One way of reducing the social stigma of the UFO phenomenon

Background.

Question everything you read, hear and see about the UFO phenomena (hereafter, "the phenomena"). Including the content on this blog. Trust no one. Not necessarily because people are untrustworthy, but because no one can claim to know with certainty what the truth is about the phenomena or what is not true about the phenomena. That ignorance includes me.

That is why this post is describing "the standards of reasoning" (below the "Background" part), mentioned briefly in a previous post, and why they are important (according to me) to the discourse of the phenomena. But, before that, some more background.

The terms "ufology" and "ufologist", are problematic. Because they imply some systematic method and theory underlying the study of the phenomena. There is not. Which is a problem that Jacques Vallée has pointed out in several of his books and in various interviews through the years.

The main reason for the lack of such a shared theoretical and practical framework to study the phenomena is probably the elusive and complex nature of the phenomena itself. Most people knowledgeable about the phenomena know the phenomena require a multidisciplinary approach. Neither the STEM sciences nor the humanities/social sciences can, on their own, expand our knowledge and further our understanding of the phenomena.

So what can a curious layperson do to become a more trustworthy thinker on the phenomena?

In one of my previous posts, I briefly mentioned some "standards of reasoning" to make the stigmatized UFO subject into a more legitimate subject to be openly interested in and publicly talk about. That is, if one is seriously interested in and cares about the truth behind the phenomena, then one can start with examining how one is thinking, writing and talking about the phenomena.

I can, for instance, ask myself; Do the way I communicate about the phenomena to the outside world give a clear picture of the phenomena's profound existential and scientific implications?

Or, am I thinking and communicating about the phenomena in a factual and nuanced way?

Or, how is my way of representing the phenomena, influencing other people's perception about it? Am I adding to the social stigma of the ufo subject, or am I contributing to reducing the stigma?

I wanted to write this post mainly because I care about and think it is crucial that the UFO phenomena/subject goes fully mainstream. I think it is crucial to get the unbiased and unfiltered truth of the phenomena into the public domain. If the ufo subject would become mainstream, then the disclosure process would become by, for and of the people. Citizens, politicians, lawmakers, academics, scientists, and journalists would together create a force strong enough to break down the walls of the secrecy surrounding the phenomena.

But for such a force or pressure on our governments to manifest at all, I believe the public first has to become receptive to reliable data on the phenomena.

What I am trying to say is that from the public's perspective, the ufo subject has to go from a tinfoil hat subject to a serious subject. Thanks to, mainly, the "To the Stars Academy," some positive effects on the social stigma have taken place. But there is still a lot of work to be done in that area.

So my idea with the previous post about "the standards of reasoning", and with this post, is that anyone currently interested in and following the ufo subject can reduce the social stigma of the phenomena by practising some basic thinking skills. The purpose of practising those basic skills is to raise the quality of the discourse on the phenomena, and in that way, hopefully, also improve the perception of the ufo subject among people currently unfamiliar with ufo subject and/or ignorant of the UFO phenomena's profound and significant implications for the future of humanity and our home, the Earth.

Since I only mentioned "the standards of reasoning" briefly in that previous post, I thought I should describe those standards in a bit more detail. So, that comes next.

What are the standards of reasoning?

The standards are nothing new. What I call and describe here as "the standards of reasoning" are good old techniques from philosophy: Socratic questioning and critical thinking skills. They are, in theory, easy to learn but harder to stay true to and apply in real life. Why is that?

Because the "soul" of the standards of reasoning is a genuine curiosity, and genuine intent, to expand one's knowledge and deepen one's understanding of a subject, an aspect of a subject, a problem, a question, and of fellow humans - their point of view, values, etc. The aim of Socratic questioning is to gain a deeper understanding of one's self and the world.

That genuine curiosity and intent are what should drive and sustain one's search for (a) truth.
If a genuine curiosity about something/someone and genuine intent to understand that same something/someone are not present, then one is not staying true to and practising the standards of reasoning.

The standards of reasoning (or, for short, "the standards") are as much about one's approach/attitude as they are about technical skills. The approach one should internalize is that of a willingness to understand something or someone. To understand something or someone, one should practice the noble skill of listening. If one genuinely wants to understand something or someone, one will listen with presence, concentration, respect and in a nonjudgmental way. And, of course, listen with curiosity and intending to understand.

So, I hope by now that it is clear that the standards of reasoning are not about winning, being right, crushing one's opponent in an argument, etc. The standards have nothing to do with one's own ego, needs, worldview, opinions, etc. Or, as far as it is possible, one should put aside one's own ego and one's need to be right.

The standards have everything to do with one's relation to knowledge, understanding, and truth. The standards also have everything to do with self-knowledge or self-awareness, but we are not going into that aspect in this post.

If we can compare the search for knowledge, understanding and truth as a relationship to a person you hold dear and care about, I believe it can be easier to get the approach to the standards. To truly understand someone, put your ego aside and, so to speak, walk in that person's shoes. That may sound strange regarding understanding a subject or a problem, but if you think about it, it is actually not so different. To understand a subject or a problem, you need to put aside your current assumptions, beliefs, and so on. At least for a while. You need to create an opening and space for new information to flow with as little resistance as possible.

And as most people know, curiosity, intent, understanding, and listening have at least one foundational thing in common: They all begin with an essential question. Essential or relevant questions is the beginning, the birth of progress and development in all academic disciplines, and in all kinds of quests for the truth. Most important in this case, the development and progress of our own way of thinking and communication about the UFO phenomena/subject.

That is why the foundational skill in the standards of reasoning is asking essential questions.

Questioning the components of reasoning and questioning the quality of reasoning.

Introduction.

The following content is mainly inspired by The Thinker's Guide to The Art of Socratic Questioning. Based on Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools, by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, and Critical Thinking: an introduction to the basic skills (3rd edition), by William Hughes. I have taken some ideas and models from those two books, and so to speak, made them into my own.

First, notice the term "the art" of Socratic questioning. Yes, it is indeed an art, or a craft, to ask the essential question at the right moment, to the right person, and in the right situation. It is as much about feeling/intuition/creativity, as intellect and logic. It is about being fully present and focused, but in a relaxed manner. You should not be in a freeze-fight-or-flight state of mind (threat, defence, avoid, attack etc.). Instead, you should be in a rest-digest state of mind (peace, safety, openness, receptivity, etc.).

Second, both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions to search for meaning and truth. Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential or relevant to searching for meaning and truth.

In the following, we are going to look at two critical thinking concepts; 1) the components of reasoning /thinking (analyzing thought), and 2) the quality of thought (assessing thought). We use those two concepts to identify essential questions that, hopefully, will raise our thinking to higher levels of understanding and quality. And in the end, take us as close to the truth as possible.

1. Questioning the components of reasoning.

To ask an essential or relevant question, you need to identify and focus on the right component of reasoning. I think the following model of "universal components of thought" can help identify the relevant component of reasoning to match with your question:

1) Whenever we think, we think for a PURPOSE 2) within a POINT OF VIEW 3) based on ASSUMPTIONS 4) leading to IMPLICATIONS and CONSEQUENCES. 5) We use DATA, FACTS, and EXPERIENCES 6) to make INFERENCES and JUDGEMENTS 7) based on CONCEPTS and THEORIES 8) to answer a QUESTION or SOLVE a PROBLEM (Credit to Dr. Paul & Dr. Elder).

Before I give some guidelines and examples of essential questions to each of those 7 (nr. 8 is a goal) components of reasoning, I should mention that I am mainly concerned about applying critical thinking and Socratic questioning on "one-system" questions and "conflicting-system" question, because these are the most relevant in the search for to truth about the UFO phenomena.

One-system questions require evidence and reasoning within a system. They have a correct answer = Knowledge. With one-system questions, there is an established procedure or method for finding an answer. They are prominent in mathematics, as well as in physics and biology.

Conflicting-system questions require evidence and reasoning within conflicting systems. They have a better and worse answer, but rarely no verifiable correct answer = Judgement. With conflicting-system questions, there are multiple competing viewpoints from which, and within which, one might reasonably pursue an answer to the question. These questions are predominant in academic disciplines as, for example, history, philosophy, religion, sociology, and economics.

I believe most people interested in the phenomena, and in the truth about the phenomena, probably wish we would have more answers to the one-system questions. I know, I do.

But, since the modern era of "ufology", we have been, and still are, mostly trying to answer conflicting-system questions because of the lack of substantial data that is possible to verify or refute with certainty through established procedures and methods. We do not know if but can suspect such substantial data exists. It is yet to be made public. Until it becomes public, we have to make the best of the situation of finding ourselves struggling with finding more or less well-supported answers to questions with more than one possible answer.

Hence, in my mind, the importance of basic skills in "standards of reasoning."

Ok, back to "questioning the components of reasoning" or thinking. As you formulate questions, consider the following guidelines and sample questions:

1. Questioning Purposes and Goals. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the purpose/goal/agenda behind it. Some of the many questions that focus on the purpose component of reasoning include:

• What is the purpose/goal of this book, article, chapter, blog post, interview, discussion, etc.?
• Why is _ ? being said or written at this moment and/or in this context?
• Who is the audience? 
• What is the central agenda/goal? What other agendas/goals are needed to be considered?

2. Questioning Viewpoints and Perspectives.  Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the point of view or frame of reference that places it on an intellectual map. Some of the many questions that focus on the point of a view component of reasoning include:

• From what point of view are you looking at this? 
• Is there another point of view/perspective we should consider?
• Which of these possible viewpoints/perspectives makes the most sense given the situation?
• What am I looking at, and how do I see it? How can I look at it in another way?

3. Questioning Assumptions. All reasoning/thought rests upon assumptions. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand what it takes for granted. Some of the many questions that focus on the assumption component of reasoning include: 

• What exactly are you taking for granted here?
• Why are you assuming that? What other assumptions can be relevant, reasonable in this case?
• What assumptions underlie our point of view? What alternative assumptions might we make?
• Should I explicitly state my assumptions?

4. Questioning Implications and Consequences. All thought is headed in a direction. It not only begins somewhere - resting on assumptions (axioms) - it also goes somewhere - has implications and consequences. Assume that you do not know fully understand a thought (including your own) unless you know the most important implications and consequences that follow from it. Some of the many questions that focus on the implications and consequences of thinking include:

• What are you implying when you say _ ? or write _?
• If we assume this to be true, what is likely to be the implications? Are those implications likely, probable, significant, relevant, etc.?
• Are your implications following your initial assumption? What alternative implications could result from your assumption?

5. Questioning Data, Facts, and Experiences. All thought presupposes an information base. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the background information (facts, data, experiences) that supports or informs a thought. Some of the many questions that focus on the information component of reasoning include:

• On what information are you basing that comment/claim/statement?
• What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be distorted?
• How do we know this information is accurate? How could we verify (or refute) it?
• Have we failed to consider any information or data we need to consider?
• What are these data based on? How was the data/information developed? By whom?
• Is our conclusion based on hard facts (knowledge, one correct answer) or soft facts (judgement, more than one possible answer)?

6. Questioning Inferences and Judgement. All thought requires the making of inferences, the drawing of conclusions, the creation of meaning. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the inferences and the meaning that have shaped the thought/line of reasoning. Some of the many questions focusing on the inferences and judgement component of reasoning include:

• How did you reach that conclusion? 
• Could you explain your reasoning?
• Is there an alternative, plausible conclusion? 
• Given all the facts, what is the best possible conclusion?

7. Questioning Concepts and Ideas. All thought involves the application of concepts. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the concepts and ideas that define and shape thought. Some of the many questions focusing on the concept and idea component of reasoning include:

• What is the main idea you are using in your reasoning? Could you explain that idea?
• Are we using the appropriate concept, or do we need to re-conceptualize the problem?
• Do we need more facts, or do we need to rethink how we are labelling the facts?
• Is your question a scientific, a theological or an ethical one (fact, preference, judgement?)?

2. Questioning the quality of reasoning.

"Quality" of thought, or reasoning, is a matter of degree in clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. Imagine writing an article, a book, a blog post, or a comment on social media. Before publishing, you need to evaluate the quality of your reasoning:

1. Questioning Clarity. 

• Am I clear about what I am saying, or is my thinking muddled (vagueness)?
• Have I stated my main idea, then elaborated it?
• Have I provided examples to make my points clear?
• Have I written sentences that can be interpreted in different ways (ambiguity), or have I made my intended meaning clear?

2. Questioning Precision.

• Have I provided adequate details for the reader to understand precisely what I mean? Do I need to be more specific, precise, detailed? 

3. Questioning Accuracy.

• Have I made sure that all the information I have presented as factual is so?
• Are my sources of information credible?

4. Questioning Relevance. 

• In the article, book, blog post, etc., as a whole, do I keep a clear and consistent focus? 
• Do I wander from the main point?
• In each paragraph, is everything in the paragraph relevant to the main idea in the paragraph?

5. Questioning Depth.

• Do I clearly understand what makes the issue complex?
• Have I sufficiently detailed those complexities? 

6. Questioning Breadth. 

• What points of view are relevant to this issue?
• Am I failing to consider this issue from an opposing perspective because I am not open to changing my view?
• Have I entered the opposing views - or all relevant points of view - in a factual, nuanced manner, or only enough to find flaws in them?

7. Questioning Logic. 

• Do all the ideas in my paper fit logically together?
• Do my first paragraph fit with my last? 
• Do what I say follow from the evidence?
• Have I made the connections between ideas evident to the reader?

8. Questioning Fairness.

• Do I have any vested interest in this issue?
• Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others? 
• Have I adopted the principle of charity? According to the principle of charity, whenever two interpretations are possible, you should always adopt the most charitable interpretation, that is, the one that makes your "opponent's" views as reasonable or defensible as possible.

Of course, the above description of the standards of reasoning is not exhaustive. The reason I wrote this post is, again, because I care about how the ufo subject is perceived by people outside the ufo community and how the subject is handled by people in the ufo community. And I truly believe that people in the ufo community can raise the status of the ufo subject and help people unfamiliar with the subject understand its profound existential and scientific implications.

One fairly simple way to erase the social stigma of the phenomena is to start with oneself: to honestly examine if what and how oneself is thinking and communicating about the phenomena is adding to or reducing the social stigma of the UFO phenomena/subject.

Take care!

/Janne

New witness testimony to the Rendlesham Forest UFO incidents

"#EXCLUSIVE - new #interview with a #RendleshamForest #UFO #witness." Published by and on the YouTube channel Anicka Plante @ The Analysis.net, on July 25, 2019. Duration: 41:03 minutes.

Important new information has emerged concerning the famous “UFO” incident at Rendlesham Forest.

A #military #eye-witness has reported that scientific data was planted into his mind during an #encounter with a #UAP, the second #RFI witness to make such a claim — in this case a formula and associated information concerning #antimatter and #antigravity.

https://theanalysis.net/2019/07/24/ex...

All media in this video is subject to copyright. Follow the link to the associated article (above) for further information.

 © 2019 The Analysis

You can get some more background to the interview above with Stg. Michael Stacey Smith (Ret.) on the following link:

https://theanalysis.net/2019/07/24/exclusive-new-interview-with-a-rendlesham-forest-ufo-witness/

I got the permission from one of the copyright holders, Tim Acheson (@timacheson), to use the video interview above (if embedded). 

I am aware of, but not involved in, some kind of grouping regarding what is the actual truth about the Rendlesham Forest UFO incidents. That is of course unfortunate, but not unusual in these kinds of high profile UFO cases, involving multiple events and witnesses. 

The reason I am posting the interview with Michael Stacey Smith is because I believe his testimony to be honest and genuine. It is another voice and another perspective to help us put together a more clear and complete picture of the Rendlesham Forest UFO incidents.

As always, I encourage anyone interested in finding out the truth, to do their own research, reflections and to make up their own mind about what to believe or not.


Take care!
/Janne

How can we break the social stigma of the UFO phenomena?

"Michael Heiser - The Unseen Realm Seminar." Published on the YouTube channel Sentinel Apologetics, August 26, 2018. Duration: 4:55:00.

 I will explain the point with this post further down. For now, I want to say that it is not meant to offend anyone, but rather to encourage everyone seeking the truth about the UFO phenomena to try to follow, and stay true to, some "standards of reasoning." By doing so, I believe one can make a constructive contribution in making the UFO phenomena into a legitimate subject to openly be interested in, and seriously study. Both in- and outside the UFO community.

I think it is safe to say, that a religious and a spiritual aspect has, in one way or another, been present in the UFO phenomena since, at least, modern times. This supernatural, or mysterious, element of the UFO phenomena, seems to always lurk in the background. Sometimes implicit, other times, explicit. 

Why is that? Is it because of human imagination and a tendency to see patterns where there is none? Is it because of a human need to believe in a benevolent force that looks after us, makes us feel safe in, and make sense of,  a big, dangerous and chaotic world?  

The latter question is, in itself, a very fascinating question: Why do human beings (on a group level) seem to have this strong need (or genetic disposition?) to believe in something supernatural? Why is religion and spirituality a global phenomena, which probably have been around since time immemorial?

And, why does there seem to be a great overlap between religious experiences and descriptions of the supernatural, and experiences of the UFO phenomena?

The background to this blog post, is that the religious, spiritual aspect of the UFO phenomena, seems to have had somewhat of a revival, since Tom DeLong and A.J. Hartley published their book series "Sekret Machines", and the other book series that Tom DeLonge is involved with together with Peter Levenda, "Gods, Man & War." The latest contribution to the religious aspect of the UFO phenomena, is the book "American Cosmic" by D.W. Pasulka, even though Pasulka´s book is more of a comparative study between religious beliefs and beliefs in the UFO phenomena, and their sociological effects. 

"Revival" may not be the right word, but it is my feeling, that more people in the ufo community (and, perhaps, outside) have become more curious in the possible association between religion and the UFO phenomena. And as a former high school teacher in religion and psychology, I think this eventual "revival" is welcomed, and important, in order to understand and get a clearer picture of what has, and is, going on with the UFO phenomena. 

But, as with all the other aspects of the UFO phenomena, the potential connection between the UFO phenomena and religion has to be approached with caution and humility. I am specifically referring to the idea that extraterrestrial beings either intentionally or unintentionally, have created or  influenced the evolution of the world´s religions, and in that way, also many other aspects of human history and culture.  

The seminar above with Dr. Michael S. Heiser, is an attempt from my part to illustrate why we have to approach that idea with caution and humility, but also all other aspects of the UFO phenomena: "How much do I know about and understand a subject in order for me to say something sensible about it, make relevant associations to other subjects, and draw reasonable conclusions from the subject?" 

You can read more about Dr. Heiser´s academic background and peer reviewed publications on the following link: https://drmsh.com/.

Another of Dr. Heiser´s web pages, that is about "learn how to think well about all things fringe", is this one: https://www.fringepop321.com/.

Just to be clear, I am not sharing Dr. Michael S. Heiser´s faith, but I respect it. Neither do I agree with all of Dr. Heiser´s opinions about matters concerning the UFO phenomena - for example the ones Dr. Heiser´s expresses in one of his blogs, https://drmsh.com/category/uforeligions/ - but I respect his knowledge in his domain of expertise, that is, in Hebrew and Semitic language studies. 

I should also be clear with, that Dr. Heiser in the seminar above, is not in any way making associations between religion and the UFO phenomena. He does not even once mention the word "UFO", or "ET", in the seminar in question (he briefly mentions Zackaria Stichen once or twice), but he is interested in the UFO phenomena, and does talk about it in some of his other talks and presentations. Dr. Heiser is interested in, and have specialized in, "the weird" stuff in Judaism and Christianity.

But, he is studying this "weird" and "fringe" stuff in a scholarly manner. That is important, it is my point in this text. I will say more about it in a moment.

Acquiring knowledge, trying to get to the truth, can be exciting and invigorating. At the same time, and in most cases, the acquisition of knowledge and the search for the truth, is a test of perseverance and resilience. To get personal, I have a tendency to give up too easily if and when I do not understand a concept, a model, or a subject, immediately. That is, obviously, not a good strategy if you have the desire to become a real expert on a subject.  

I am not saying, that in order to think, reflect and speculate about a subject in a sensible manner, you need to have a Ph.D (I do not), or a university degree. Far from it. But regardless of one´s educational background, everyone can learn some basic skills that will raise the quality of a discourse, for instance, on the UFO phenomena. Being cautious with what one claims, aware of one´s limited knowledge, and humble before the challenge of finding (a) truth, are also important skills, or attitudes, that everyone can practice and internalize. 

So, here comes my point(s) with this post:

1. If one wants to contribute in making the UFO phenomena to a legitimate subject to study - particularly outside the ufo community - then one always has to remind oneself to adhere to some basic "standards of reasoning." These standards include, but are not limited to, clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. That is, one question those standards in other people´s reasoning, and in one´s own reasoning. I fail with both, probably more often than I am aware of, but I try to remind myself of those standards, and I try to follow them. 
2. If one do remind oneself of those "standards of reasoning", and consciously apply them to one´s own reasoning, then one becomes very aware of how difficult it can be to actually reach the truth, or even to understand a subject in a deep way. That is, you become more cautious in your statements and claims, and more humble before the complexity of reaching the truth. 

If someone is interested in "standards of reasoning", I can recommend the book "The Philosopher´s Toolkit. A compendium of philosophical concepts and methods," by Julian Baggini and Peter S. Fosl.

I know that a lot of people both in- and outside the ufo community is aware of those standards, so it is not my intention to write anyone on their nose.

My point is, that raising the quality of the thinking, speculation, and discussion about the UFO phenomena in the ufo community, would also have positive effects on the status of the UFO phenomena outside the ufo community.

One of the main reasons for the UFO subject having a social stigma (it has started to change, though), is the world´s government's silence surrounding their awareness of and knowledge about the UFO phenomena. That is no longer a conspiracy theory. But this silence has created a void that triggers people´s imagination and tendency to automatic thinking. That is only human, but also obstructs some positive progress regarding the status and position of the UFO phenomena in the minds of those in the general public not familiar with the validity of the existence of the UFO phenomena, and its profound, significant implications for humanity and life on Earth.

My last post was mostly speculative. I mentioned in the first sentence that the post is speculative. And it is ok, amusing, and sometimes useful, to speculate as long as you are crystal clear that you are speculating, and not claiming your speculations, reflections to be a fact, or some universal truth.

Or, if you are portraying something to be a fact, then you have to be aware that the burden of proof falls onto you. You have to be prepared to be questioned.

Now, like most of the people interested in and following the UFO phenomena, I was intrigued to hear Tom DeLong talk about his insider connections in the highest echelons of the military- and intelligence complex, tell him about how our religions are a creation of one or several of "the Others", in order to control and divide humanity. 

As intriguing as I think that is to hear, the burden of proof falls on Tom DeLonge, and / or on his insider connections. I truly hope, that DeLonge´s sources and connections are certain of what they are saying, and that they eventually can provide the general public with undeniable proof of "ET" influencing religions and human history in general.
Think about the implications if it is true. I am serious, really think about the implications. If one has the power, status, and is in the position to make other people believe those kind of claims, one should be very conscious of one´s power to influence, and the responsibility that comes with that kind of power. 

 My point is, again, we have to apply "the standards of reasoning", regardless of how much we like, respect and support the efforts of "To the Stars Academy", or regardless of any other individual or organization we favor and believe in. The truth is the only thing that is important, and I believe we are running out of time for claims and statements lacking in precision, clarity, fairness, and so on.

Ok, enough with my rant.

I should say something about Dr. Michael Heiser´s seminar. The purpose of including the seminar in this post, is to use it as an example of how tempting it can be to think that one knows a lot and understands a subject, after browsing the internet and reading some books. I thought I knew a lot about the early Judeo-Christian religion, but after watching and listening to Dr. Heiser´s seminar, that illusion was quickly exposed.

In the seminar above, Dr. Michael S. Heiser is going through the foundational concepts that he is writing about in his book "The Unseen Realm. Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible." You can read more what the book is about, and its goal, on the following link: http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/.

The foundational concepts that run through the almost 5 hour long seminar are "Divine Council" (God among other gods), "Cosmic Rebellion", "Cosmic Mountain", and "Cosmic Geography." "Cosmic" means "supernatural."

Why should anyone watch and listen to the seminar? Well, if you are interested in religion, and in this case the history of the Judeo-Christian religion /tradition, then the answer is obvious.
If you want to dig deeper into the potential association between religion and the UFO phenomena, then this seminar is a good start. That is, with some more knowledge about what and how academics think about religion, you can start asking more precise questions, and become better equipped to look at a potential association between religion and UFOs in a more critical way, that is, to practice and use "the standards of reasoning"

One key lesson I take with me from Dr. Heiser´s seminar, is the big problem with translation between languages - in this case Semitic language and English, and more importantly, the complex issue of interpretation. It is not enough to master a Sumerian language (or dialect) and be able to translate it to one's mother tongue.

A good example of the difficulties of translation and interpretation, comes around the 22:15 minute mark in Dr. Heiser´s seminar. Here he talks about the question "Who is / are Elohim?", that is, the apparent problem with "God" being one among other "gods."

Yes, it is a long seminar, or video. The content is academic and detailed, so watching one part /one hour at the time divided over a couple of days, is recommended. I will give you the start and end time for the four different parts of the seminar, and what theme, or questions, that Dr. Heiser is covering in each of the four parts of the seminar.

Part 1: Actual session starts 5 minutes into the video, and ends at 1 h, 5 min. Foundational concepts covered are "Divine Council" and "Cosmic Mountain." Some of the questions examined are "Who is / are Elohim?" (why many gods?), "what about all these sons of God in the Old Testament?", the Edenic vision, and more.

Part 2: 1:05:00 - 2:07:37. "The Treefold Rebellion", or "Cosmic Rebellion." The Watchers - who were they according to the ancient Israelites? The Mesopotamian "apkallu" (givers of knowledge, wisdom). Why is humanity so depraved, and the world so wicked, according to the ancient Israelites (it is not just about "the fall").  

Part 3: 2:07:37 - 3:01:37.  "Jesus, Cosmis Geography and Judaism´s two powers in heaven." Angles as embodied God - how can God be two things at the same time, or be in two different places at the same time? The Word - visions and experiences of God; God in human form? Jesus and Cosmic Geography; I recommend to pay attention and listen to the segment starting 2:47:00, until the end of part 3.

Part 4: 3:01:37 - 3:45:02.  "Cosmic Geography in the New Testament." Dr Heiser is connecting the foundational concepts from the Old Testament (OT) with the writings in the New Testament (NT). For example "The Cloud of Witnesses" in the NT is the same at the "Divine Council" in the OT.

Q & A: 3:45:02 - to the end of the video.

If you are interested, and have the patience, to listen to Dr. Heiser´s seminar, and have read, for example, "American Cosmic" by D. W. Pasulka, you will find that there are quite many descriptions of the supernatural in the Bible that resembles the way we are describing the UFO phenomena.

Does it mean, that there is something to the idea that some "ET" is behind the "invention" of religion and religious belief systems? Well, it might. Or, it might not. How can we find out which way it is?

The answer to that question is the same as to how can we prove without any reasonable doubt that nonhuman intelligences exist, and that they are here.

It comes down to what you consider to be enough evidence - and what constitutes "evidence"- and what you consider constitutes a "proof." Evidence and proof are two different things, both in mathematics and in law.

Personally, I think the evidence for the reality of the UFO phenomena is overwhelming, and most likely would win in a court of law. I am satisfied in that case. On a subjective basis, I am also convinced that in some cases UFOs are something nonhuman, or not from this earth. But, in a strict empirical sense, I have not seen proof of some UFOs being extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, or whatever we wish to call the intelligence behind some of these UFOs.

With that said, I believe there exists proof of a nonhuman intelligence visiting earth. What about the idea that nonhuman intelligences have created, or influenced, some, or all, of the world´s largest religions?

Intriguing, but I have no idea. At the moment, I do not even think I can grasp the implications, should it be true. We will never know for sure, until the truth about the UFO phenomena will be revealed. And as I said in my last post, the truth will always, and eventually, show itself. If we will like the truth or not, is another matter.

Let us always remind ourselves and each other, to try to apply some "standard of reasoning" when we read, hear, watch, think and talk about some aspect of the UFO phenomena. Let us be cautious and humble in our statements and claims.

Most importantly, let us always remember that the area of what we do not know, will always be greater than the area of what we know. 

If we remind ourselves of "the standards of reasoning," I believe we can contribute in making the UFO phenomena to a fascinating and legitimate subject to be openly interested in and study.



Take care!

/Janne

Why do "the Others" want disclosure now?

In the following, I am obviously speculating on what I think is the most crucial question trying to answer: Why is a careful and selective disclosure process of the UFO phenomena happening at this moment in human history?

But, I believe a more accurate and even more urgent way to phrase the question is: Why do "the Others" want a disclosure now? Or, why do "they" want to make their presence known at this moment in human history? Perhaps from "their" perspective, it is more about "at this stage of Earth´s, or of biological life´s, evolution?" Or, we may have to think in even grander scales?

In part 1, I will start to reflect on the question "why disclosure now?" that I think of as the more terrestrial one and mainly concerns the human side of the disclosure process. That question is safer to speculate about and has somewhat plausible answers to it. At least, we have some public information as a common starting point that we can look at, and, then, either interpret in the same way or not.

The related question, why do "the Others" want a disclosure now? I will speculate about it in part 2. To that second question, I would like to argue, we have very few, or no, pieces of public information as a common starting point. The very few pieces of information we have of "the Other´s" intentions is contradictory at best ("good ETs" versus "bad ETs"). For me, the real terra incognita, and where I am going to stumble in the dark, is in part 2.

So, if you are mainly interested in my thoughts about the latter question, you can scroll down to the second part of this text. The first part is probably most interesting for those unfamiliar with what has happened to the UFO subject in the previous 18 months or so.

And yes, with "the Others"/"they", I mean something or someone not from this Earth. To not make the subject more complicated than it already is, I will use the term "Non-Human Intelligence" (NHI) as an umbrella term for the different possibilities of what "the Others" can be; inter-dimensional; ultra-terrestrial; crypto-terrestrial; demons; time travellers; and, of course, extraterrestrial, in the traditional meaning of the word.

If you have followed my blog, you are probably familiar with my view on what/who is behind the UFO phenomena, is similar to Jacques Vallée´s view on the matter.

Before exploring the main questions, I think it is appropriate to clarify and give some background to part 1 and part 2.

Some clarifications

Yes, my assumption is that a disclosure process has started and probably is (almost) unstoppable by now. Another assumption is that the current careful and selective disclosure process is benign in nature and intent. Who - on a terrestrial level -  is managing and directing the disclosure process is a question that I am not going to discuss here. But I am confident that the group managing disclosure is constituted by more individuals than the public faces in "To The Stars Academy" (TTSA) or listed as an associate on TTSA´s website.   

In the following, I base my speculations concerning the question "why disclosure now?" mainly on the information made public during the last 18 months. It is the information coming from witnesses of the Nimitz 2004 Tic Tac encounters and the Roosevelt 2014-2015 UFO incidents, from the "Core Secret" document leak, from the analysis of the information by ufo researchers like Richard Dolan, Melinda Leslie, Keith Basterfield, and others. 

I also base my speculations on the opinions and perspectives of various "ufo believers" and "non-believers" expressed in social media. Last but not least, I base my beliefs on multiple statements and appearances made by individuals in TTSA in the mainstream- and alternative media.

Remember that I am just a curious person with a serious interest in the truth about the UFO phenomena. I am not a ufo researcher. I am not a trained or experienced investigative journalist. I am not a scientist. With that said, I have some theoretical and practical knowledge of the scientific method (mainly in the social sciences), critical thinking, etc. Due to my university studies in philosophy, psychology and my training and work experience as a high school teacher. My point being, I know the importance of being a true sceptic (as Bernard Haisch defines "sceptic" on his web page).

So before I go into to my speculations or educated guesses, I would like the reader to please keep in mind that I am not claiming to know any of my beliefs/claims to be a fact. Neither do I want to spread nonsense nor unintentionally misleading information.

Even if I think my speculations have some soundness to them, and to some degree, are plausible (I would not express them otherwise), I am still well aware and open to that time can prove me to be a fool. And probably will.

What is important to me, the only thing that is important to me is that we all get to know the truth about the UFO phenomena. And I raise my hat to anyone who delivers information/data that takes us closer to the truth.

Therefore, you can think about this text as another opinion and perspective on the question "why disclosure now?" In the worst case, you will find my speculations as improbable or irrelevant. If you do, that is ok. In the best case, you may find some of my assumptions interesting and worth taking into consideration.

If you are new to the UFO subject and new to this blog, I would like to advise you not to believe a word I am saying in this text - after all, it is speculation - instead, do your own reading and reflections on the subject, and then make up your own mind on what to believe or not.

Part 1. Why disclosure now?

Ok, with those clarifications out of the way, what are my thoughts on the question, "why disclosure now?" I am referring to the terrestrial side of the question. What kind of possible scenarios can cause a careful and selective disclosure process to occur at this moment in human history? We know that attempts at disclosure have been made before. So what is different today? Why do the people who manage and direct the disclosure think they can do a better job than previous attempts?

Some of those questions can be answered without the need for much speculation. There are many questions related to the main one, "why disclosure now?" and the answers to all those related questions need to fit into a coherent pattern. But, I will not try to create a coherent pattern in this text simply because I think it is beyond my intellectual capacity. Or, to keep my ego intact, I can say that I could create a coherent pattern if I dug deeper into the question (really?).

My first answer to the main question, "why disclosure now?" is probably true on a very fundamental level, but also the least satisfying one: "Everything in the universe changes. Nothing stays the same."

I think that answer is a good start. Let us call it our foundation, from where we will build the rest of our structure. So, what has changed with the UFO phenomena?

That question has to be looked at from many different perspectives and analysed at different levels. To reach a full and clear answer, we would have to explore the question from both a micro-and macroscopic perspective, from a scientific and sociological perspective, from a psychological and political perspective, from a historical perspective, and so on. There are also essential domains, such as military organisations, compartmentalising, security clearance, special access programs, "black" budgets, etc.

I am not going to be able to cover all of those perspectives and levels. Simply because I do not have enough knowledge and understanding of some of those domains. As I have already mentioned, I feel most at home and comfortable with disciplines such as psychology, sociology, the history of the UFO phenomena, and to some extent, the political aspect.

If we start with our foundation, I think it is safe to claim that a lot has changed relating to the perspectives, levels and domains I mentioned above. It can seem like an obvious fact, but I believe it to be one of the most important pieces in answering the main question "why disclosure now?" and why this current attempt at disclosure may have a better chance of succeeding than past attempts.

As researcher and author Richard Dolan often has pointed out, disclosure is inevitable (he also says that disclosure is impossible in another way). By disclosure being inevitable, Dolan means that technological development, and how more and more people are connected through computers and the internet, makes it easier to find and share information. And of course, that information can spread fast to a vast amount of people all over the world. This global inter-connectedness also makes it more difficult to keep secrets. One factor of this difficulty is that the possibility for sharing - or leak - sensitive information is more available today than for 20 - 30 years ago if I understand Richard Dolan accurately.

Today, we have many examples of Richard Dolan being correct. Recently we had the anonymous leak of the "Core Secrets" documents (Dr Eric W Davis notes of a meeting with Adm Wilson). By the way, I have still not made up my mind regarding the document's authenticity or not. Before "To The Stars Academy" distributed the FLIR1, or "Tic Tac", video, it showed up on an internet site in 2008 (I may be wrong on the year 2008). Another example is when Wikileaks made public the email correspondence between Tom DeLonge and John Podesta. Of course, many other examples are not related to the UFO phenomena.

Now, we are all well aware that there is another side to the coin of the age of information/internet. Today, it is also easier to spread "fake news", dis- and misinformation, than 20 - 30 years ago, even if the phenomenon with dis- and misinformation goes back to at least ancient Greece.

How is the change in computer technology, and the internet, connected to the question "why disclosure now?" I believe it has made the people managing and directing the current disclosure very aware that the truth, or at least facts, about the UFO phenomena reaching the public domain, is becoming increasingly inevitable. And I believe their awareness of this increased risk of leaks is not something recent. If  I may simplify, and say that the current disclosure started in October 2017 (TTSA´s press conference), then the planning of the present disclosure goes back at least 5 years.

So, way back, the people behind the current disclosure realised that they have to find a way to control the truth about the UFO phenomena. They realised they had to control what, how, who and when specific information would be released to the general public (mainly to people unfamiliar with the UFO phenomena like politicians, lawmakers and journalists).

"Control" may have negative connotations. But that is not how I perceive it. In this case, I think about "controlling the flow of information" as something positive,  as a clever and well-planned strategy. As I have written in other posts, I believe the current disclosure process is divided into phases, with each and every phase having a distinct goal and desired effects.

Since October 2017, we are in a phase where the goal is to educate mainly people unfamiliar with the UFO phenomena. The desired effects are to reduce UFOs' social stigma and bring about an open and serious conversation about UFOs in the Senate, in the mainstream media, and in the general public (again, among people unfamiliar with the evidence of the existence of UFOs). Another desired, and essential effect is getting more military witnesses to step forward and publicly tell their UFO experiences and brief key individuals in Washington D. C.

Why - what I call - a selective and careful disclosure process? Why not come out with the whole and genuine truth about the UFO phenomena at once? An answer to that question has been given by Luis Elizondo at TTSA on several occasions, so people following the current disclosure are familiar with the answer, so I will not elaborate much further on it. The first and obvious answer is that TTSA is following their strategy. The main target group is not the ufo community or people generally curious about the UFO phenomena in the current phase. TTSA want to reach the goal and effects I have mentioned above. That is necessary to move on to the next phase in their strategy or disclosure process.

However, I think there are other reasons for TTSA´s chosen strategy. I believe it has to do with the more "dark" or potentially "frightening" aspects of the UFO phenomena. Like the phenomena at the Skinwalker Ranch (even if the activities on the "Ranch" as being only, or mainly, "dark" is a misrepresentation), and the possible black programs of reverse engineering of extraterrestrial technology and abductions. I believe TTSA first want to desensitise the general public of the existence of UFOs before the general public is prepared to digest and handle information about the darker or, let´s call it, the more complex sides of the UFO phenomena.

If disclosure would happen as an event rather than a process, then the risk of an ontological shock among the general public would be high. Or even denial, or ridicule, because of too much extraordinary information at once. In other words, that could potentially be counterproductive.

Maybe we can think about it as TTSA trying to get around the bureaucratic architecture and security clearances surrounding the unacknowledged special access programs? TTSA wants to provide people in Washington D. C with the correct information so that senators and lawmakers can make informed decisions and look into the secrecy or cover-up related to the UFO phenomena. And you would probably not get these high government officials on board the disclosure train if you started off briefing them about the Skinwalker Ranch or about abductees and contactees. At this moment, it is neither intelligent nor appropriate to use the term "aliens" or "ETs."

I also believe that when TTSA has achieved its goals and desired effect, TTSA will hand over disclosure to the U.S. Government. Luis Elizondo has always said that they (TTSA) want to facilitate disclosure. He has also several times said that disclosure is a collaborative effort. My interpretation of those two statements by Luis Elizondo is that TTSA´s plan from the beginning has involved hand over disclosure to the US government at one stage or another. That is, hand over it to people in the political and legal system, who can tear down the bureaucratic architecture of illegal and unconstitutional quasi-military programs from the inside. Thus, disclosure needed to begin from the outside and managed by credible individuals like TTSA.

Ok. So one answer to "why disclosure now?" is a need to control the "what", "how", "who", and "when", due to changes in computer- and information technology, which has made it difficult to keep secrets about, in our case, the UFO phenomena. As I have said above, attempts at disclosure have been made several times before through the decades since at least the 1950s. Maybe the people behind the current disclosure have learned from past mistakes? Maybe their conclusion was that disclosure can only succeed in the current way? Step by step, carefully, and to get key figures (senators, lawmakers, military witnesses, etc.) on the train as early as possible.

This leads me to a second, and possible, answer to "why disclosure now?" Partially, it has to do with the quality and quantity of evidence and witnesses to the UFO phenomena. We know many more UFO videos exist in the Pentagon and Department of Defense (DoD). For example, Luis Elizondo has said on "Coast To Coast", hosted by George Knapp in 2018, that there are many more and much better UFO videos, which are yet to be released. Harold Puthoff has said the same thing but was unsure if those UFO videos ever would be released to the general public.

We also know that specific senators and lawmakers have seen the whole video of some, or all, of the already released UFO videos (FLIR1, Go Fast and Gimbal). In addition, Navy Officials and some of the former Navy pilots and radar operators have briefed people at the Hill about their UFO sightings and encounters. Let us not forget that former majority leader Harry Reid probably has significantly influenced the "new openness" to the UFO phenomena among people inside Washington DC's political and legal system.

A third possible answer to "why disclosure now" concerns the individuals involved in the current disclosure process. I tend to agree with the analysis of the researcher, and according to herself, a MILAB victim, Melinda Leslie, of the lineage of "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP) going through Robert Bigelow´s BAASS, NIDS, and down to the initiative of John Alexander, "Advanced Physics." These military and private research initiatives are probably also closely related to what is sometimes referred to as the "Invisible College." TTSA is the most recent "family member" of this lineage, according to Melinda Leslie. I think she can be on to something. However, I disagree with Leslie that the current disclosure process has dubious intentions.

According to Melinda Leslie, Jim Semivan with TTSA once confirmed to her over dinner that TTSA is a much larger group than what is shown on TTSA´s website. I think a reasonably safe bet to make is that, for example, Robert Bigelow is affiliated with TTSA in one capacity or another. After the sixth and last episode of season one of the History Channel documentary "Unidentified", we know that Luis Elizondo is collaborating with some men and women still working in AATIP or in a similar program as AATIP, but most likely under a different name. And that the current program exits with "official blessing", according to Luis Elizondo.

My point being: Perhaps one of the more important differences compared to past attempts at disclosure is that today there is a critical mass of highly knowledgeable, competent and well-connected individuals, both in and outside the government, that has come together and decided to succeed with disclosure? So it is not only the well known and public faces in TTSA directing the disclosure process. TTSA is collaborating with key players, both in the private sector and in the US government. This time around, the disclosure process has a more well-designed strategy, carried out by a bigger and more powerful group of people than past attempts to disclose the UFO phenomena.

But perhaps the most important reason, or cause, to "why disclosure now?" is that the military sightings of and encounters with UFOs has increased in the last 10 - 20 years. An increase in UFO sightings can probably, in part, be explained with better and more sensitive military equipment/technology. However, I do not believe technological development is the whole explanation. Also, I think that the nature of both military sightings and encounters with UFOs have changed. Simply put, I think the sightings and encounters are more evident and indiscreet. Perhaps it is more evident than before that "the Others" are trying to communicate with us?

This last change, if true, goes to the heart of the question, "why disclosure now?" In my opinion, the change in frequency and nature of military UFO sightings/encounters is, at the moment, one of the most crucial aspects to understand. Why now?

All of what I have written about this far, relating to "why disclosure now?" is really just a description of why it is more likely that the current attempt at disclosure will succeed compared to past attempts.

In my mind, the increase in the frequency of military UFO sightings, and a change in the nature of military UFO encounters, takes us to terra incognita, and the question: "Why do `the Others` want to disclose their presence now?

Here is where my speculations genuinely start. What I have written this far are relatively established facts. And most of what I have written this far is in the public domain and can be checked. If you agree or not with my interpretations of the public information is another question.

Part 2. Why do "the Others" want disclosure now?

What follows now is pure speculation and opinion from my part. I do not think there is any way to verify or falsify what I am writing in what follows.

Let me start by repeating what I said at the beginning of the text: with "the Others" or "they", I am referring to a non-human intelligence (NHI). I will use "NHI" as an umbrella term for all the possibilities of what "the Others" can be or originate from. So, with "the Others" or NHI, I am not necessarily saying that all UFOs are "extraterrestrial" in the traditional sense of the word, or that the whole of the UFO phenomena can be explained by the "Extraterrestrial hypothesis" because it cannot. 

My main assumption - besides my assumption of the presence of NHI on earth - is that the Others "want", for whatever reasons, to disclose its /their existence at this moment in human history. Or in Earth´s evolution. Even if the assumption that we are dealing with NHI is valid, it does not follow that NHI wants, wish, or demand a disclosure. Still, my assumption is that the Others actually have an intent, a reason, motive, an agenda, or a wish with its/their willingness to be seen the military and civilians.

So, it is my primary assumption I am interested in exploring and speculating: why do the Others want to disclose their/its presence? What can their reasons be? Why now?

In the following, I am going to make it easy for myself and simplify the question by assuming that we are dealing with one specific form of the Others and that this specific form of the Others has, even from a human perspective, good reasons to why they want - or see necessary - to disclose their presence at this time in human history. And I mean revealing their presence on a grander scale than ever before in human history. A "specific form" means that I am pretty confident that Earth has been visited by many different forms of NHI. I think both the historical and modern records indicate that very strongly and clearly.

Also, I will simplify by not discussing the many different opinions on "why do the Others want disclosure?" However, it does not mean that I do not think any of those opinions or hypothesis can be plausible or worth considering. No one knows for sure what the Others are up to. None of us can claim to understand how all of the pieces of this immensely complex puzzle fit together.

So remember, I am looking at, speculating from, the narrow view of the Others as a specific NHI, or as a conglomerate of many different NHI, with a benign intention towards humans and/or towards planet Earth.

At the moment, and out of many interesting and more or less plausible opinions, I think the most reasonable opinion on why the Others want to disclose their presence now is that it has something to do with planet Earth´s biosphere changes. Climate change, global warming, extinction of life forms, and so on and so forth. I believe these threats to life on Earth are the main reason this specific form of NHI, at this moment in Earth´s evolution, want to communicate with human beings.

I do not believe that this specific form of the Others is particularly interested in the human race, other than the fact that humans are the one who has caused these threats to life on Earth and is the only species which also can solve the problems.

The Others main interest, and concern, is the biosphere of the Earth, how to slow down or stop the destructive processes that threaten the biodiversity of this planet. I am aware that some of these climate changes are a part of Earth´s natural cycle of changes - which in some cases are linked to the Sun´s activity. However, I think you must have lived under a rock the last 40 - 50 years to deny that human activity - mainly the production and consumption of resources - has not accelerated, or modified, Earth´s natural processes and changes.

Why would the Others be so concerned about what happens to life on Earth? Perhaps, Earth is actually their planet? Perhaps Earth is the Others` garden, which they have taken care of, for millions, or billions, of years? Maybe the Others seeded (directed panspermia) the Earth and consider this planet as their "baby" or "pet project?" If that is the case, and if the Others are not particularly interested in human life, why do they not eliminate the human race? My guess is that the Others sees the human race as a part of the web of life - the biodiversity - on Earth. It goes against their "ethics" or universal principle to annihilate another (sentient) life form. But such a universal principle - if it exists - do not, in some rare cases, prohibit the Others from intervening in some regulated way if and when another intelligent civilisation (a certain level of culture, technology, etc.) is on a destructive path with no signs of making positive changes.

Maybe the destruction of life on Earth, or the planet itself, would have consequences for the rest of the universe, or other dimensions, in ways we cannot even start to comprehend? Maybe the Others would not have a choice but to intervene in a very concrete and obvious manner if we humans cannot fix our problems ourselves? In a way, I am unsure if humanity is worthy of saving. But in another way, how can I blame future generations for the problems my and past generations have created and deny future generations their right to experience life on this beautiful planet? Now, just maybe, that is the line of reasoning of the Others too?

It may be the case that the Others are trying to circumvent this possible universal principle of "non-intervention" in attempting to change our way of perceiving and understanding reality. Perhaps, the Others are trying to facilitate a change in human consciousness? They are trying to expand and deepen our appreciation of life and how everything in the universe is founded on the principle of interdependence. What that means for us humans is that we have to start thinking in terms of "we" and "unity," instead of "I" and "separation." What I say and do will have consequences for the people around me. In the same way, what a nation says and does, will have consequences for other countries on Earth. What happens to life on Earth will, perhaps, have repercussions throughout the universe and/or other dimensions?

I am not fond of the idea of humanity transforming into some kind of collective consciousness or a "hive" mind. I do not think that is the plan for us from this specific form of NHI. I believe this particular form of the Others wants us to stay human, to maintain what makes us humans unique compared to other sentient beings in the universe.

What the Others do want is for us to wake up before it is too late. At least, this specific form of NHI, I am talking about. Indeed, other forms of NHI do not want humanity to wake up or want us to become a single consciousness that they can control. But that is for another text.

It is quite possible to expand and deepen your understanding (different from "knowledge about") of both your inner universe and the outer universe (which, of course, on a fundamental level are the same) without losing your individuality, autonomy and free will. Now, free will is very closely related to intention, which I have to say a few words about.

Even if I have stated above that the Others are not so interested in humanity as preserving Earth's biodiversity, I believe there may be one or several reasons why this specific form of NHI, and probably other forms of NHI, is directly curious about human beings. Those reasons could be the human ability to direct her intention and her rich palette of emotions.

I am unsure if this specific form of NHI is directly or indirectly interested in human intention and emotions. Still, either way, I think I can state with some degree of certainty that "they" are utilising our ability to direct our intention. And our disposition to let emotions control our choices, decisions and behaviour.

The latter is, at the same time, our greatest strength and vulnerability. Anyone who thinks that they are always making decisions on only rational, logical reasons should think again. Emotions are actually necessary to make sound and logical decisions. You can look that up in any modern literature on neuroscience or cognitive neuroscience. There are probably some NHI with very sharp logical and abstract reasoning, but something the 14th Dalai Lama has said seems suitable regarding human uniqueness compared to some of the NHI;

"Intelligence without empathy is destructive."

Jacques Vallée has written many books about this "control mechanism" or "conditioning" and in a vastly better way than I am doing here. So for anyone who wants to know more about this aspect of NHI being interested in human perception of reality and how to manipulate it, I highly recommend Jacques Vallée (for example, Dimensions and The Invisible College).

If it is the case that the Others are interested in our ability to direct, or focus, our intention, and our rich emotional life, for what reason?

This specific form of NHI/the Others is probably utilising our intention and emotions to confuse us, shock us, and even frighten us. Why? Because the Others wants us to start questioning what is possible and impossible to happen in our so-called reality. Above all, the Others wants us to start learning about what the manifestations, and behaviours, of some UFOs actually implies. Yes, the physics and the technology behind UFOs. In a very covert and elusive way, the Others are saying: 

"Hey, we are not supposed to be here or do this, but if you guys can figure out the what's and how's of us being here, doing all this crazy stuff with our crafts, then you can solve your issues with the climate and environment. As a start."

Whatever one thinks about Dr Steven Greer, I personally think he should be given credit and respect for what he has done in the past for the disclosure movement and for some elements in his overall philosophy about "the ETs", their intentions, and teachings. With that said, I disagree with Dr Greer about all NHI being benevolent.

I agree with Dr Steven Greer when he says that the Others wants human beings to grow up, learn to take responsibility, and become a peaceful civilization. If we do not, then we are stuck on this planet or solar system. By many of the Others, we are seen as best as immature teenagers ("I`m the centre of the universe."), and as worst as an aggressive and a hostile species.

So, in the long run, I believe this specific form of the Others are interested in or see it in their interest that human civilization becomes an intergalactic, or perhaps, an inter-dimensional civilization.

But first, we have to figure out how to fix the problems we have caused to the environment. Whether during or after, we have to take a deeper look into ourselves and discover that we will find ourselves in the "outer" universe if we go deep enough. We will also discover that every dot in the universe is connected to and interdependent on every other dot in the universe on the same journey. That is easy to understand when you look into someone else´s eyes, and they look back into your eyes. Because, on a fundamental level, there is only consciousness.

That is the uniqueness, the beauty and strength with us humans. On an intuitive and unconscious level, we can sense this connection and interdependence. We can connect to, in principle, anyone and anything. Because, on a fundamental level, there is only consciousness.

Now, I believe that this specific form of the Others wants to facilitate the evolution of our uniqueness, our greatest strength. The Others, perhaps, wants to give us a nudge in the right direction and to a path of exploring our unconscious and sporadic way of sensing the fundamental consciousness (the substrate of reality). We will learn and practice to use our intention more consciously during that path, and that practice also involves using our emotional reactions with more discernment and control. Sometimes emotions can distort, disturb the signal, and sometimes emotions can enhance and clarify the signal. It is about timing: doing the right thing at the right time and in the right situation. What signal? The signal - or the information - from the fundamental consciousness.

Final words

One could argue that what I have written so far has nothing to do with the reality of the UFO phenomena but reflects my own wishes or personal disposition. That may very well be the case, and probably is to a large extent. As I have already mentioned above, I do not claim to know anything of what I have written in this text to be a fact, and I am well aware that time will probably prove me to be a fool.

Nevertheless, I believe my opinion, speculation about the Others` reason for wanting a disclosure now (within the next 5 - 10 years) being mainly out of concern of the poor state of the Earth´s biosphere, to be one plausible explanation among many others.

Also remember, that I have looked at the question from a very narrow perspective. For example, I am only considering the reason, or intention, of a specific form of the Others. Many other NHI visits Earth and has their own motives, both good and bad (from a human perspective and understanding), and neutral motives.

I am aware that there are many questions I am not addressing in the text or only partially have addressed. For example: Why do not the Others interact with key people who could help solve our environmental issues if they are so concerned about the future of life on Earth? How come the Others only interact with, or manifest to, one individual at the time, or in some rare cases, a large group of people? What kind of global effects do the Others think that kind of interactions will lead to, if any? There are, of course, many other questions related to my text that I have not addressed, raised, or even thought about.

Hopefully, we will have some more pieces of the puzzle soon. On an individual level, it is at this point in the disclosure process irrelevant who is right or wrong. The only relevant thing is the truth, and I believe the Others would like to see humans make a collective effort with the conscious intention to get to the truth.

Remember, the truth will always, and eventually, show itself. The questions are:

1) Can those shown the truth, handle it, even less, understand it?
2) How will the journey towards the truth unfold?
3) What part do you as an individual want to play in this "cosmic drama?"

In the third question, you have control. You have a choice. Do you understand your choice?

One last thing:

Even though the UFO phenomena, and the truth about the UFO phenomena, is as serious as any subject possibly can be, do not forget, once in a while, to smile and laugh at the absurdity and complexity of the UFO phenomena.



Take care!
/Janne

.