Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jun -> Here

From: "John W. Ratcliff" <jratclif@inlink.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:19:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:46:53 -0400
Subject: Kent Jeffrey and his worldview

I would like to make a comment on this line of argument from Kent.  Some
folks have been studying this whole UFO thang for a really long time.
Kent sets up an interesting straw man argument here saying that "If this
UFO crash were an extraterrestrial vehical operating in time and space
as we know it, corresponding to all of the laws of physics as we
understand them, and the product of a technological society of
intelligent creatures who independently evolved from human beings, a
vehicle which by definition must have traveled light years subject to
relativistic physics then................................"

What a load of assumptions.  The UFO phenomenon is "real", if you count
nothing but it's effect on human culture for at least a few thousand
years as having some basis in "reality".  When we examine the phenomena
that encompass the enigma we call UFO, and by that I mean *all* of it,
there is no reason to think that the ETH hypothesis as stated above has
anything to do with these anamolous whichamaggigers flitting around our
sky, leaving their imprints on our minds, myths, religions, and
cultures.

Kent begins by stating that his version of reality can only encompass a
very narrow mechanistic worldview which is limited to what current
human technology and popular conceptions of space, time, and biology
have championed.

That's nice to hear, but reality, as any good Fortean knows, is rarely
so accomadating.  Darn it to heck, reality tends to get a lot weirder
than that qucker than an elf can pilot his UFO down to the local farm
and cook up some hotcakes.

Kent attempts to divorce the phenomenon from the way it presents itself
to us, and then bottle it into his narrow view of reality, where it
clearly doesn't want to fit.

UFOs have produced most world religions and continue to do so yet
today.  The intelligence behind the UFO (the trickster archetype if you
prefer) operates as a control mechanism on humanity manipulating our
myths.   These intruders operate a psychological program of mass mind
manipulation that makes the CIA green with envy even today.  The grand
UFO cover up is, was, and always has been operated by the UFOs
themselves.

Our understanding of time and space is completely flawed, limited, and
inadequate if, and that is only *if* UFOs are 'real.'  Heck, they
challenge our very definition of the word 'real' itself.

The presumptions inherent in Kents argument are laughable in the face of
the phenomenon itself!

The 'technology' behind the UFO phenomenon could be very low tech
indeed.  Based on some cosmological principle *we* haven't discovered
but one that might appear comparable to the horse and buggy relative to
their culture.  Perhaps they are as boggled by our technologies as we
are about theirs?

You cannot take a phenomenon which is patently bizarre, surreal, and
challenges all of our concepts of space, time, biology, and even sense
of self as this one, and bind it into a worldview which it inherently
contradicts!

UFOs exist, that is for sure.  They are enmeshed in all human religions,
cultures, and myth.  It is no more valid to refer to them as ET in a
spaceship than it is for Pat Robertson to refer to them as demon spawn.
Their origin could well exist beyond what our senses can ever perceive
or understand.

Neverless, Kent has a point.  Crashed ET spaceships they are not.

Are they important?  Unless you belong to a particularily strong
religious persuasion, Mormanism, Catholocism, Judaism, Materialism, or
UFOlogy, no, they are not.

They hover around the fringes of reason with an agenda all their own.
Unless dear Kent happens to get abducted next week, I'm quite certain he
can rest comfortably in his new found sense of freedom.  Meanwhile, I'm
certain 'they' remain completely in control of their coverup....

Don't worry about the CIA friends, worry about the next time Jehovah
shows up in his flying saucer..and then ask yourself if we have anything
sufficiently cooked up out at Area 51 to deal with him.

John