Thursday, March 17, 2016

Sedition Of The Light (Part One)

Sedition Of The Light
by Alfred Lehmberg

Commentary provoked by Frank Longo's extraordinary documentary, Capturing The Light.

Part I

Especially true in our westernizing civilization, we humans complacently inhabit a thin skin of poorly perceived "reality" and think it complete and whole.  Too, also secure as if the fondest dreams of fools, seems our fatuous "knowledge."  This is the knowledge that an acceptable God is in his heaven and on our side—without regard to which side, reader!  All sides claim "Gods" favor.  

They may be right.

He who "hangs the stars like lamps in our evening sky"?  ...Perhaps, conservatively, on one level but not on all levels... ...Our hapless ignorance regarding our day to day existence looms, increasingly, ever more appalling than the "will of god."  God will do as She wills. What do we will?  

The kingdom is at hand; our humanity could ring the Sun like a living bracelet.  Such could be so, on my watch and warrant, by humanity's hand.  I mean, that's where it would be forged at the last, God inspired or not.

Fortunately, Frank Longo provides persuasively for us that an optimistic glimmer of hope for this prevails.  See, once again, novelty makes its mad dash around an invalid and irrelevant status quo to discover an inexorable progressiveness en route to that conjectured kingdom. Novelty finds a way, eh?  More on that in a moment.  

Back on track, the appalling state of our aforementioned awareness, such as it is, is well noted in the books and lectures of respected persons as diverse as Terence McKenna and Jacques Vallee.  These, among significant others, report that the paranormal in general and UFOs in particular exist, principally, to deflate and discredit a reductionist Science entirely too filled with itself. How does that work?

See, on the way to discovering what UFOs are, a hint may be provided perceiving what UFOs do.   Not, then, what are they, so muchMore, what are they doingThat's more achievable!

What do they do? What are they doing?  

Why, they make otherwise cogent, and, therefore, significant, individuals question their authorities and those social boundaries enforced by same!  They throw authorities into disarray as a consequence.  They invalidate authorities as a result.  They provide for authority's irrelevance, is the upshot.  With the same effortlessness by which they are observed, they provide for a demonstration of authority's malfeasance and assign blame for same!  Neat trick, eh?

Contrarily, the reader discovers, they propose these disarraying "questions" while still appealing to the individual, obliquely or directly.  Verily, as Richard Dolan has pointed out in his landmark UFOs And The National Security State, they are the very soul of [the new] sedition.  Sedition occurs by one person at a time.

This aforementioned overconfident Cartesian-ism—scientism sans all humility—is a discipline so decidedly hubris-bound and repressively arrogant that it dares to be the default arbiter of all that it demands to be laid before it, even that which it refuses to consider or investigate, at all, but pronounces on regardless! Outrage!  If that were you, reader, somebody would throw a flag down, swear out a complaint, or levy a charge of willful malfeasance!  You'd be dealt with!

Such egotistical behavior fair begs comeuppance, am I right?  Well, UFOs affect to provide just that!  How? 

UFOs characteristically provide effortlessly observed if highly strange affairs which science refuses to even try to explain except by dodges and hypocrisy. Indeed, the whole of science presupposes that "number and measurement" are sufficient to explain, decode, and unravel all things for human understanding.  Now, here is a gravid hubris just begging its comeuppance.  This is pride in mutiny before its fall, eh?

Firstly, sentient individuals perceive with at least 5 pretty poor senses, right?  Secondly, these contact affairs involve meetings at all the different levels of the accepted range of UFO encounter as measured by the Hynek inspired "CE3K" scale.  CE1: strange point source lights perceived to stranger physical interactions endured, but compassionately providing for its own plausible discountability "there if needed" deniability, as it goes, too.  

Thirdly, these close encounter affairs are witnessed many times simultaneously by hundreds or thousands of credible persons —police, pilots, and other practiced professionals—while "authority" fatuously looks the other way, infuriatingly, childishly chanting that UFOs are not a reality.  Flag down, Shermy!

Examples of just such affairs?  Unsung ufological hero Jerry Cohen provides: Kirtland AFB (11\4\57).  Hynek Blue Book Case (5\5\65).  Exeter, New Hampshire (9\3\65).  Malmstrom AFB (3/20/67).  Incident at Redlands, Ca. (Hynek, BB, 2\4\68).  Malmstrom AFB (11\7\75).  Iran F-4 Incident (9\76).  Belgium (1989\90).   Phoenix, Arizona (3/13/97).  South Illinois, USA (1\5\2000),  but more recently,  O'hare International Airport in 2007.  Stephenville, Texas in 2008.  All these, and—others— reader.

Science?  Only ever the staid portrait of piously insentient and increasing impotence!  UFOs have humiliated science at every encounter.  Embarrassed it at every meeting.  Shamed it at every turn. 

How?  By providing to that aforementioned broad swath of very diverse and with-it individuals their own singular hard-to-shake personal evidence, proof even, that it may be UFOs or the "other" comprising our perceived reality... and that it is science which is the faith-based myth!  Sounds like heresy.  Maybe, it is.  It.  Has. Been Provoked!

I've my own personal evidence.  Likely, the reader does, too.  What are we to do with that and endure the admonition that we are misleading, misled, or mentally ill?

It does not have to be that way.  Flatly, Reductionist Aristotle must reconcile the Holistic Plato, not supplant him.  This is what has occurred, I believe, and near the root of our problem.  How? 

...With the errant Cartesian invalidation of "chaos systems" as the mother of reality plus the naive presumption that reductionist "order" was exclusively superior!  We provided for a colossal limitation to our potential as individual conscious beings, I sense, and bump our aggregate noses upon these unreasoning limits, even now.

See, because Plato is supplanted and not reconciled, I'd contend, "Judeo-Christian-Cartesian Culture" and its causal cadre of conniving and capering imps—self-serving closed institutions large and small—prosecutes a selfish hubris, reader, to the detriment of our individual and, therefore, aggregate spiritual advancement. Strong individual links only ever make stronger chains.   

Consequently, this too-ready reductionism or over-amped misapplication of Occam, eagerly provided by flogging "Cartesian-istas" provokes the ineffable "other" to challenge what we can perhaps perceive as the largely inflated conceit of Science.  This is a timely meme flying UFOs right up a reductionist's nose.  

If he doesn't cop?  He is destroyed.  He's destroyed when he cops, too, but that's a good thing.  The "new" scientist has a humility sans all that obnoxious hubris!

This challenge, again, is proffered by the "other" in diverse and well-supported affairs typified by Frank Feschino's "shooting war with corporeal aliens!" Zecharia Sitchin's flesh and blood "Ancient Astronauts", Abduction lore's intra-dimensional or trans-temporal "Invasion" of alien abductors, or the astonishing mysteries of Nancy Talbot's genuine Crop Circles, just to give a quick tour of the anomalous wrapped in mystery and buried in enigma. 

Really?  I hear the internal dialog...  Your attention, please. 

Consider.  How does Science meet the challenge of the "other"?  Research by proclamation, illogic, character assassination, ad hominem, professional irresponsibility, betrayal of trust, and abject denial... are default responses.  Admonitions for us to prove their negations complete their stonewall...

Moreover, stomp me another "Adams Grave," 'Doug'!  Spin me an additional "Catherine's Wheel," 'Dave'!  Right... 

"Dave's not here," folks.  In other words, the inability of conclusive science to address these mysteries—or even acknowledge them, reader—makes manifest the aforementioned humiliation, neatly.

Indeed, "high strangeness" is periodically squirting out all over!  Bursting out from surprising places in surprising ways over a just discovered if a surprisingly long period of time, science's shame is once again abundantly showcased!  Right under our noses too! Check the list of cases above!  

Consider, now, this considered humiliation  of science and authority.  Be introduced to the strange story of Canadian Dorothy Izatt brought to us by Frank Longo in his très unusual film, Capturing The Light.

Indeed, Mr. Longo has produced a compelling DVD displaying just such an unmet challenge to Science as described above.  In it, Mr. Longo tells the astonishing story of Ms. Izatt, a very lovely and cognitively sharp if otherwise unremarkable octogenarian widow who communes with "alien beings," frankly.  Too, she puts a fine point on this communication with 30,000 feet of eight-millimeter stock shot, shot with twists into the outré-real you see right on the freaking film!  By my watch and warrant, if I'm lyin', I'm dyin'.

Now, I likely would not even have given this account the remotest time of day but for the reaction of one man in particular to the tale. David Biednyfrankly, a photographic doyen, was near jumping up and down in discussion of Ms. Izatt and the DVD in general on his then radio program, The Paracast.  I was understandably intrigued, you'll discover. 

See, Mr. Biedny, a penultimate (sic) hard-nose and a man obviously going with the "better odds," prefers to be known, I believe, as a proud son of the still very highly respected Cartesian reductionism discounted earlier.  He wants a reputation indicating his respectful attention to "logic," scientific "method," and "rules of evidence."  He shall not be accused of refraining from "best practice."

Flatly, Biedny wants his critical thinking skills respected if not taken for granted.  Too, as a recognized expert in digitally manipulated images he, to a degree, "wrote the book" on "photo-shopping" same.   Consequently, his high confidence level—as was indicated by his aforementioned "on-air" happy dance— understandably intrigues!  What's "juicing" Biedny can certainly "juice" me.  Our contention is just that strong.

What is going on?  The short version is that Dorothy Izatt appears to be one more interesting if characteristically unremarkable individual approached by the "other" and so further humiliating our too proud and arrogant Science as alluded above—I would presume for its edification and our ultimate advancement, eh?  I digress.

See, way back in 1974, Ms. Izatt thought she was seeing something damned peculiar in her wide Canadian sky, and she couldn't get anyone else interested in watching with her or even believing her.  So, this plucky little bird of a woman—a tiny gal—grabs her husband's essentially unused 8-millimeter camera and, over a period of many years, shoots 30,000 feet of film in support of her contention!  She captures some gob-smacking stuff, reader!  I'm reminded it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.  I digress again!

Captured as physical evidence are astonishing arrays of light, shape, and detail on one frame of 8mm film!  This happens many, many times in footage otherwise clearly showing: UFOs, large and small... ...and other things.  This is not an easy task.  To wit: Mr. Biedny used the word "impossible."  He used that particular word I think because there is just no conceivable way to have captured the images captured on one frame of movie film in the manner shown.  He is not the only one to say so.

Yeah-yeah-yeah... more internal dialog... you've heard that kind of thing before.  Nip it.  See, this is a different case.  In this case, the "subject" had to cooperate with Ms. Izatt—even perform for her!  In addition, this was a performance not just for her and her camera, but also any camera used and any person along with her using their camera.  It gets a lot weirder than that, reader, and with nothing rolled and smoked!

Next time: Ms. Izatt approaches "authorities" one would think one should approach and is predictably dismayed, J. Allen Hynek's singular and serendipitous involvement with Ms. Izatt is outlined, and how a humiliation of what passes for 21st Century science is patently typified and then patiently exposed. Read on!

Sedition Of The Light (Part Two)