image: Alien Face painting by Ted Seth Jacobs.
A recent comment on UFO Updates by John Valez inspired this post. There's a discussion going on about alien faces, and why they appear as they do. Mac Tonnies has written an article about this: "Alien" Faces. (By the way, you can join UFO Updates for a small monthly fee; they have various payment options. It's worth it if you're a researcher or deeply interested/involved in UFO research.)
Valez commented (I'm paraphrasing) that, all these theories about why the faces look like they do, etc. are interesting but how about this idea: people are reporting exactly what they're seeing, because it's what they're seeing.
I found this particularly timely because I've been thinking about this idea -- once again -- recently. I just said to my husband the other day something along the lines of "You know, we just have to relax and admit it. We've been tagged." I was being flippant, but I meant it, and he knew exactly what I meant. He just said "Yep." (I was referring to abductions and UFO experiences.)
After years of going around and around, of exploring all kinds of theories and conspiracies, comparing and contrasting experiences and witness accounts, and so on, I come back to an extremely simplistic, somewhat naive, yet nonetheless very likely answer: it happened because it happened. Yes, there are aliens, and that's what I've seen/heard/felt. Yes, there are aliens, and that's why I've had missing time within a UFO encounter. Yes, there are aliens from outer space, simply because, there are really aliens from outer space.
As Valez said, he finds it incredible we dance around this idea. I do too.
Now, after saying all that, after all my of my life long experiences with this, I'm still not convinced 100% what I've been experiencing, (and experiencing along with others, spouse, family members, close friend) is that simple.
Could it be that avoiding the simplest, and most obvious, explanation is some sort of defense mechanism on our part?
Which is more mad: coming up with sometimes extraordinary theories to explain these encounters, or acknowledging -- accepting -- that they happen just as witnesses say they do?
What is it about these contacts, these encounters with entities and craft, that compels us to deny the experiences as they are?
I don't know why. Maybe because it is so fantastic, which causes us to ask: why is it so fantastic? It isn't anything new; human history, cultures all over the world, have entire mythic constructs that influence morals, behavior, art, religion, based on this idea. And yet we can't just come out with it. We dress it up as an institutionalized belief system (Christianity, etc.) or dismiss it outright as delusions and ignorance (the uber-skeptic) and everything in between, like entertainment, except for the literalness of the phenomena.
When you think about it, it's really very bizarre that we do this.
Even after all that ranting, I still can't quite go there all the way. For example, I just have a hard time taking, literally, the alien abduction scenario as put forth by the Dr. David Jacobs of UFO research.
However, that is my problem. I recognize that, whether or not Jacbos or any other researcher is correct or not, they are at least doing something.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to explore these experiences, including my own, and go where it takes me.
1 comment:
The Whitley Streiber Communion cover is so friendly and stylized.
Streiber said 'she' (the main "visitor" he had contact with) actually had a much larger head and vestiges of a nose and mouth.
If this cover was so frightening to many people, I can only imagine what a more realistic cover would have illicited from viewers.
Oh and remember in one (or maybe more) of John Keel's books, he warned off people from looking(or staring) at craft, lights associated with them or with m.i.b. There's a hypnotic factor here which might be what David Jacobs is on too as well(about the optic nerve and these buggers staring at abductees forehead to forehead).
Post a Comment