Jason Colavito has written a fascinating post entitled, “Documents Detail the FBI’s Theory That Science Fiction Editor Ray Palmer Helped Create the Flying Saucer Myth.” It’s well worth your time.
No one would deny that, in the mid-20th century, there were many perplexing sightings of UFOs — unidentified flying objects. But many, including me, would say the jury is still way out there that such things were alien. For starters, you need to know if aliens exist before making them the cause of such things. You can’t use one unknown (“are there aliens?”) as evidence for a second unknown (“what’s that weird thing in the sky?”). But very early on the narrative surrounding UFO sightings became about aliens visiting earth.
Colavito has produced research that ties the ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) to very terrestrial sources — from the FBI’s declassified UFO documents. After giving us the overview of what he discovered, Colavito ends his post this way:
The long and short of it is that the FBI uncovered the secret origins of the first flying saucer flap and discovered that Ray Palmer was orchestrating the creation of a space invasion, and they did nothing with that information, letting the Air Force twist in the wind and letting the myth of space alien invasion grow mostly out of petty bureaucratic power struggles.
Question, if ET is found, and they are fallen, do you think it is possible that Christ could have incarnated as one of them and saved them as well?
The incarnation (by definition) was to solve a HUMAN problem. It was to humans God gave the covenants. So no, I don’t see more incarnations as coherent. That they might exist doesn’t fill in the rest of the parameters of why the incarnation was necessary (e.g., to fulfill the covenants).
“Sure. Why not?”
Due to an anecdotal conversation I once had with an AF dude ( <- terrible "factual" statement. eh, it's UFOs…); he stated that, in the 1980-90s, UFOs were sort of a godsend to help build a crust around the classified core of stealth technology.
Which is how it works in the relationship of public knowledge versus whatever an actual adversary (real or imagined) might have. That's why a guy like Snowden is such a bummer. Ruins the game for everyone. Damnable facts!
I use JFK/Dallas as a good exemplar. After how-many-thousand books and interviews, I'm amazed that a single, solitary soul survived all that gunfire in Dealy Plaza. (*cough*lbj*cough*…this week…) Where's that alien deathray when you really need it?
So there.
I have cobbled together enough parens, bad grammar, air quotes and non sequiturs to make this my first official UFO conspiracy-guy post. Should have thrown in more (!!)s and CAPS. I'm really starting to like Colavito, if only for how far he goes up that pompous "?"bag Wolper's *wherever*. He's spoiling W's game, a la' Snowden. Damnable facts!
Best.
You don’t even need Occam’s Razor to conclude that it’s extremely problematic to dismiss the UFO phenomenon with a few easy assumptions, most of which are reliant on a hefty dose of ignorance about the evidence.
I fully realize how problematic it would be to be regarded by one’s peers as a “woo-woo UFO believer” for taking an open-minded position in lieu of a thorough examination of the evidence, but that does not justify any sort of dismissive conclusions one may form about the subject.
The assumption: “false in lieu of physical evidence” is faulty logic. One can not conclude a negative in lieu of evidence to the positive. In a similar way, one can not conclude that cougars do not exist, because you have never seen one, but others may say they have. It’s irrelevant whether physical evidence exists or not, a negative can not be proved this way.