🛸 Founder of Operant Ufology™
blending Radical Behaviorism, empiricism, absurdism, and firsthand experience to observe UFOs, and the humans who observe them.
My new article:
💡The Disclosure Cycle:
Sisyphus, Skinner, AFR 200-2, variable-ratio reinforcement, and why uncertainty may be the most powerful force in modern ufology.
🔗https://t.co/i6wGlmDlQH
From a behavioral perspective, the Disclosure cycle may function less like a path toward answers, and more like an effective engine for sustained anticipation.
In this way, the #disclosure process has not merely kept people waiting for answers, it has quietly trained them to thrive inside the waiting.
#ufotwitter #ufox
Yes. I thought you knew this already. I went by a different moniker at the time. I trolled many, and I am not proud of this earlier me.
This was before I started to tune in to your words.
Then shortly after, I reached out to you to make peace to dissolve those boundaries,by asking about your musical preferences.
@MHuntington7 Disclosure is less a process of revelation than a variable-ratio schedule, maintaining participation.
I have been yelling this into the void for years now.
The measurement claims alone make the Gulf Breeze UFO flap worth revisiting.
Because it was reportedly a cluster, there may be weak hints of stimulus control across reports!
By stimulus control, I mean: did the alleged objects systematically alter behavior in relation to specific stimuli such as observer movement, proximity, light, or pursuit?
There seems to be much less evidence for operant control. Operant control: did the alleged objects change behavior as a function of consequence across repeated sightings?
What still seems missing to me are the antecedent conditions. Were weather, time of day, witness behavior, observer position, and environmental variables documented systematically enough to reveal patterns across the broader Gulf Breeze wave?
Better reporting makes better disclosure.
📷Rare Gulf Breeze UFO Flap Photographs Resurface
These images are attributed to the Gulf Breeze wave and allegedly show a daylight UFO photographed over Santa Rosa Sound on November 12, 1996.
According to the annotations, the object’s shadow was visible on the shallow bottom of Santa Rosa Sound, where the water depth was estimated at only 1 foot. That reportedly allowed for triangulation and size/distance estimates.
The stated calculations:
Distance: 108–115 feet
Height above surface/ground: 16–38 feet
Width: roughly 8–8.5 feet
Height: roughly 4.5–5 feet
I feel that this is the type of photographic analysis that makes older UFO cases worth revisiting carefully. Daylight imagery, environmental reference points, alleged shadow geometry, and measurable claims.
The key question remains provenance. Where did the original negatives, prints, or first-generation scans come from, and can the measurements be independently reconstructed?
Updates to come if I am able to uncover anything else in connection to these images. #ufox #ufotwitter
The waitress later reported they were polite, tipped well, and became visibly uncomfortable whenever anyone ordered the steak special.
#UFOx#UFOTwitter#SymposiumDivinorum
Interesting possibility! Though I sometimes suspect this subject has a habit of quietly updating itself to match whatever humans currently find impressive.
My boring little behaviorist question would probably be:
If this were true, what observable patterns would we expect to repeat?
Researchers remain divided.
Subjects appear highly social during periods of heightened activity.
Several continue gathering around the same mystery despite inconsistent feeding.
One specimen has reportedly said: “This feels different, Bill..”
#ufotwitter#symposiumdivinorum