Sedition Of The Light
Commentary provoked by Frank Longo's
documentary, Capturing
The Light
by Alfred Lehmberg
Part One (of two)
Especially true in our westernizing
civilization? We humans inhabit a thin skin of poorly perceived "reality"
and think it complete and whole.
Too, also seeming secure is our fatuous "knowledge" that an acceptable God is in his heaven and on our side—without regard to which side, reader! Our hapless ignorance regarding day to day
existence looms, increasingly, ever more
appalling.
Fortunately, an intrepid Frank Longo provided persuasively that an
optimistic glimmer of hope prevails! See,
once again, novelty makes its mad dash around an invalid status quo to discovery and inexorable progressiveness. 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 by 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 provided may be what UFOs do.
Not, then, what are they, so much. More,
what are they doing? That's more achievable!
What do they do? What
are they doing? Why, they make otherwise cogent and therefore
significant individuals question their
authorities! 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! Buckle up!
Contrarily, 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.
This aforementioned overconfident Cartesian-ism—scientism
sans humility—is a discipline so decidedly hubris-bound and repressively arrogant
that it dares to be the default arbiter of all
that it presumes to be laid before it, even that which it refuses to consider or investigate,
at all! Outrage! If that were you, reader, somebody would
throw a flag down, swear out a complaint, or seek a restraining order! 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. This is true then as now!
Sentient individuals perceive with at least 5 pretty
poor senses, right? Too, these affairs
involve affairs at all the different levels of the accepted range of UFO encounter
as measured by the Hynek inspired "CE3K" scale: strange point source lights perceived all the way to stranger physical interactions endured, but compassionately
providing for its own plausible "there if needed" deniability, as it goes. We wouldn't bother to do that.
Moreover, 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! You know who you are!
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. "These" continue right up to 2019!
Science? Only ever the
staid portrait of piously insentient 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 perceived reality... and it is science that is the faith-based
myth! I've my own personal
evidence. Likely, the reader too.
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! All that may be WAY off, given evidence how easily we can be brought to our knees by a just nasty cold virus. We provide for a colossal limitation to our
potential as individual conscious beings I sense, and bump our aggregate noses
upon these 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 links make stronger chains.
Consequently, this too-ready reductionism or over-amped
application of Occam eagerly provided by flogging Cartesian-ists 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.
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" alluded to, David Jacobs' intra-dimensional or trans-temporal "Insidious
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.
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 lately squirting out
all over! Bursting out from surprising places in
surprising ways over a just discovered if surprisingly long period of time, science's shame is once again abundantly
showcased! Right under our noses too! Consider, now, this current humiliation of science and authority. Be re-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! 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 Biedny, frankly, was near jumping
up and down in the discussion of Ms. Izatt, and the DVD in general, on his one-time 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.
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 or 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.
Part 2
