Sharpen Your Shooting Skills – Indoors

Shooting simulators are cost effective, easy to use systems which can provide hours of entertainment and skill development for the whole family. You can use one of many replica laser firearms which are available or use you own gun on the simulator. New technology allows you to use your own personal firearm on the simulator, in conjunction with special laser-insert cartridges. Consistency is a key element for good shooting, now you can practice with the same gun on the simulator as you will take out into the field.

There are over 30 hunting and shooting games available for the system. Everything from bear hunting to dove shooting are options on the shooting simulator. Want to teach you kids about Hunter’s Safety?…there is a program for that, want to practice your shooting skills in a non-violent setting?…there are programs for that as well. Easy to setup and easy to use, you can be up and shooting in a matter of minutes. Do you find yourself uneasy at the shooting range? Always worried about someone else and their shooting ethics? All of this can be avoided by using a simulator in your own home. It is a fabulous way to provide a safe and effective learning environment for new shooters.

Want to introduce yourself or a friend to the exciting world of archery? It is a simple add on to the simulator. You can hold a competition with your friends for the high score, all the time building and improving you shooting skills.

Save time and money on your trips to the range, by practicing your shooting in your home. Getting ready for the first hunt of the season? Want to make sure you hit your target with poise? Build the confidence you need by practicing on an indoor shooting simulator, all from the comfort of your own living room or basement.

10 Key Steps for Safe, Effective Simulation Training

There are 10 key steps for creating realistic, scenario-based, decision-making simulations. They are:
1. Needs Assessment

2. Levels of Simulation

3. Creating the Simulation Format

4. Designing the Simulation

5. Training & Controlling Demonstrators

6. Providing the Training

7. Equipment & Safety Procedures

8. Creating Multidimensional Scenarios

9. Creating Multiple-Use Scenarios

10. Debrief

Step 1: Needs Assessment

Instructors must begin the development of a simulation-training program with a needs assessment. On what do their officers need to spend their simulation training time? Although shootouts with heavily armed bank robbers need to be addressed, officers must train for all use-of-force levels. In fact, in a recent series of statewide instructor updates conducted in Wisconsin, Bob Willis, a nationally recognized trainer, found the most glaring need of the 1,800 instructors was communication skills. Train for the needs of your officers – not just the high-risk fun stuff.

Step 2: Levels of Simulation

All too often instructors go too fast, too soon in their simulation training. You can’t teach officers new skills and then, with little or no practice, expect them to do well in high-level, high-stress, decision-making scenarios. After introducing the new skills, instructors should use seven levels of simulation to prepare their officers for high-level, decision-making simulations. These levels include:

1. Shadow training

2. Prop training

3. Partner training

4. Dynamic movement training

5. Relative positioning training

6. Environmental-factors training

7. High-level simulations

Step 3: Creating the Simulation Format

Next, an instructor must work from a written simulation worksheet to provide the necessary documentation of what officers were trained to do. Besides the individual officer-evaluation form, these simulation worksheets should consist of a title page listing scenario type, objectives, overview and equipment; a page for student instructions; a page for role player instructions; and a page with a diagram of the scenario. These worksheets are essential for documenting training and can help you defend against failure-to-train allegations.

Step 4: Designing the Simulation

After the needs assessment, the instructor will begin designing the simulation, which consists of:

1. Developing the simulation

2. Choreographing the simulation

3. Rehearsing the simulation

4. Implementing the simulation

5. Debriefing the simulation

6. Evaluating the simulation

Carefully design, choreograph and rehearse your simulations, or they can lead to training injuries, the adoption of poor tactics and liability exposure.

Step 5: Training & Controlling Demonstrators

The most important component of successful, meaningful simulation training remains the development of well-trained, fully controlled demonstrators. Instructors must assign these demonstrators roles that are specific, limited and carefully supervised to prevent a deviation-from-role that can lead to poor training and injuries. Tell demonstrators specifically and in writing what they can do and, equally important, what they can’t do.

Remember: If you use officers for role players (and most of us do), they love to win. With adrenalin dumping, it’s hard for an untrained, unsupervised role player to remember that the ultimate goal of the demonstrator is eventually to lose (i.e., be controlled by the officer in the simulation). Yes, demonstrators need to be challenging and realistic, but if the trainee performs effective tactics, the demonstrator should give realistic responses and allow the technique to succeed.

Step 6: Providing the Training

Once the simulation is designed and practiced with demonstrators who understand their roles, the instructor can begin the simulation training. Follow this checklist:

1. Conduct an initial wellness check

2. Explain the training safety rules

3. Conduct a physical warm-up

4. Explain the simulation drill’s format

5. Conduct the simulation drill

6. Conduct a debriefing session

7. Conduct a current wellness check

Finally, instructors should make their training a positive learning experience. Properly explain what you expect of the student, conduct a fair, winnable scenario and properly debrief the student.

Step 7: Equipment & Safety Procedures

Although simulation training helps prepare our officers to survive and win encounters on the street, it must be conducted safely – there are no acceptable casualties in corrections, especially in corrections training. Wellness checks, training safety rules and safety procedures make this happen.

Simulation safety begins with the development of appropriate safety procedures, the development and use of safety officers, and the enforcement of stringent safety procedures. Many equipment manufacturers have developed safety procedures to use in conjunction with their equipment. Instructors should always follow these guidelines to prevent unnecessary liability.

Instructors must keep their officers safe from live-fire training accidents.

Step 8: Creating Multidimensional Scenarios

One of the most critical issues facing instructors of corrections tactics training is the difficulty in finding the time to focus on multi-dimensional scenarios that allow their officers to train for the full range of corrections responses. Most simulations now focus on using one of the use-of-force options (i.e., verbal, empty hand control, intermediate weapons or firearms). This creates two challenges: 1) Training officers to respond effectively to the approach, intervention and follow-through phases of any encounter, and 2) preventing officers from getting caught in a single force option loop, unable to move up or down the available force options.

To address the first issue, instruct officers to finish their simulation training with at least one full-length scenario that takes them from initial contact to debriefing the subject at the end of the incident. Address the second issue by teaching the officers transition drills that take them from verbal to empty hand tactics, empty hand to aerosol spray, baton to firearm, etc.

These multi-dimensional scenarios will assist officers in preventing the gridlock that often occurs when facing stressful situations because no bridges have been built between the multiple techniques and tactics officers are trained to use.

Step 9: Creating Multiple-Use Scenarios

Another challenge facing trainers: Over time, their scenarios are soon burned by their officers letting other officers know the scenario prior to taking the class. To combat this, create scenarios with multiple outcomes. Of course, over time even a scenario with a couple of different outcomes can be compromised.

To limit the number of scenarios needed to keep your officers honest, develop a subject-resistance matrix that gives all role players five separate roles, including:

1. Compliant

2. Shell-shocked

3. Physically resisting

4. Presenting a deadly threat

5. Fleeing

Once you define each one of the roles, you can easily change scenarios by switching the role player’s role. This effectively gives you five versions of each scenario when using one role player.

It gets even more fun when you add a second role player, which allows 25 separate scenario versions. This adds an exciting, time-saving dimension to your scenario training because now, instead of creating a whole series of scenarios on a certain topic (e.g., domestic disturbances), you can create one scenario with 25 separate responses. So what if the officers know we are working on domestic disturbances? They don’t know what version they will have to respond to.

Even more important, they will start to place the subjects that they deal with in these five separate categories and learn preplanned tactics for dealing with them more effectively. As an added bonus, officers start transferring these multiple lessons-learned in training scenarios to the real world. They begin to think about multiple endings for those routine dispatches and start to ask, “What’s different this time?”

Step 10: The Debrief

The last step consists of debriefing the officer’s responses in these decision- making, scenario-based simulations. Debriefing is a critical tool in changing and improving an officer’s future performance, but it’s often not done or done badly.

Debrief in a positive manner. The old way of reading the officer the riot act, telling them everything they did wrong and putting them back into line is both destructive and counterproductive. Instead, conduct debriefing in a team-building atmosphere that includes the following components:

• Are you OK?

• How do you think you did?

• Positive comment, if possible

• What would you do differently?

• Role player, and/or peer jury comments

• Instructor summation

In addition to this team debriefing or as a part of it, review a videotape of the incident. Because articulation (having the officer explain why they did the right thing) is an important part of the training process, include it at this point. Many training facilities add report writing and even courtroom testimony to this section.

Take officers out of the scenario and, prior to debriefing, instruct them to make an immediate verbal report to their supervisor – kind of like the real world. Finally, if the officer did not complete the scenario in a satisfactory manner, provide remedial training to bring them up to a satisfactory performance level. Document this remedial training.

Go beyond merely asking your officers what they did; ask why they did it. Make sure you listen to your officers’ perceptions and reasons for responding as they did prior to telling them what you think they should have done.

Several years ago, we designed a scenario that tested officers’ ability to use their firearm to stop a threat. Two officers responded to a domestic disturbance involving two brothers fighting. Upon the officers’ arrival, one brother was straddling the other on the floor while hitting him on the head multiple times with a steel pipe. The assaultive brother refused to stop. We interpreted this scenario as a clear shoot situation, but we were shocked that less than 20 percent of the officers fired their firearms. They used a whole range of other force options.

When we asked them why they didn’t shoot the assaultive brother, we received numerous answers, including:

• The subject wasn’t attacking them

• This was a domestic

• They weren’t sure what was going on

• They could have unintentionally shot the apparent victim

• The subject was turned away from them

• The baton was in the their hand

• Liability concerns

Some of their perceptions and tactical responses were very enlightening. Several ways they stopped the threat were especially interesting, including striking the assaultive brother on the back of the neck with a baton, which we thought was an innovative way to end the assault without potentially shooting the brother on the ground. This led us to ask officers in future classes what they saw and why they responded the way they did before giving our “right” answer to the scenario.

Conclusion

Document your scenarios and evaluations of the officers’ performance in the training, along with any remedial training given to each officer as a result.

Conduct safe simulation training. Ask yourself this question before an investigator puts it to you during a formal inquiry: “What would other well-trained, experienced instructors have done to keep themselves and their officers safe in this type of training simulation?”

What’s the difference between a tragedy and negligence?

Repetition.

Too many repetitions of needless, preventable training injuries and death have occurred. A developing standard-of-care exists and, as a trainer, you will be held accountable.

We need to conduct decision-making scenario training, but we must do it right.

Closer To Truth: Debating The Simulation Hypothesis

There is an ongoing PBS TV series (also several books and also a website) called “Closer To Truth”. It is hosted by neuroscientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He’s featured in one-on-one interviews and panel discussions with the cream of the cream of today’s cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, theologians, psychologists, etc. on all of the Big Questions surrounding a trilogy of broad topics – Cosmos; Consciousness; Meaning. The trilogy collectively dealt with reality, space and time, mind and consciousness, aliens, theology and on and on and on. Here’s a fourth helping of my comments on one of the general topics covered, the subject dealing with the concept of the simulation hypothesis – are we ‘living’ as virtual reality beings in a simulated landscape? Much of what follows centres around debates I entered into on the various topics heading each section.

Arguing God from First Cause?

Are there really lots and lots of separate and apart fundamental nesses or just variations on one theme – a bits and bytes theme perhaps? Perhaps an electron is software coded as 1011 but its antimatter counterpart, the positron is an 1101. Variations on the quark theme might be 1010 for an up-quark and 0101 for a down-quark. The photon could be 0000 and the graviton 1111, and so it goes. By implicating software, I am of course invoking the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe scenario, otherwise known as the Simulation Hypothesis. That is, we’re all just virtual beings existing in a computer simulated landscape.

If something space isn’t a particle, then what pray tell is space? Space can’t be a field. Space cannot be a force. Both fields and forces require particles to generate them. What’s left? Either space is NOT a something at all, or space is a yet unclassified / undetected particle, or space is a something out of “The Twilight Zone”. What is space? Not what are the properties of space, but what IS space? General Relativity insists that space is a something, but proponents can’t tell me what that something fundamentally is. I say that space might just be a virtual reality simulation; just pure software.

Did the Universe Begin?

Despite the best efforts to argue the contrary in philosophy and theology (and sometimes even in cosmology), nobody can create something from nothing.

Therefore something has always existed because something can only arise from something.

That something has always existed is rather unsettling since therefore everything that can happen, has happened an infinite number of times and will continue to happen an infinite number of times.

That would perhaps imply that the cosmos is cyclic, like going round and round and round the circumference of a circle for all eternity.

But perhaps not cyclic in an absolutely identical way each go-round. Instead of 1,2,3,4,5,1 you might have the next cycle be 1,4,5,3,2,1 and then 1,3,5,2,4,1 – or not. Maybe it just has to be 1,2,3,4,5,1 for all infinity.

But perhaps at our level of reality the apparent creation of something from nothing is an illusion, albeit an illusion that will have to be repeated an infinite number of times.

There are numerous examples in our experience of experiencing seemingly something from nothing when in actual fact we experienced something from something.

First there was no pain, then there was pain, but the pain didn’t arise out of pure nothingness.

First there was no light, then there was light, but the light didn’t arise out of pure nothingness.

First there was no sound, then there was sound, but the sound didn’t arise out of pure nothingness.

First there was no odour, then there was an odour, but the odour didn’t arise out of pure nothingness.

First there was no taste, then there was taste, but that taste didn’t arise out of pure nothingness.

First you had no awareness, no personality, no intellect, no consciousness, no ideas, thoughts, desires, perceptions, etc., then there was awareness, personality, intellect, consciousness, ideas, thoughts, desires, perceptions, etc. But the awareness, personality, intellect, consciousness, ideas, thoughts, desires, perceptions, etc., didn’t arise out of pure nothingness.

Something from something is the order of the day as dictated by Mother Nature.

The illusion of the creation of something from nothing could easily arise if we exist in a simulated landscape; the creation of a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe by some nerdy computer/software programmer. First there was nothing, then the software kicks in and then there is something. But in reality, even at the reality level of the computer/software programmer, there always had to have been a something to work with.

How Are Multiple Universes Generated?

Ultimately the buck stops somewhere. Ultimately there is a really real cosmos. However, from that starting point, one could have simulations within simulations. Some really real software programmer simulated a cosmos, perhaps a Multiverse or Megaverse cosmos, and we, as simulated beings virtually inhabit that cosmos. In turn, we have created simulations both for training purposes, for research purposes as well as for entertainment-related purposes. Perhaps in the far future we, even as simulated beings, might create second generation simulated beings with actual consciousness that can in turn create a third generation of simulations. Perhaps our software programmers were in kind simulations in their own right, but the ultimate origin, the apex of the pyramid, can’t be a simulation. A simulation is a product of intelligent design, it is an artificial construction, and as far as our logic dictates, it is only the natural (the really real) that can, in order to kick things off, generate the artificial. From there on in, it could be simulations on down the line. How close we are to the apex – that ultimate really real reality apex – is not knowable. Therefore, we could be the really real apex. However, statistical probability tends to argue against that scenario.

So yes indeed, the possibility exists that our Universe is the original Universe, the one and only really real Universe and that all the really real intelligences that inhabit our Universe then go on to create simulated universes, and ‘life’ forms. However, if you take our world, Planet Earth, and call it a really real planet with really real intelligent life forms, then those really real intelligent life forms have created hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and ultimately many times that amount of simulated worlds and simulated intelligent beings (i.e. – video games). Now, go up the scale one notch, and what are the odds that we aren’t just one of millions of simulations created by really real beings that inhabit a really real world and hence we only think we’re really real? No doubt if you could ask a character in one of our video games if they considered themselves really real, they’d have to answer in the affirmative.

Actually IMHO the simulation hypothesis solves lots of problems. As a brief example, take radioactive decay. How can something that totally lacks causality – according to particle physicists – end up with a neat and precise mathematical relationship – the half-life? Perhaps it’s all just programmed software. Further, IMHO, the quantum enigma is perfect evidence that supports the Simulation Hypothesis. The infamous double-slit experiment isn’t readily explainable as really real reality; perfectly explainable as a software-generated illusion.

It’s quite easy to generate an entire universe without resorting to any simulation hypothesis, providing that a previous universe existed and a cosmos that in a broader context hosts multi-universes either in space at one time and/or sequentially. It’s the same way that it is easy to generate a human being, providing that there was a previous human being, or actually in this case human beings. Humans come and humans go but in the context of the broader context of the overriding human population. You have multi-humans both in space and sequentially though no single human encompasses that entire spectrum.

There are those who insist that the non-physical can create the physical.

Sorry, but as long as they insist that the non-physical (whatever that means) and the non-spatiotemporal (is that really a word?) generates physical reality as well as time (which is just change or motion) and space (the void that allows change to happen in) then I just cannot take them seriously. Logic, theory, observation and experiment all agree that such a proposition is nonsense.

And true believers can’t introduce a nebulous concept like God because God (assuming a God of course) is a something with structure and substance who interacts with matter/energy and exists when dealing with His (alleged) creation in a specific place at a specific time. The Bible says so. So there is nothing non-spatial or non-temporal about Him.

If you can’t have an endless (infinite) cosmos because otherwise things would have long reached equilibrium – entropy rules, okay? – And if you can’t create something of structure and substance out of absolutely nothing (you can’t make the physical out of the non-physical), then I guess that leaves as the most viable scenario for the illusion of creating something from nothing rests with the Simulation Hypothesis. All roads from the micro through to the macro lead to a virtual reality!

Well if the something-from-nothing scenario has flaws, as I believe it does, and if my something-from-something scenario has flaws, which true believers believe it does, then the Simulation Hypothesis can solve the impasse. There clearly was a beginning – as true believers maintain – but there was nothing physical created from something non-physical – as I maintain.

Since we know absolutely nothing about the type of Cosmos or reality that our software programmer(s) inhabit, it’s pretty useless to speculate. As far as I am concerned, and I am only concerned about our reality and only our reality, then as far as I’m concerned the Simulation Hypothesis resolves the concepts and the conflict, allowing me at least to move on to other topics, some of which now follow.

Why Aren’t Aliens Already Here?

I believe that the Simulation Hypothesis is the most probable hypothesis when it comes to choosing between differing possibilities of reality. However, the key word revolves around what I “believe”. I cannot prove that the Simulation Hypothesis is the be-all-and-end-all of our reality – not yet at least though I’m working on that. Thus, I must keep an open mind to the possibility that our reality isn’t virtual but really real and so my pontificating on the aliens-are-here, the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) and related, is to be examined in that really real reality scenario.

But if the Simulation Hypothesis is correct, what would it mean for aliens to be here? It would mean no more and no less than what would it mean for a simulated couch to be in your simulated living room or a simulated tree in your simulated front yard or a simulated crook to pickpocket your simulated wallet. Sceptics keep asking a question about the motivation of whoever programmed into our simulated landscape the this, and the that and the next thing too, including the concept of simulated anomalous lights in the sky and simulated extraterrestrials having their wicked way with a select few of us. I have no idea what the motivation of our Supreme Programmer might be.

I suggest though that one needs to perhaps look at things through the eyes of our very own simulated beings part-and-parcel of our simulated landscapes in our video games. What would these virtual beings that we have programmed think of all the bits-and-pieces that we have included in their virtual world? Why is this guy shooting at me? Why is this monster lurking in the shadows? Why is this Little Green Man abducting and raping my daughter? Do we not include aliens, and all manner of alien interactions in our own video games? Have we not created video games that revolve around “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” and their associated extraterrestrials? So, if we do it, what’s the issue with what someone (or something) might include in the programming of our simulation and simulated landscape?

It could well be the fact that as far as our Supreme Programmer is concerned, we are just trivia. If this Supreme Programmer has designed hundreds or thousands of simulated universes and landscapes, then yes, we’re trivial. But then so too are any simulation or video games that we create. You buy an off-the-shelf video game and isn’t really all of the contents really trivial? But back to virtual reality aliens. Since we have programmed hundreds of video games that feature aliens, and produced hundreds of movies and TV episodes (cinema being just another form of simulation) that featured ET, some made even before the start of the modern UFO era, why should we (Royal We) and why should you (as in just you, the reader) raise eyebrows at the thought that our Supreme Programmer(s) featured aliens? Many forms of what passes for entertainment is trivial. Our science fiction novels and short stories feature aliens by the bucketful who don’t “have to travel through space, time, space-time, or even a mental space to get “here”.” Well actually they have to travel via a mental space – the author’s mental space or the film producer’s mental space or the programmer’s mental space. So maybe we’re just entertainment for the Supreme Programmer, the “we’re” including aliens and UFOs all rounding out the Supreme Programmer’s cosmic landscape.

If we could talk to our video game or simulation characters (or characters written into a novel or who appear on the silver screen) – and as anyone will note, we can’t, yet – they might ask questions very similar to simulation hypothesis skeptics about why we (the Royal We), their creators, programmed this or that or the next thing in creating their simulated landscape. We (the Royal We) might respond that that’s the way we wanted it, even if it was trivial, or absurd.

Whoever, whatever, programmed our Cosmos and our local landscape had a sense of the absurd. Perhaps that’s our Supreme Programmer’s sense of humor coming to the fore. What absurdities? Quantum physics is absurd. The fact that we just can’t come up with a Theory of Everything (TOE) is absurd. An accelerating expansion rate for the cosmos is absurd. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are absurd concepts. Crop circles are absurd (but they’re here). The Loch Ness Monster is absurd (but people report seeing it or them). Long Delayed Echoes are absurd (but verified). Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP) are absurd (but verified). Those Martian rock ‘anomalies’ like lizards, rats and skulls are absurd (but they have been photographed). Biblical ‘miracles’ are absurd but millions believe they happened. The SETI “WOW” signal is an absurdity but it happened. There are all manner of archaeological absurdities, but I’ll mention just one – The Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in modern day Lebanon. There are many things that are absurd when it comes to the human species: here’s one – humans are the only species where the saying “don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes makes actual sense. If photons cannot escape from a Black Hole then neither can gravitons, yet gravitons convey the gravitational force which means that Black Holes exert no gravity and that’s therefore an absurdity. Then you have quasars that appear linked but have vastly differing red shifts which is also an absurdity. The missing satellite of Venus, Neith, is another absurdity as in how can a satellite vanish. You have physical constants that apparently aren’t – constant that is. Time travel to the past is both theoretically possible (General Relativity) and theoretically impossible (paradoxes) – it’s an absurdity to have both something that can be and not be at the same time. Ghosts are absurd yet there are probably more sightings of ghosts going back to ancient times than there have been sightings of UFOs. Perhaps UFOs, the “Greys” and related are also absurdities, but they exist in good company with the rest of what passes for our simulated cosmic ‘Twilight Zone’.

And quite so, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere when addressing the Simulation Hypothesis, no free will exists. The characters in our novels have no free will; the characters in our films have no free will; the characters in our video games have no free will. If we’re the creation of a Supreme Programmer, we have no free will. We might have no free will when we boldly go, but as long as we think we have free will, then we (Royal We) can be convinced of our boldly going prowess. That by the by could equally apply even if we exist in a really real reality.

But if interested readers have digested anything I’ve posted about the Simulation Hypothesis, they would be aware there is one vast difference between my postulated Supreme Programmer and a supernatural deity, God if that word floats your boat. My postulated Supreme Programmer is a fallible SOB and oops happen and absurdities happen. God, being omni this and omni that and omni the next thing couldn’t and wouldn’t create any oops or absurdities.

It is important to contrast a creation by a perfect being, an omni-God, whose creation logically would be perfect – no anomalies, no absurdities – and an imperfect being like a mortal flesh-and-blood computer programmer whose programming would not always be perfect and would probably contain anomalies and absurdities. The proof of that pudding is it the constant updates and upgrades you get for your PC as well as the news stories that surface from time to time about security programming flaws in software that allow the less than ethical among us to do relatively nasty things to our privacy, our bank accounts, our databases, our private and public institutions, like hacking into the NSA or the CIA, or having the NSA and the CIA hack into our PC’s.

Now from the inside, as virtual beings, we could never know for absolute certain that anomalies or absurdities weren’t designed deliberately or built into the system. But that doesn’t mean we (Royal We) can’t damn well have suspicions, especially when the anomalies or the absurdities just keep on mounting up. So there is no such thing, as you suggest, of a proven “oops”, but there certainly can be suspicions that something is screwy somewhere. There couldn’t logically be such suspicions if an omni-God (or equivalent) were the only option regarding our creation, something that was the case in ancient times before computer programming and software simulations was conceived of in anyone’s philosophy. An omni-God is no longer the only creation scenario game in town.

Here are a few more absurdities to ponder over. There are three generations of elementary particles, yet only one plays any significant role in the cosmos. The other two contribute nothing of substance and structure, so why is there a second and a third generation of the elementary particles? In archaeology, the Mesoamerican Olmec massive multi-ton stone heads scream out ‘made in Africa’ or ‘we’re African’, yet there should not have been any cross-cultural contact between Africa and Central America way back in Olmec days. Such a scenario is deemed an absurdity. Lastly, turning again to human anomalies, we alone in all the animal kingdom have a bipedal gait without benefit of a balancing tail. A bipedal gait without any balancing mechanism makes us very unstable on our feet. We’re very easy to knock over. We can lose our balance, fall down and do ourselves a mischief very easily relative to the rest of the animal kingdom. That Mother Nature would select for such an absurdity, is, well, an absurdity.

Exceptions to the rule, like the human bipedal gait, require extra special scrutiny since at first glance lone exceptions appear highly out-of-place and anomalous. Another example is with respect to velocity. Velocities can be added and subtracted with one exception – the speed of light. Why is this so? Nobody knows.

I repeat, our Universe might be deliberately designed to be a “Twilight Zone” Cosmos, but the odds seem to favour some unintentional “oops” caused by lapses in the programming that was done by my postulated Supreme (but fallible) Programmer. Given the absolute complexity of designing a simulated cosmos from scratch, it is logical to suspect that anyone who isn’t an omni-God would goof a few things up. You can’t prove that, but you certainly can suspect that not all is right with the Cosmos; you can have your doubts! The bottom line is that anomalies and absurdities most certainly argue against an omni-God but support the idea of a fallible creator, like a computer programmer.

By the by, if some people really do wish to call the Supreme Programmer, the software/computer programmer responsible for our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe “supernatural”, that’s fine by me as long as it’s not an omni-supernatural he / she / it / they. This is just suggesting that the creation of virtual reality falls outside of the natural. But what this nitpicking actually contributes to the subject of ET and whether or not aliens are, or are not here, quite escapes me. I doubt if the readers give a damn whether or not a computer programmer can be defined as someone who is “supernatural”.

I have, by the way, never told anyone that they are just a simulation. I have stated, again and again that I believe the simulation hypothesis has a strong claim to being correct. If the simulation hypothesis is correct then clearly UFOs are also a simulated part of that overall simulated landscape, and of course they cannot be a threat to our “real” existence since we don’t have a “real” existence. But they might be a threat to our simulated existence, just like a virtual reality entity in our video games can be terminated. So while a major threat to our simulated existence is the entities that control the simulation, simulated events within the simulation can also be a threat to life and limb. A simulated tornado can terminate a simulated being just as much as a real tornado can terminate a real person.