A Christological Joke

It strikes me that the Roswell crash is a philosophical allegory.

We are, you see, randomly thrown into the world and captured by a system (Heidegger/Althusser). As a result we do not have a culture of open meeting and encounter (as Levinas might want). Earth, it is Roswell. You are looking at a mirror of how we all live.

The question seems to be how we can elevate our society. So it ceases to be a random trap, and becomes instead a world where open, free, and conscious meeting is the norm. As above, so below. Roswell is for now a mirror of the human predicament in which we are the crashed and captured beings. You meet that by crashing and being captured.

That is either polite or a joke. We get, it seems, the UFO encounters we deserve.

Curiously Roswell means the place where a horse is led to water, recalling the famous proverb. You can lead the horse, but it may not drink. That looks like a pun on the Eucharist. Perhaps the alien has not only technological mastery, but a deep understanding of our cultural flaws and windows.

UFO Alignment

Thinking about how difficult it was for the world of the church and politics to handle Galileo's insights, I think we have to be realistic about similar difficulties confronting us when it comes to UFO truth. Who knows how challenging to the current organisation of life the revelations might be? How vexatious and disputed?

The cliched example is free energy. If fossil fuel and energy poverty could be switched off overnight, how destabilising would that be to vested interests yes, but also to geopolitics, the balance of power, and ordinary life too? The revelations might be more unsettling even than that. What if materialism itself is false, or our understanding of the afterlife? Science would falter and many political ideologies that depend on a materialist view. Maybe the church would see an opportunity for temporary ascendance; but if Christ was an alien what then? Would there be a final adjudication between Judaism and Islam?

We need, I feel, to get away from a good and evil view of truth vs the conspiracy and think more in terms of strategy. What is the insider's strategy (which might in part be benign) and what is ours on the outside (which might in part be malign)? Can those two strategies ever meet? And how? Let us think in terms of a UFO alignment rather than of disclosure simply. An alignment where the different interests can come together.

Let us as seekers of truth also think more about how the world could prepare for startling ideas. Ideas that might dismantle such oppositions as right and left, even of hierarchy and up and down, are not to be handled lightly and need thought. Let us show willing to make the task of disclosure easier, by becoming aligned philosophers, poets, and artists! 

Another Lamentation

Ufology is strange. On the one hand official denial, then the occasional leak from those doing the denying.

I think it is a bit of a flypaper strategy. Feed a drop to the fans doing the research, keeping them happy but at a low level, and control the narrative at both ends.

We are never experiencing the phenomenon pure, or in a spirit of public inquiry, but always as a government construct, always as a veil rather than the full reveal.

Puritans running a token strip club or speakeasy, watching the customers come and go. One official channel even had the acronym TTS AAS. You figure it out!

An Unsettling Dive into the Literature

Doing a bit of digging again. The earliest reference to the idea of "UFO disclosure" I can find is early 1977. In classic form, it is imminent: "Before the year is out, the Government -- perhaps the President -- is expected to make what are described as 'unsettling disclosures' about UFO's" (US News and World Report, Spring 1977). In classic form, it never did manifest. The idea of a UFO conspiracy dates back to at least 1949, of course, with Keyhoe's article in True magazine, "The Flying Saucers are Real" (in December of that year). This cites a cover-up by the Air Force. The actual word disclosure, however, does not seem to be used till much later. There is for example another reference in 1977, in an article from New Realities magazine: "White House UFO Disclosure Soon?", but the word really takes off in 1993 and after, with the foundation of Greer's "Disclosure Project". Now it is just a truism of the discourse. It is interesting though that the earliest instance I can find is an unattributed quotation. Was this idea, which is in origin an ultimately futile idea, seeded deliberately? Like "conspiracy theory" was in the case of the murder of JFK (see "Conspiracy Theory in America" by Professor Lance deHaven-Smith, University of Texas Press, February 2014)? I have looked elsewhere at how the analogue to secular disclosure is, I think it is obvious, the religious concept of revelation or apocalypse (as in the unveiling of what is hidden). Here is a new idea. In the invocation of religious terms, which are specifically not political terms, was there a deliberate and nefarious depoliticising ... strategy ... by the US Government? Apocalypse is in God's hands. Does the US Government equate its control of UFO secrets with god-like power? Waiting for disclosure, the sad game of a manipulated populace. Nothing religious about it.

A Cosmic Lamentation

This is really a piece of dream logic ... 

My thoughts today run in parallel lines, collapsing as follows:

The Rosetta Stone of the ET phenomenon. What will it look like, what will it be? I do think we are dealing with a fundamental problem of translation. It is not disclosure we need so much as a dictionary, or concordance, a cross-referenced index of the experience. The telepathic communications alleged, why do we assume they are simply in English? 

 

Which reminds me:

 

The Messiah will - according to the Rabbis - translate all the differing ways of man's being into a single fabric with index and schema.

So:

 

Is YHWH the name of man's planetary consciousness, his cosmic consciousness in a local sense? What is the name of the God of the birds, of the fish, of the animals? Is it the same God clothed in different names and aspects? Even further the alien. Who is his God? Is "He" or "She" the same, different, or in different clothes? God creates the whole universe, it is said, but is this not just the functional universe of man's local ways unto himself, a mirror of man's interests? Or is it indeed the whole universe? In Islam God is the sustainer of worlds, plural, a broader conception. Jesus on the other hand is dismissive of birds and animals, and has to be corrected on this, but is not so dismissive of fish. Questions not answers. I do not expect answers. What I would like though is a fractal bible that explains my perplexity.

 

Is the Messiah cosmic? Is his book? We need a copy of his/her notional Fractal Bible (cosmic edition) authored and signed! I sense only this can answer the UFO enigma - because the Messiah is in essence a translator dealing with unity.

Dream over.

The Current Hope

I think, on reading the literature, the reasons are quite clear as to why there has been a UFO cover up over the years. 

Looking at the history of first contact in 47, which was the early days of the cold war, and the radicalization of the cover up in 68, the age of hippies, the problem was very much that our first encounter was with communally minded tripped out plant people. To be encountered and learned from, yes. but shared with the public no. Critical decisions made in 47 and 68 then become embedded and gained their own inertia and self-interest.

The nature of UFO technology is apparently also very strange, according to the testimony, with people entering the pilot chamber for a few minutes, and emerging five days later for example, reality effects as well such as preternatural calmness reported, and a sense of the sacred and taboo, so disclosing this in 47? Our trajectory as a secularising scientific species - largely good - would have been shaken. Think how important science is today to global governance.

 

As we reach peak science though I wonder if the arguments weaken? Science is gradually bringing us closer to the acceptance of life elsewhere, in incremental progress on Mars for example, and the refinement of telescopes making detection easier and more likely. A Harvard Professor (Loeb) can go UFO mad in 2022, and no feathers are ruffled, not as they were when Mack, another Harvard Professor, did so back in 1994. Change has come. Arguments with communists and hippies are not what they were, if they are there at all. That is almost a joke.

 

Science and politics, not religion, have been the phobia driving the cover up - but progress has come. The chains get looser. I am optimistic that big UFO news in the window 2030-2035, now being floated in interested corners, some perhaps covertly governmental, is starting to look highly credible. We shall see. We must live to see.

Digging into an Idea

One of the stranger and more intriguing UFO documents out there, I think this is one of the earliest references to alien invasion as part of a global conspiracy:

The S1 Memo.

 

Preceded by biological warfare and population control, the date given is 2030. Curiously Strieber's site has just started promoting the idea that some kind of visitor contact/intervention will occur around 2034; he has also started sharing ideas of population collapse. There is an ufologist known to be a CIA asset, but no-one has ever determined who.

 

The attribution of this alien invasion idea to Werner von Braun in the 70s actually comes later through the testimony of Carol Rosin, maybe as early as 2001, but in the public domain nearer 2013 as far as I can tell. This document however is dated 1999. So I think the idea begins here. 

 

Well, this all came up in a conversation recently, so I thought the paper trail was worth posting, seeing as it presented itself to me today so serendipitously.

 

OK, digging deeper we find a reference in 1952 to the potential use of UFOs as a psychological weapon by the US, and fears that the US should configure responses to the Soviets figuring out the same (the memo is from Scientific Intelligence to the CIA, October 1952) - however no mention is made of a false flag alien invasion *specifically*:

 

The 1952 Chadwell Memo.

 

Project Bluebeam as an idea dates earlier too, to 1994, but the conspiracy there is the false projection in the sky of an antichrist figure. No alien invasion originally:

 

On conspiracist Serge Monast.

 

The idea of nefarious intent by the US Govt re ET enters the literature with Bill Cooper in 1991 and the X-Files in 93. ET abduction literature has its own history (1966 - Fuller, 1987 - Strieber, 1994 - John E Mack) - but the bad faith nexus of govt/ET does not really enter this until Strieber in 2011).

 

So overall the idea of a false flag alien invasion would seem to be a syncretism in conspiracy theory. Finding full expression in Greer 2013, it would seem to evolve the 1952 idea of horizontal false flags *between* the Soviets and the USA into a global vertical action by elites against the people (as per Cooper 1991 and Monast 1994); with Rosin's testimony on Von Braun in 2001-2013 crystallising Greer's opinion in 2013 (as per a general negative trend Cooper to Strieber 1991 -2011). The 1999 memo to Cooper is therefore an interesting outlier to the seeming development of the meme via that route.

 

Context (that I do not give here) shows that the outlier may or may not be disinformation from an exposed bad faith actor called Richard Doty. Ugh.

 

Summary: it turns out to be all quite interesting. The theory of a future false flag alien invasion seems to be a syncretism of various other conspiracy theories (i.e. a merging and evolution of earlier theories) but there is an outlier reference in 1999 that seems to come out of the blue - complicating that is the 1999 source may or may not be a person called Richard Doty, who has been fully exposed in recent years as a disinfo agent from Air Force Intelligence. So I would say the syncretism argues against its truth, and the 1999 letter argues 50/50 for its truth. This is the best I can do to approach this in a scholarly way. So there it is. Verdict: a 1 in 4 chance that the alien false flag invasion thing is a thing.     

THe Highly Strange Human Spectrum

 

Here is a good article on the alien abduction phenomenon by Ralph Blumental of the New York Times:

The Cultural Rise of the Abduction Experience.

It raises an interesting opposition.

 

On the one hand, there is government slow-footing on research into lights in the sky, with the ET hypothesis and so-called disclosure receding ever infinitely into the distance; on the other hand clear testimony from the wider public of ongoing "highly strange" interactions with seemingly alien entities. It is an odd, unsquared, circle. 

 

The phenomenon would seem to manifest in a spectrum, with government a distorting lens on what is patently inexplicably there, the individual seemingly a more open receptacle to what is outrageously anomalous. Governments just don't like to do strange do they? As for the people, hey, the strange is just common knowledge, common experience. Hell, government itself is strange sometimes! 

 

Is the UFO revolutionary technology - pun intended - that hopes we see that? That government is an inefficient filter for a true phenomenology?

 

Why the insurgent folklore?

The End of All Problems

It is worth looking at this video of the phenomenon of quantum locking. 

This works with electromagnetics - something we currently understand - but I suggest that a UFO's motor must use a similar phenomenon of locking. The lock would be to do with equilibrium in the quantum gravity field - something that we do *not* currently understand. Note that the motion is frictionless. Acceleration and lift is achieved without much input of energy, so a very light vehicle, with only a small source of propulsion, could achieve acceleration with ease. For those who doubt UFO propulsion, this points the way I feel. Like the UFO It looks imposssible, but this is here, now. Unfortunately quantum gravity is proving to be a very hard problem. We are a long way off figuring our own UFO technology - and one wonders what the meaning of this difficulty is.

I shall now delve for the sake of writing. The difficulty I mention. What is it?

 

Mechanically it is the difficulty of squaring what is continuous with what is atomistic. Quantum theory is essentially atomistic, but relativity speaks on the other hand of a space time continuum. So there is that difficulty - how a continuum can be quantised or treated atomistically.

 

Strangely this is similar to a dilemma in Hellenistic aesthetics. Between the continuous song and the poetry of sources and reference. Poetry continues and is one, for what follows would not be poetry if it were different, and yet poetry knows breaks and innovations, it exhibits differences. How can poetry be both continuous and radically quantised?

 

In turn this makes me think of the Hebrew world to come, how it differs from rationalist eschatologies of history, and raises the question, like McKenna's transcendental object at the end of time, of a step-change at the end of a continuum. How can a continuous history - like time - end purposefully, not randomly, with something categorically different? How can that be time's purpose?

 

It multiplies fractally: we see that the mechanical, the aesthetic, and the ethical are a continuum. Yet we can separate them and see them distinctly.

 

Insofar as the solution to the mechanical problem = the UFO, is the solution to the other problems also the UFO?

 

I posit a UFO that is the telos of all problems, aesthetic, ethical and mechanical. A mis-en-abyme solution to everything. To invent it completes a continuum and marks a step change. It is the vehicle of the world to come, the last poem.

 

UFOs, True or False?

A common idea in the UFO literature is that the UFO phenomenon is deceptive. See e.g. John Keel's Operation Trojan Horse (1970), Jacques Vallée's Messengers of Deception, (1979), and George Hansen's more generalist The Trickster and The Paranormal (2001). 

 

I think this idea is false, or at least inadequate.

Why say deceptive? To mark something as deception implies one has knowledge of the truth. Do we know what a true close encounter would say or do? There is no counter-evidence, so I say that we do not. The phenomenon may be mystifying, frustrating, or just plain not understood - but about what is it deceiving, if we have no model of what truth in this circumstance might actually be?

This modelling of encounter as a deceptive phenomenon - it says something about our own expectations of what an encounter *should be*. The parallel seems to be religious encounter, in which our belief is very much invested in the idea that truth is being communicated, or perhaps meeting someone with a map when one is lost, where - again - truth is key and the expectation.

We *do not even know in which mode close encounter is being presented*; if it is presented in the mode of a novel or poem, where is truth suddenly, for there to be deception? What even *is* an alien novel or poem or religion or map? Are there such things?

Hold a Bible upside down, or read it backwards, or with its truths inverted. Suddenly one has the Devil's Bible, or nonsensical gibberish, or at best something whose goal is to teach you the teleology of primordial chaos and regression. Is Satan not the first deceiver? If one holds a map upside down, and sees the map explaining North as South, then one will walk in the wrong direction and find the theatre where the museum should be.

We do not know if we are even reading close encounter the right way up, to say so confidently "it deceives, it lies!" - in what dimensionality or orientation was the message intended? Do we know?

Lying is typical in human societies. We arrange whole democracies around politicians for whom it is a truism to say that they lie. Tyrannies even more so, where the watchword can be that 2+2=5 is true. People may lie to themselves, lovers to each other, poets systematically by definition, to attain ... truth. All this is given, and we find it an inoffensive way to live, the natural, inescapable order of things. Lies are our normal surrounding before we even get to the mystics, who say reality is illusion and deception.

Is the human being the lying and lied to animal? How would the truth if presented to him as it actually is - and directly - be perceived? As distortion? As lie? Would it not in fact be *polite* to deceive such an animal on first meeting? The close encounter experience may otherwise be a mirror, a lens, a diplomatic imitation of the other's protocol as when a Westerner bows in Japan, or a love letter with a portrait of the recipient.

What does love or a curse mean to an alien anyway? We may have it all backwards and upside down, as Marx said of Hegel, who thought he was telling the truth, as Marx did also, if Plato hadn't refuted him, and so on and so on, backwards and forwards in time, ad infinitum, forever:

“My dialectical method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought … With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.” Capital Vol. 1

The UFO spins round and round, inverting inside and out, telling the truth, telling the truth?