experiential anomalies.

The Issue of A Parallel Universe

“If a coin comes down heads, that means that the possibility of its coming down tails has collapsed. Until that moment the two possibilities were equal.
But on another world, it does come down tails. And when that happens, the two worlds split apart.”
― Philip Pullman, The Golden Compass

When we slice and dice the ingredients within the environment of recombinant anomalous experiential realities, we recognize the blended dynamics of spacetime, energy and information as key components several relationships created as contingencies, that synthesize what could be a chief feature of any manifestation, which is a loss of orientation to the set arrangements of the familiar and yet we cannot experience what we cannot image, nor imagine as to a parallel universe, and so there seems to result a rearrangement of not so much what we cannot imagine as never having been seen, but rather a chaos of our semiotics. Closing our eyes to the finite nature of our references seems to simply create more confusion.
The out of context semiotics of eye witness accounts have a striking similarity to that of the theory of parallel universes, where every combination and variant of information, energy and spacetime  co-exists.
Does this possibility match the endless variety created out of of the everyday identifiers in our fixed dictionary when faced with an open ended system of them?

 It does not translate as a construction of any known or strange architecture but rather an unraveling and deconstruction of what we have in hand to orient ourselves. It is if we are lifted from our orientation only to hit a proverbial force field rendered by how our consciousness has been arranged whereas we are not the drivers of it, rather we are being driven. Perhaps it is that we are programmed by our environment to grasp, to fear losing our current orientation for lack of a means to synthesize another and so consequently, perhaps this is a voluntary form of slavery to consensus that is directly challenged on the basis of our orientation to it by experiential anomalies. Not surprisingly, the processes of thought create mythologies of them, narratives of a recombined prosaic nature that have no definition other than by being placeholders for what we cannot explain to ourselves firstly, or to each other.
This synopsis by Jacques Vallee remains a pithy exploration of these issues.