Close encounters

In ufology, a close encounter is an event in which a person witnesses an unidentified flying object. This terminology and the system of classification behind it was started by astronomer and UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek, and was first suggested in his 1972 book The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry.[1] He introduced the first three kinds of encounters; more sub-types of close encounters were later added by others, but these additional categories are not universally accepted by UFO researchers, mainly because they depart from the scientific rigor that Hynek aimed to bring to ufology.[2]
Sightings more than 500 feet (160 m) from the witness are classified as "Daylight Discs," "Nocturnal Lights," or "Radar/Visual Reports."[3]

 Sightings within about 500 feet are subclassified as various types of "close encounter." Hynek and others[4] argued a claimed close encounter must occur within about 500 feet to greatly reduce or eliminate the possibility of misidentifying conventional aircraft or other known phenomena.

Hynek's scale achieved cachet with the general public when it informed elements of the 1977 film Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which is named after the third level of the scale. Posters for the film recited the three levels of the scale, and Hynek himself makes a cameo appearance near the end of the film.

Hynek's scale

Hynek devised a sixfold classification for UFO sightings: [5][6]

First kind
Visual sightings of an unidentified flying object.

 

Second kind 

Visual sightings plus the accompanying of physical evidence.

Third kind

Sightings of "occupants" in and around the UFO.

 

Bloecher subtypes
The UFO researcher Ted Bloecher proposed six subtypes for the close encounters of the third kind in the Hynek's scale.[7]
A: An entity is observed only inside the UFO.
B: An entity is observed inside and outside the UFO.
C: An entity is observed near to a UFO, but not going in or out.
D: An entity is observed. No UFOs are seen by the observer, but UFO activity has been reported in the area at about the same time.
E: An entity is observed, but no UFOs are seen and no UFO activity has been reported in the area at that time.
F: No entity or UFOs are observed, but the subject experiences some kind of "intelligent communication".
Subtypes D, E, and F may be unrelated to the UFO phenomenon.


   

Fourth

A human is abducted by a UFO or its occupants. This type was not included in Hynek's original close encounters scale.[8]
Jacques Vallee,[9][unreliable source?] Hynek's erstwhile associate, argued that a CE4 should be described as "cases when witnesses experienced a transformation of their sense of reality", so as to also include non-abduction cases where absurd, hallucinatory or dreamlike events are associated with UFO encounters.

Fifth

Named by Steven M. Greer's CSETI group, these purported encounters are joint, bilateral contact events produced through the conscious, voluntary and proactive human-initiated or cooperative communication with extraterrestrial intelligence.[10] This is very similar to some "contactees" of the 1950s who claimed regular communication with benevolent aliens.
The nature of this bilateral, deliberate communication between the intelligent source and the subject is generally claimed to be (however this does not have to be) telepathic.[original research?] The subject generally does not claim to be psychic. Contrary to popular belief, not all subjects in this category identify the source as being of extraterrestrial origin, but simply as otherworldly (or as being not of this world).

Sixth

On Michael Naisbitt's website, a sixth proposed CE scenario is described as UFO incidents that cause direct injury or death.[11][unreliable source?] This category was not included in Hynek's scale, and is furthermore redundant:[original research?] a CE2 in Hynek's scale specifically included UFO encounters that leave direct physical evidence of any kind.

Seventh

The Black Vault Encyclopedia Project proposes a Close Encounter of the Seventh Kind as mating between a human being and extraterrestrial that produces a human-alien hybridisation, usually called a Star Child.[12][unreliable source?] This concept is similar to ideas promoted by ancient astronauts theorists like Erich von Däniken, Zecharia Sitchin and Robert K. G. Temple, in that extraterrestrials interacted with, perhaps interbred with and influenced ancient human beings in the past.[13]

Eighth

Breeding with the creature or alien to make a Hybrid Creature.
This concept of CE7 is at odds with Hynek's original concepts, however.[original research?] Hynek's CE3 specifically avoided describing UFO occupants as "aliens" or "extraterrestrials", contending that there was not enough evidence to determine if beings associated with UFOs had an objective physical reality, let alone to confirm their origins or motives.

Serj Tankian - Harakiri


+

 Serj Tankian - Uneducated Democracy

Douglas Rushkoff : CNN: Unlike - Why I'm Leaving Facebook

CNN - I used to be able to justify using Facebook as a cost of doing business. As a writer and sometime activist who needs to promote my books and articles and occasionally rally people to one cause or another, I found Facebook fast and convenient. Though I never really used it to socialize, I figured it was okay to let other people do that, and I benefited from their behavior.
 
I can no longer justify this arrangement. Today I am surrendering my Facebook account, because my participation on the site is simply too inconsistent with the values I espouse in my work. In my upcoming book Present Shock, I chronicle some of what happens when we can no longer manage our many online presences. I argue - as I always have - for engaging with technology as conscious human beings, and dispensing with technologies that take that agency away.
 
Facebook is just such a technology. It does things on our behalf when we're not even there. It actively misrepresents us to our friends, and - worse - misrepresents those who have befriended us to still others. To enable this dysfunctional situation -- I call it “digiphrenia” -- would be at the very least hypocritical. But to participate on Facebook as an author, in a way specifically intended to draw out the "likes" and resulting vulnerability of others, is untenable.
 
Facebook has never been merely a social platform. Rather, it exploits our social interactions the way a Tupperware party does. Facebook does not exist to help us make friends, but to turn our network of connections, brand preferences, and activities over time --  our "social graphs" -- into a commodity for others to exploit. We Facebook users have been  building a treasure lode of big data that government and corporate researchers have been mining to predict and influence what we buy and whom we vote for.  We have been handing over to them vast quantities of information about ourselves and our friends, loved ones and acquaintances. With this information, Facebook and the "big data" research firms purchasing their data predict still more things about us - from our future product purchases or sexual orientation to our likelihood for civil disobedience or even terrorism. 

The true end users of Facebook are the marketers who want to reach and influence us. They are Facebook's paying customers; we are the product. And we are its workers. The countless hours that we - and the young, particularly - spend on our profiles constitute the unpaid labor on which Facebook justifies its stock valuation. The efforts of a few thousand employees at Facebook's Menlo Park campus pale in comparison to those of the hundreds of millions of users meticulously tweaking their pages. Corporations used to have to do research to assemble our consumer profiles; now we do it for them.
 
The information collected about you by Facebook through my Facebook page isn't even shared with me. Thanks to my page, Facebook knows the demographics of my readership, their emails, what else they like, who else they know and, perhaps most significant, who they trust. And Facebook is taking pains not to share any of this, going so far as to limit the ability of third-party applications to utilize any of this data.
 
Given that this was the foundation for Facebook's business plan from the start, perhaps more recent developments in the company's ever-evolving user agreement shouldn't have been so disheartening. Still, we bridle at the notion that any of our updates might be converted into "sponsored stories" by whatever business or brand we may have mentioned. That innocent mention of cup of coffee at Starbucks, in the Facebook universe, quickly becomes an attributed endorsement of their brand. Remember, the only way to connect with something or someone is to "like" them. This means if you want to find out what a politician or company you don't like is up to, you still have to endorse them publicly.
 
More recently, users - particularly those with larger sets of friends, followers, and likes - learned that their updates were no longer reaching all of the people who had signed up to get them. Now, we are supposed to pay to "promote" our posts to our friends and, if we pay even more, to *their* friends. Yes, Facebook is entitled to be paid for promoting us and our interests - but this wasn't the deal going in, particularly not for companies who paid Facebook for extra followers in the first place. Neither should users who "friend" my page automatically become the passive conduits for any of my messages to all their friends - just because I paid for it.
 
Which brings me to Facebook's most recent shift, and the one that pushed me over the edge. Through a new variation of the Sponsored Stories feature called Related Posts, users who "like" something can be unwittingly associated with pretty much anything an advertiser pays for. Like email spam with a spoofed identity, the Related Post shows up in a newsfeed right under the user's name and picture. If you 'like' me, you can be shown implicitly recommending me or something I like - something you've never heard of - to others without your consent.
 
For now, as long as I don't like anything myself, I have some measure of control over what those who follow me receive in my name or, worse, are made to appear to be endorsing, themselves. But I feel that control slipping away, and cannot remain part of a system where liking me or my work can be used against you. The promotional leverage that Facebook affords me is not worth the cost. Besides, how can I ask you to like me, when I myself must refuse to like you or anything else?
 
I have always appreciated that agreeing to become publicly linked to me and my work online involves trust. It is a trust I value, but - as it is dependent on the good graces of Facebook - it is a trust I can live up to only by un-friending this particularly anti-social social network. Maybe in doing so I'll help people remember that Facebook is not the Internet. It's just one web site, and it comes with a price.
Copyright © 2012 Alienpunk©.