Speculation

“There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

What is the difference between weird-icky and weird-wonderful? And is there really a difference? I ask in light of all the recent hoopla around flights of fancy vs. real stuff. Its ok to talk about all the people missing out of national parks and human sacrificial cults but not ok to talk about ufo cults and religious similarities? Especially when they are very similar? Or how the movies and books can now be considered having as much impact on your psycho-social development as real life experiences, proven by the research?

Both movies and sightings are “events” in that they have distinct beginnings and endings. Zacks’s research indicates that people cognize some media or film events in ways that are similar to real-life events.22

22) Gabriel A. Radvansky and Jeffery M. Zacks, Event Cognition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

We know that media can bypass the conscious mind and flow straight into the unconscious mind, where it forms memories and occupies its own place. This suggests that the realism of fictional characters and narratives must be re-examined, first as actors within the unconscious but also as potentially real and autonomous agents. The psychic component of UFO and apparitional events once experienced by the few can now be experienced by millions, due to media technologies. The beings really are in our heads; for those born in the 1950s and beyond,

23) Andy Clark, Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension (London: Oxford University Press, 2008), 131–132.

Pasulka, D.W.. American Cosmic (p. 254). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

To read Walter Bosley’s books is a real experience, he speculates off of factual and historical research. The speculations are intrinsically interesting in his willingness to climb out on the skinny end of the twig. Diana Pasulka in her book, ‘American Cosmic’ does the same thing eventually leading the more academic staid reader, to the same conclusion:

“There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

But, IMO, what we are looking at in both cases are situations where people have come upon information that is unexplainable except but by speculation because in one instance, they have been shut up or suicided or whatever else, and in the other, the religious community has imbued it with their very own brand of horror or confustication. (have you noticed horror is a useful tactic to muddy the waters, esp. if you want people to stay away from certain information?) Make no mistake, the catholic church is very guilty of using horror, for what were demons before they were demonized? And visitations were only sanctioned and made right in the eyes of the church after enough investigation had gone on to make sure that nothing that was said went against the dogma of du jour. This usually happened years and centuries after the visitee was long gone and buried thus unable to speak anymore and goof up the narrative.

Which really strikes me as what is happening in the vaunted halls of Ufology today. What is coming out can’t be edited, or re-asked about because those that told it are all but dead, and therefore the narrative can be toyed with to fit the purpose du jour…. See where I am leading?

Very much like religion, Ufology has its demons and scary parts that are signposts that say, ‘Don’t go that way!’ and there are sometimes very real physical things that happen to the people that do. We have our cults just like the various religious factions do, we have our mystics, we have our intrepid investigators, just look at the patterns.

And beneath it all is a something that is hidden, something that at all costs must be never revealed. It also has dark and  light sides to it, whatever it is will either kill you or disappear you or give you the tools to do that to others. And just like other orders/groups there are levels of in-ness, initiates and the like who are lead to believe that only their part of the story is correct by being confusticated by the information and by those who imparted it. IN EVERY CASE. Without exception.

The scant few normal, hyper-curios and imaginative people that have actually put two and two together as four always seem to vanish as if they found the off switch to this place. Either that or they have been cowed into a sort of submission on overdrive and never speak of it again. And those that stay here and know, write odd and weird ditties that one can never really know the truth of, and only….speculate about. IMO because the language dis-allows for the actual description of said qualities. For example

Para:

a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, most often attached to verbs and verbal derivatives, with the meanings “at or to one side of, beside, side by side” ( parabola; paragraph; parallel; paralysis ), “beyond, past, by” ( paradox; paragogue ); by extension from these senses, this prefix came to designate objects or activities auxiliary to or derivative of that denoted by the base word ( parody; paronomasia ), and hence abnormal or defective ( paranoia ), a sense now common in modern scientific coinages ( parageusia; paralexia ). As an English prefix, para- 1 may have any of these senses; it is also productive in the naming of occupational roles considered ancillary or subsidiary to roles requiring more training, or of a higher status, on such models as paramedical and paraprofessional: paralegal; paralibrarian; parapolice . https://www.dictionary.com/browse/para

Norm:

“standard, pattern, model,” 1821, from French norme, from Latin norma “carpenter’s square, rule, pattern,” which is of unknown origin. Klein suggests a borrowing (via Etruscan) of Greek gnomon “carpenter’s square.” The Latin form of the word, norma, was used in English in the sense of “carpenter’s square” from 1670s.

The very word used to describe the reality next to us begins with the subtle suggestion that it is less than, abnormal, wrong, in its prefix. The idea of its invalidness is already implanted in the word!

Recently one faction of the UFO group has compiled huge amounts of data pointing to an altered (paranormal) state of mind as a requirement to the perception of said phenomena. But they cannot tell us what that state of ‘mind’ is, nor can science adequately measure, or define it. We can only look at it through the people who have experienced it. Just like any other religious experience. (remember, it’s called The New Testament.) All our religious writings and texts are Testaments…

This is itself, IMO, a major tactic being used to conceal what ‘it’ really is. In Pasulka’s book she said that ‘James” in a discussion said,

“We will start by stating that the phenomenon commonly referred to as UFOs exists. The evidence supports that there is a phenomenon, it interacts with humans, but we cannot as yet explain it. However, we can identify its effects on humans and the physical channels of communications through which it operates. Through studying its modes of interaction with us, we can gain considerable knowledge about it.”

Pasulka, D.W.. American Cosmic (p. 63). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

This is exactly what all religious scholars do, because the original source is gone, or untouchable – except by direct, personal, revelation that when its is imparted to others becomes….testimony.

She has two quotes by Jacques Vallee:

[The phenomenon] has a technological basis. But we cannot ignore the fact that the emotions it generates in the witnesses are religious in nature. —Jacques Vallee (1)

Everything works, in my opinion, as if the phenomenon were the product of a technology that followed well-defined rules and patterns, though fantastic by ordinary human standards. Its impact in shaping man’s long-term creativity and unconscious impulses is probably enormous. —Jacques Vallee (2)

1) Jacques Vallee, The Invisible College: What a Group of Scientists Has Discovered About UFO Influence on the Human Race (San Antonio, TX: Anomalist Books, 2014), 153.

2) Ibid., 30.

Pasulka, D.W.. American Cosmic (p. 153). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

All this to say, that I am not the only one who thinks that the ‘phenomena’, if you can even call it that, is an effect of a something or someone, or an ‘it’ that is in the process of conditioning ‘us’ into a state of being or learning for its own reasons – historically using religion and religious themes and now using ‘spiritual’

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.               -Arthur C. Clarke

technology to accomplish whatever it/their purpose is. Most assuredly, UFO’s and the speculative beings that might surround this subject are not it.