How Will We Ever Know If It´s "Full" Disclosure?

I wrote this the other day; it's up at American Chronicle. After hearing Richard Dolan's presentation last night, I've been thinking about this more. There's always the possibility of disclosure by "them," -- the aliens, or whatever/whoever they are. Open, full disclosure, not the covert, one on one disclosures that have been taking place. This isn't the final response to the idea of disclosure, or addresses all of it. It's just one angle into what really is a complex idea, with many potential ramifications.

How Will We Ever Know If It´s "Full" Disclosure?

The hopes for full disclosure about UFOs will remain forever unfulfilled.

There are earnest efforts by many, pushing for disclosure, but that day when the government reveals all will never come. As I´ve said many times, there are a few reasons for this opinion. One, the elusive, covert nature of the phenomena is an innate part of the phenomena.

One aspect of this dance (close, far, in your face, jump back, hide, blatantly expose itself with lights and beams and beings. . .) is its oppositional position alongside the infrastructure. Science, media, academia, governments, institutionalized religions, will never "take UFOs seriously." They´re not set up for that. They can´t.

The UFO phenomena experiences flaps not only in the UFOs themselves, like sightings and encounters, but in pop culture´s and societies awareness. From the popularity of TV shows on UFOS to governments releasing some of their files on UFOs, and witnesses (often decades later) coming forward, these things happen in waves. So it often looks like "ah, the big moment is sure to come any minute now!"

No, it isn't.

One thing that always surprises me about the hopes for disclosures is the acceptance that whatever government, via whatever agency, is releasing everything it knows. I highly suspect that for every bunch of stuff released by MOD, or the FBI, or the French government, the Russian government, etc. there are tons of papers yet to be released. Or redacted. Or burned, shredded, conveniently "lost," and so on.

How do we know that what is released publicly is the real thing? Just because they say so? What´s the story behind the little we´re allowed to see?



Efforts for disclosure are well meaning, and while I don't think it´s going to change anything, it can´t hurt. We have learned some things, and that´s good.

Just be aware that we´re never getting the whole story, and we never will. There isn´t some global plan among the governments of the world to simultaneously release all it knows on UFOs.

This jaded view of disclosure doesn't mean I´m anti-conspiracy. The documented history of governments mind control programs, debunking campaigns, weapons and psy-ops makes it quite clear that we are targets to be used at their whim. This is certainly as scary as aliens. A mass landing, caught on tape, aired on CNN? Sure. But are they aliens, or some kind of staged by humans event? The MILAB (military abductions) scenario is still considered pretty paranoid by many within the UFO field; as long as we hold the view that governments wouldn´t do things like this, we´ll remain naive.

Whenever new information is released, we need to consider that we´re only getting a little bit of the story; that there is very likely much more to be learned. For every piece of information we get, there are many pieces left behind. And for every document allowed to enter the public arena, we have to look at it with some skepticism. Just because they say it´s so, doesn´t mean it´s so.

Catastrophes and UFOs: It's Not a Contest

Recent catastrophes; earthquakes in China, cyclones in Myanmar,tornadoes in the U.S., have caused some to once again demonize UFOs, or at least, those who choose to explore the mystery of UFOs.

Why the two would have anything to do with each other is beyond me, but the supposed thinking of those who use these tragedies to support their peevish anti-UFO stance makes sense to them, obviously.

Skeptics of many varieties (including, paradoxically, those who acknowledge there are UFOs) don’t like most UFO researchers. That aside, they don’t like UFOs much either. They're always pissed off at them, because UFOS aren’t doing anything. The UFO phenomena’s continued behavior of remaining elusive is maddening, torturous in its contradictory, slippery manifestations. And yet, for all the years the UFOs have been around (centuries, really) for all the evidence, they haven't done anything. At least not in a grand, showy way; pulling off some mind blowing trick like turning mountains into ice cream sundaes or finally delivering those flying cars.

They haven’t fixed anything, saved anyone, cured any diseases, solved any of the world’s problems. They didn’t prevent the recent tragedies, or past disasters. They didn’t warn us. They haven’t stopped war. Racism, ageism, sexism, classism still exist, relgious hatreds and wars continue, people live in poverty. The aliens and UFOs haven't fixed any of it.

This makes some people downright mad. Instead of getting mad at a god, God, Jesus - they’re mad at UFOs. And they're madder still at people who study UFOs. The message seems to be that it’s somehow all our fault that tragedies happen. And if it isn’t our fault, exactly, and/or the UFOs, we’re still guilty by association just for seriously thinking about the subject.

I get the feeling these brands of skeptics (and beware; many of them insist they are not skeptics at all and are, in fact, in with the in crowd of UFO researchers) have a whole lot of expectations on what UFOs should do, and what they shouldn’t do. Which is ludicrous. They accuse us of being like children; frivolous children who chase after the fleeting, fragile UFO, when it’s they that are stuck in magical thinking.

Sure, I “believe” in aliens. Rather, I believe they exist. I believe aliens from other planets, as well as other entities, are all around us. I don’t believe in them, however. I don't pray to them or expect them to do anything.

I don’t believe every UFO is from outer space, piloted by ET.
I don’t believe ET, aliens, entities, Mothman, Bigfoot, or Lizard Man are going to save us, cure us, fix us, heal the planet, or teach me how to parallel park.

I don’t think only some should study UFOs, and others shouldn’t, and I don’t think anyone should, or, shouldn't, just because I said so. Or because anyone else said so.

I don’t care who’s who, or why, or what they do in their private life, (naturally there are some boundaries here, Christ people, use your common sense) if they party too much, or not enough, -- they “get to” delve into the mysteries of life as much as anyone. In fact, god knows, we need more people getting deep into this stuff!

Using the very real horrors of this world to bash UFO or Fortean research is dishonest. It’s disingenuous. It’s lazy. It distracts from both the world’s cruel realities, as well as anomalous research.

The two aren’t in a contest with each other; don’t make it one. Don’t pit one phenomena against the other as some sort of moral barometer of any given individual.

Nick Redfern: New Blog

Wow, King of the Fortean Blogs fer sure, Redfern has another new blog, this one that reviews books, DVDs, etc. on Fortean subjects. Send him your stuff...eheck out his blog. Er, blogs, lol. It's called Fortean Reviews.

http://forteanreviews.blogspot.com/

MIBS, Mothman and Mom

A recent post at Mothman Flutterings on a conversation with mom today.

Nick Redfern's New Blog on Culture of Contact

Nick Redfern, Esoteric Blog King, has a new blog at Culture of Contact. Nick’s entry is: “My 3,2,1 of UFO Hatred,” which is very good. I had to laugh at Redfern's comments on the idea aliens are benevolent:

No. 2: The Aliens are our friends
Pleeeeez! No! Fuck Off!

That's to the point! I agree; why assume, even when we’re told by them (the alien guys) are benevolent? Beware the messenger; just because they say it’s so, doesn’t mean it is so.Anyway, (and I say this even though Vaeni didn’t ask me go join :) -- good blog post over there. Be sure to take a look.

Esoteric Junk Mail

My latest on Tim Binnall's site for my Trickster's Realm column over there: Esoteric Junk Mail.

http://binnallofamerica.com/tr5.5.8.html

As always, be sure to read all the other great columns over there, including Lesley's Grey Matters and Richelle's Medusa's Ladder.

Mysterious red lights in sky

Interesting. This is from April of 2008, Phoenix, Arizona. Air Force says it doesn't know and they didn't have anything, and the person who took this said he's never seen anything like this. Unfortunately, the newsreporter and the witness dance around the word UFO, as if UFO itself is tainted. Which, thanks to both the pathological skeptics and the rabid believers, UFO has come to mean "little green men" from space.
But I digress.

The New X-Files Movie, Torchwood

Of course I'll go see it! But naturally! I think the title is just awful: "I Want To Believe" Really?

I like Amanda Peet and Bill Connolly, who are also in the movie. All the usual hype and hush about the movie; the plot line, Mulder and Scully's "romance" (er, didn't they have a baby -- kind of puts the need for adolescent questions about their relationship to rest, doesn't it?) but I don't care about any of it. It's a new X-Files movie! What more is there?

Well, there's Torchwood. A great show; was so sorry to see season two end so quickly. (And so damn sadly.) Dear husband "George" says it's better than X-Files, but for myself, it's not "better" it's not a question of "better." Torchwood is the X-Files of its time, I suppose. Hipper, certainly more sexually open. Torchwood also deals a lot more with human emotions and pathos, etc. than X-Files did. You either like that a lot (I do) or you don't. Depends on one's temperament. Both have sexy main characters, which helps quite nicely.

I'm glad Torchwood has come along and filled the void X-Files left.

Bill Birnes: UFO Zealotry and Existentialism

I love this post by Bil Birnes of UFO Magazine and UFO Hutners: UFO Zealotry and Existentialism. Doesn't matter what you think of Birnes, or UFO Hunters, or the magazine, or really, anything else. He makes valid points that every UFO pundit, researcher, investigator and writer should heed. Look, people, (to those of whom this thus applies) GROW UP!

It's ironic that there are individuals taking UFOs seriously enough to write about them in whatever way, and expect to be taken seriously, yet whine and moan, insult and sneer at others, lie about others, at the drop of a hat. So I ask you dahlings, how can, why would, anyone listen to these people when they behave so badly?

Another irony is in the cries for some sort of "cleansing" of the study of UFOs. Get rid of those to young, or too old, the wrong gender, the wrong theories, like the wrong music, and so on. Meanwhile, UFOs themselves don't behave in any particularly predictbale, narrow, rigid mamner. Yet we want to approach the things that are nebulous and contradictory with anything but an open view.

Alien Dreamtime - Terence McKenna DMT rap

"Machine Elves and Bejeweled Basketvilles" . . . A sort of beat poem rap on tripping with Terrence McKenna. . ."An ecology of souls" . . . "Don't think about who we are . . .do it, do it now" . . .find the button . . .making the voice an object, singing things into existence. . .the power and transformation of sound . . ."I wondered what it meant, and why it felt so good, if it didn't mean anything . . ." the power of words, the knowledge of words . . .

Mothman: Dream Fragment and Warnings About Warnings

I have a new post up at Mothman Flutterings: Dream Fragmet and a Warning About a Warning.

http://orangeorb.net/blog/

On UFO Digest: High Strangeness on the Ranch

My most recent, on comparing the Skinwalker ranch events with an older, yet similar case in Colorado: High Strangeness on the Ranch.

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0408/highstrangeness.html

UFO Mag Blog

Thanks to the efforts of Lesley and Nancy Birnes, editor of UFO Magazine, there is a new site/blog up where the public can participate. Take a look, read the blog entries,take part in discussions, have fun!

http://ufomagazine.squarespace.com/

Richard Dolan: What Are They Are?

A question we've all been asking for a long time. . .

UFOs, what are they? They are, but what?

I came across this article by Richard Dolan: What Are They? written in 2002, where Dolan theorizes, like Ivan Sanderson, that UFOs and the beings are artifical life forms. An idea I've come across from time to time but haven't considered very deeply. For example, what force or being (s) are behind the artifical life forms?

No matter what you think about this idea, it's worth reading about.

Beliefs and The Messengers

Skeptic and atheist Richard Dawkins has a piece in the Los Angeles Times:
Gods and earthlings: the science of intelligent design is science-fiction. I'm not going to comment on the whole article, just one thing Dawkins said.

Dawkins tries to make the case that arguments for Intelligent Design by the religious are wrong (no surprise there) and they use the aliens from space argument to support theirs. As does Dawkins himself to use against them, as he points out. Naturally, it's no surprise Dawkins thinks both arguments are equally insane and irrational.

Dawkins alludes to the cargo cults, and comments that if we were to land a jumbo jet in a primitive village, we'd be considered gods, or a God. He quotes Arthur C. Clarke:

"Any sufficient advanced technology is indisitngule from magic."

UFO and abduction researcher Budd Hopkins makes this case as well in his book, co-written with Carol Rainey,Sight unseen: science, UFO invisibility and transgenic beings
What seem almost magical to us when witnessing UFOs and related phenomena is really advanced technology. And I think most of us understand that. Some of us put it all off on "aliens" and, it just might be aliens some of the time. We can't imagine that we have anything close to that technology, so aliens it is. Still, for most of us, that doesn't make them gods, or God. Then again, they could be exactly what some people think of as "God." Are aliens God, or is God an alien? Not much difference. But I'm getting off track here.

I only want to point out something about what he wrote here:

To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe.

What's wrong with this is the assumption that we know anything about what aliens are, even when disbelieving in them. This is a characteristic of the fundamental skeptic. They vehemently dismiss any "belief" of psi, psychic phenomena, ghosts, or aliens, yet at the same time have elaborate systems in place concerning their behaviors, the expectations, the mechanics of how these things work.

No, it's not that "he" (the alien) would have had to design the universe. It' that the people the alien appears to has them believing he designed the universe.

This may sound nit picky on my part, but it's an important distinction.