SP:11 1897 Airships, and the Little Fellow in the Aurora, Texas Cemetery; Regan Responds

Erich Kuersten made many absolutely right on points about UFO research. He asks, using the Aurora, Texas case as his example, why residents of that town, science, etc. stonewall UFO researchers at a given point:

What is the reason for all the refusal to let science and ufology blunder in to try and prove the truth of the legend? Where does disrespect end and legit quest for understanding begin?

Of course we can broaden Erich’s question to all other UFO cases where this occurs, as well as paranormal and Fortean events like Bigfoot and other cryptid encounters, hauntings, etc. I think one reason this resistance to researchers “blundering in” is due to a fear of looking ridiculous. This fear runs so deep, it becomes far more important than answers or clues to Really Big Questions, like the nature of UFOs and the existence of aliens, or, Bigfoot, and so on. Fear of looking silly, gullible, or naive, of being hoaxed, or somehow taken in. Those fears loom over any truths that may be discovered.

As a side note and a bit off topic, look at the criticisms of researchers like Linda Moulton Howe. Howe, who has done significant work in the field of UFO and related research, like cattle mutilations, has been heavily trounced by others for her gullibility in some cases. Agreed, to a point, but so what? Do moments of hope, even gullibility in some cases, wipe out previous work, the data revealed? We’re human, regardless of philosophical stance on research, and when it comes to the soup that is Fortean-Esoteric-Paranormal-UFO stuff, we can’t afford to continue pretending things are so neat and tidy, clear and obvious. We are not objective beings, and we are often being played by forces we are barely aware of, and certainly don’t understand.



Erich writes:

Meanwhile, the evidence is already in and overwhelming if you're willing to accept it, to make the connections.

The evidence certainly is overwhelming, and we are reminded not to mistake evidence for proof. And yet, when one experiences UFOs, entities, Bigfoot, etc. for themselves, one can say that is proof. At least proof of something pretty huge; as to what that experience (craft, entity alien type being, Sasquatch, ghostly figure) is, can be further explored. Seeing a UFO with aliens inside, doesn’t necessarily “prove” there are non-human beings in spacecraft from other planets visiting earth. They could be fairies, Djinn, or government spooks. But they are, and they are most decidedly real. And sometimes, to quote Freud, a cigar is just a cigar.

Erich asks, of mystery and process:

Or to let somethings be a mystery?

I know Erich is asking this in context of UFOs and aliens, but I’ll extend this to other subjects as well, like Bigfoot. I accept that Bigfoot exists, even though I’ve never seen one. (Yet.) I accept it exists because I personally know many who tell me they have seen one, and I believe them. I also accept that the evidence points to its existence, and I have spent many years studying the stories of witnesses -- many who’ve had UFO and high strangeness events embedded within the Bigfoot encounter -- that I find fascinating. I may not believe everything literally, but I believe that, at the very least, a Sasquatch was seen, and in many cases, something profound occurred that extended the already profound experience of seeing a Bigfoot in the first place. I don’t need a body to prove Bigfoot exists, I don’t care if it’s ever proven it does, I don’t give a damn if science or the world finds this proof, especially if it means capturing or killing one. There is no -- NO -- justification for supporting a “kill” philosophy in regards to Bigfoot.

Likewise UFOs; first of all, they indeed exist. We see objects in the sky all the time. “Do UFOs exist?” is most decidedly the wrong question.

For myself, who’s seen several UFOs, experienced missing time, and all kinds of other high strangeness episodes, since childhood, involving UFOs and entities, I don’t need proof. I don’t need to justify or even explain. I don’t need to do anything. I am, however, compelled to explore, and also share. I'm not sure why,  it’s just part of the process. Take it or leave it, like it or not, believe me or don’t.

Erich asks us:

What do YOU believe? And in the end, do you really need everyone else to believe it first? Are you afraid to pick a truth and make the jump, to just answer your own multiple choice rather than spying on all your neighbor's papers?

More excellent questions posed by Erich. This is why I’m not bothered by the tricksters, hoaxers (well, I am to a small degree, but not by much), and more importantly, the  ones much of UFOlogy hold in disdain, like the contactees. Who knows if the paranormal Bigfoot witnesses are nuts, or the contactees were liars? Their experiences are simply too rich and complex to dismiss as simple deceits. A few out and out liars within the global experiences of the weird doesn’t justify the exclusion of these kinds of stories. And what of the UFO Police; those who demand that certain types of witnesses, researchers, theories and experiences be excluded -- shunned --from their would be tidy world of UFO research? 

It gets back to the ugly side of human nature, that fear of looking silly. Researcher A is serious, damnit, and he or she shall not be tainted by associating with researchers delving into reptilian encounters or channeling aliens or Contactees or psychic Bigfoot. These stories may be full of it, but, within those stories is something we are missing by rejecting them. And that is the deceitful, playful, sometimes dangerous, sometimes merely mischievous, force of the thing itself; the very UFO/Fortean phenomena Researcher A, along with the rest of us, are studying.

And then there’s another unpleasant side to human nature: arrogance. We get so stuck in our egos, our personas, our need to be right (rather, to appear to be right), that we simply won’t let others play.

A recent example of the need for control over theories and research was the thuggish antics of crop circle researchers Michael Glickman and Gary King, who demanded that Colin Andrews be removed from the list of presenters at the Power Places International Crop Circle Conference this past summer.  If the coordinators of the conference did not agree to dis-invite Colin Andrews, Glickman and King said they would not appear. What a sad and distressing combination of arrogance and fear.  Withholding information -- and possibilities -- from other researchers as well as the public is unethical. It clearly speaks to the fear within, as well as the fear of others -- you, me, us, -- to think for ourselves. (Rather than dis-invite Andrews and give in to Glickman and King, the conference directors canceled the conference altogether.)

So, we don’t get to exhume bodies, kill a Bigfoot, get invited into the halls of Big Science to play with their toys, and yet we continue to frantically grasp after proof, after things that will say I’m Right, You’re Clearly Deluded. Forgetting that such proof will never be enough, will never satisfy, will never end such experiences, and will never completely answer anything.

Dead Bigfoot body: how does that explain the high strangeness aspects of BF encounters? What of protections for the creature -- what kind of being is it, and how does it affect culture, religions? UFOs proven to be from, Mars? Are the countless other UFOs from Mars as well? Do we suddenly forget about the man made UFOs that are covertly and illegally operating in our skies, with ill intent? (social engineering, chemical warfare, etc.) This Holy Grail of Proof, once found and offered, will only reveal more questions, and we'll find, it really wasn't proof at all.

We are always in the front room, to use the anthropologist’s example. No matter how much we may think we’re in the know, there are many more rooms to explore. We move into one, or two, if we’re lucky, and told we’re “in.” Some of us believe that. Some of us refuse to believe there are more rooms; or that, those rooms are of no consequence. Those rooms are just the broom closets, not worth investigating. Well how do you know, if you haven't looked?

SP9: Regan’s Comments

Government Disclosure Won't Happen
The Disclosure movement means well, and disclosure proponents don’t bother me; however, I happen to think they’re naive. The government will never come clean, simply because it can’t. It’s a system that is its own entity which, regardless of original intents, ends up defending and protecting only itself. That’s the nature of all bureaucracies. It’s naive to think that the government would come forward in complete openness in regards to anything, let alone UFOs. My opinion doesn't not mean -- and it certainly doesn’t prove -- that UFOs don’t  exist, or that the government doesn't know a hell of a lot more than it’s telling. I don’t trust authority; it’s that simple. The government isn't in the truth business, so I don’t expect the government to be forthcoming. If there’s an agenda that will be satisfied by the government’s disclose concerning UFOs then they will give us “the truth” though no doubt that “truth” will be only some of the truth concerning UFOs.  There’s always a back room, which the rest of us in the front room will never get to see. The government doesn’t want to lose control over us, and it doesn’t want to admit it doesn’t know what to do about UFOs. That, and the need for self-protection, ensures that a completely authentic disclosure will never happen.

We need to focus on ourselves in regards to the UFO phenomena.

Definitions, Interpretations, Minutiae, Disclosures
UFOs exist, and that’s that. We need to get over the self-defeating cycle of engaging in the argument of whether they exist or not, and in pointless rounds of  defining “UFO.” UFOs exist; what they are, is something else. For those of us with direct experience with non-human beings and weird objects in the skies, we beg to differ when it comes to these now pointless time wasting arguments about existence. We don’t know with an absolute that the government has information concerning UFOs, although it’s a solid and rational thing to think that the government has plenty to disclose. It’s a safe and a rational assumption to make; that the government knows far more than it pretends when it comes to UFOs. No harm in asking, and for that reason, I just don’t have much of a disagreement with Disclosure people. I don’t think they’ll get anywhere, and I think it borders on the ridiculous to believe the government -- any government -- will reveal all, but it’s nice they’re trying. Little bits get revealed here and there, and that’s something. It all gets added to the vast, complex puzzle.

Even for us that have experienced such things as aliens and flying saucers and all the rest,  I can’t say they’re from outer space. They very well may be; or they could be inner earth dwelling creatures, or... combinations we haven’t even thought of. They are real, they are here. That is the reality. The rest is interpretation.

As Erich pointed out in his post,  many countries did “disclose”, in a sense. But it’s not true Disclosure until the alien is let out of the space ship on CNN. As to Project Bluebook, that was no attempt at disclosure, but a show to placate. Valuable data, thanks to the continued efforts of diligent researchers, but the intent? Appeasement and distraction.

Significance
It’s not a contest; this idea of disclosure concerning UFOs with other types of disclosure. The horrors of this world are real, and the idea that, because one has either experienced UFOs in some way in their life or has an interest in them is then uninvolved or disinterested and non-compassionate is another distraction. Interest in subject A does not negate interest -- or compassion and activism -- in subjects B, C and D. . .

The UFO phenomena is significant; and, if disclosure ever does take place, that will become even more evident. The fact that both myself and my spouse have experienced missing time in connection with UFOs on at least two occasions is very significant. And if the government was responsible for that, (a MILAB type event, for example) that’s damn well significant, because it means the government was doing things, obviously, it had no business doing. If it was aliens, that’s certainly significant.  Other possibilities, sure, but really, far less likely. No thank you very much, we are not mentally ill, or suffering from shared delusions, and I won’t dignify that argument with any more energy than this.

If one holds the view that such things don’t exist, or only exist in one context, how can it then be decided that that thing is significant or not?

It may be the aliens arrive, everyone nods and says, “Yeah, we kind of thought so,” and it’s business as usual. No major cures, wars continue, the human race isn’t saved from ourselves, the aliens don’t seem much to care. They’re here for sight seeing, or resources. They could not care less about us or the planet. Or, maybe they’re benign and loving and things will be groovy forever. I have no idea. That’s assuming  there’s just one race of alien. For all we know, there are several vying for power and control. Or, not. Point is; we don’t know.

Processing and Individuation
I accept that I’ve had experiences, and I’m trying to process them. But before we can get to some kind of individuation, as Erich refers to, we have to complete the processing, and that is different for everyone, including UFO Police, disclosure activists, and everyone else.

Is is so important we have some kind of individuation in UFOlogy? We don't know what we’re dealing with in the first place; labeling our responses to an unknown is expected -- how else do we make it so we can productively work towards understanding unless we break it down somewhat -- but we need to be aware we haven’t solved anything, simply because we stuck a label on it.

The assumption that it has to be aliens in the flying saucers, because what else could it be, is just that: an assumption. But it’s not a ridiculous assumption, nor is it irrational. It’s wrong headed to state, as a fact, that they’re aliens from outer space, but not so wrong headed to seriously consider that speculation.

It could be the UFO phenomena, including its entities, is a “mythic” journey, or some kind of “psi” event. Its responses to us  --  or what we see as in response to us -- ours to it, etc. --- our pursuit of “the answer” a hero’s journey. Into the underworld. Crossing liminal thresholds. Metaphors for an Other.  It could also be that that’s just a part of it, or that it seems that way to us, merely because of technology. As Budd Hopkins and Carol Rainey pointed out in their book Sight Unseen: Science, UFO Invisibility and Transgenic Beings , much of what the UFOs and aliens do seem “magical” to us because their technology is so beyond ours we aren’t able to perceive as simply manifestations of engineering and science. To us, it’s magic, or paranormal.

Levels of Disclosure
There’s personal disclosure, such as the encounters the individual experiences. Murky, confusing, for myself, no real anything other than the life long experiences. Very Zen like. No answers, no cures, just. .. UFOs and vague entities and weird moments over fifty plus years.  That’s pretty cool actually, and yes, significant, but as to answers: not much. Who they are, what they are, where they’re from, what they want.. nope. I can’t tell you. They just . . . are.

Then there’s the Disclosure humans. Activists who push the governments of the world to come clean. As noted, they’re naive and will never get any government to come clean. Even if an alien is shown inside a UFO on the news, and official government pronouncements are made that “they’re here,” -- how could we know they’re telling the truth? How can we be sure, really positive, that the alien isn’t a cleverly created puppet, or worse, some horrible science experiment involving hybrid animals; who knows what Dr. Evil madness lurks?

Finally, there’s the Oh My God Disclosure: “them.” They don’t need -- we don’t, won’t need -- any government to do anything. The aliens themselves have done it for us. They simply arrive in hundreds of mother ships, land, and, there you have it. They’re here. Like an episode of V, except real, a lot less cheesy, and, hopefully, not creepy human flesh eating reptilians.

Interpretations, The Djinn, Angels and Demons. . .
Some cultures accept these things as everyday realities as “normal” and expected as everything else. The mundane and the sacred are not so separate. Researchers Farah Yurdozu, Phillip Imbrogno, Rosemary Ellen Guiley (The Vengeful Djinn Unveiling the Hidden Agenda of Genies) among others, refer us to Turkish perceptions of these UFOs and beings; they call them Djinn, and accept that these entities cross into our dimension. Some Christians in our culture and elsewhere frame these experiences in a demon/angel dichotomy. While I have problems with that dogma the idea isn’t so far off. What came first, the demon/angel/god motif, or the alien from Mars?

Whatever they are, they are, and there are many paths on this very significant journey to discovery.

SP-7: Regan's Take on Hawking's Comments

Stephen Hawking’s mind seems to have taken some negative turns recently. In his Discovery Channel special this past spring, he speculated that ET would be malevolent:

“If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

More recently, Hawkings stated in his book The Grand Design, God/god/g-d/ had nothing to do with creation because there is no god. God. Whatever:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

(In a round about way, I can see what Hawking is getting at: it isn’t necessary to create a cartoonish, childish figurehead that we appease in order to shift responsibility away from ourselves to explain things, and I don’t think ETs are necessarily magical wondrous Space Brothers and Sisters who will give us lots of candy. Or, Jesus for that matter.)

Some die hard skeptoid atheists types might play semantic games with the following, (to them any “belief in” anything concerning spiritual matters is, at best, New Age froth, and at worst, religious zealotry)  but I don’t have a religious quibble with Mr. Hawking on this, because I’m not a Christian or religious person. I don’t believe in God as in Daddy Supreme being, don't believe the Bible is the word of a God, either directly or inspired, and so on. I do believe in what’s loosely called “Intelligent Design” which is an uneasy and dangerous label to use, since that term often invokes Christians who want to force public schools into teaching their particular brand of creationism, bring prayer into schools, or trying to get Glen Beck into the White House.

How about consciousness. When I think of “god” I think of living, intelligent, sentient, ... consciousness.

So Stephen Hawking talks about gravity and my question is, what created gravity? Who, what, how, why, ... is behind gravity, the universe, the constant flux, the stuff, this, that, ... ?  Simplistic answers deliver us a single God, and one personified to fit into our puny little human needs for control and fear based authoritarian structures.

Other spiritual systems, many of which I happily align myself with because they bring me comfort, are fun, have beautiful colorful artistic images of deities, help me focus and even, yes, manifest powerful moments in my life on various levels, aren’t as punitive and vengeful as the straight ahead Judeo/Christian/Islam triad of petty monotheistic beings misinterpreted, abused and mangled by humanity to control and kill their fellow human sisters and brothers -- and, give them permission to abuse and kill their fellow non-human sisters and brothers (animals.)

However, that’s all beside the point. Hawking hasn’t answered anything, he’s merely made a pronouncement based on his personal belief. We can argue all day about the existence of God, but first, we need to get clear on a few things; like, an agreed upon definition of what God/god is. My “god” if I call it that, which I don’t, is not  a single deity,---  unless, you want to consider that we're all “gods,” and in that sense a single deity, since we’re all sharing the single consciousness --  and is not vengeful, spiteful, arrogant, bestows grace only if you agree to believe in it (which is usually a him), is not just a “him,”  doesn’t give a damn if we pray to it or not, especially in schools and at football games, doesn't care if you're gay, bi, pan or transsexual, doesn’t ... well, you can see where I’m at.

From a human interest perspective, I’m curious about the ironic juxtaposition of Hawking's profession -- mega-intelligent universe pondering guy -- and his dark view of that very universe. ETs are going to eat us for lunch, the universe is just a gravity machine, coldly and non-mysteriously doing its mechanized thing, without consciousness.

So Hawking doesn’t believe in any kind of a God/god whether it’s a consciousness metaphysical concept, or a more traditional Christian kind of God. He can’t prove there is, he can’t prove there isn’t. Shrug. I’d like Hawking to take the next step and ask:  what created this gravity-machine? Gravity is “god,” man.

TCI - SP3 - Reader `Robin' Actualizes Discussion On Harmonics

Robin said...



Ah yes, Sheikh Al-Akbar, The Greatest Sheikh, Ibn Al-Arabi, is definitely, I think, potentially a very fruitful area of investigation if we are going to speak of, as you say, "Worlds that exist and yet are non-manifest." Henry Corbin's book, Alone With The Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn 'Arabi, and some his other books,(not to mention Arabi's own writings themselves), contain some very interesting and in depth looks at some of these "intermediary worlds" , as I'm sure Bruce is well aware, but some of the readers might not be.






Also, I think you're right on here when you mention Rumi, and the importance of "the heart as the most developed sensory organ whose vast abundance of embedded nerves, is second only to the mind itself." The Sufis call the heart an "organ of perception" , and with Science telling us that there is an abundance of neurons in the heart as well as the brain, maybe the Sufis are right. Of course, I could also point out, as many are probably already aware, that the Chinese word, Shin or Xin, and the Japanese word, Kokoro, both have the dual meaning of "heart-mind" , and that they're the words they use to refer to what we in the west just call "mind." But if you ask them where this "mind" is, they point to their chest, not their head like we Westerners do. And then, of course, this also calls to mind the Native Americans' heavy emphasis on speaking and acting "from the heart." They too, make a correlation between the heart and mind, as do many "tribal" traditions. I'm sure you can think of many other examples.






And in my research as well, as you say, "one provocative notation appears again and again" , that being, "the pre-existing emotional tenor of the experiencer." And this goes for any type of experience, from the "mystical" to the "supernatural" to the "paranormal" or what have you, emotions seem to play an important function in all this. As an example from Mysticism, we have the Sufi Dhikr Ceremony, in which music, chanting/singing, movements and dance, together with the overall environment, are all designed and used to bring the participants emotions and energy level to the highest pitch possible, and therefore, hopefully, ideally, launch the participant, the Dervish, into some heavy mystical experience, or some type of "altered state of consciousness." I'm sure the reader can think of examples from other traditions around the world where this technique is used.






Ah, but we should watch out, because, and I'm sure Bruce is well aware of this, as both Idries Shah and Gurdjieff tirelessly point out, emotions, or rather, mystical experiences connected with intense emotional states can be dangerous and decieving sometimes, if not most of the time. And if it can be dangerous and decieving for "mystical" experiences, then I imagine this would apply to any other type of "paranormal" or "supernatural" experiences. So I think we should definitely be aware of that factor.






And I agree that clinical-type research environments probably do have a "dampening effect" on the emotional angle in all this. And of course, as Bruce is well aware, environment is always an important aspect to consider in any experience, beit paranormal, mystical, or even just plain "normal".






As far as harmonics goes, being something of a musician myself, you'd think I might have something to say on the subject, but alas, I do not. Although I did find what you said, and the YouTube video, quite interesting and intriguing.






Anyway, that's all I have to say for now. Sorry if it was a bit long, but I wanted to try and contribute something to the discussion.






Peace to All