The main problem with Ross Douthat's recent NYTimes piece ('Does UFO Disclosure Threaten Faith', June 13) is typical overthinking that has plagued the interpretation of UFO-UAP phenomena since the year dot. Hence, more often than not, newbies to the topic interject their own subjective takes, rather than objective ones. In Douthat's case his first error is using Steven Speilberg's new film ('Day of Disclosure' - see trailer here:
disclosure day trailer - Google Search
to interpret the phenomenon minus examining the objective evidence. For example, Douthat notes Emily Blunt’s character “speaks in foreign tongues, she reads other
people’s thoughts and the implication is that the aliens are using her to help
humankind to become spiritually mature.”
Then concluding:
"The story thus illustrating why one of the popular conceptions
of extraterrestrial encounters is a potential challenge to organized religion,
with aliens stepping into the role that’s traditionally occupied by popes and
prophets and mystics, angelic messengers or the Holy Spirit."
But this is way way overextended beyond what's justified. For one thing, as Spielberg already noted in one CBS Morning segment Blunt's (Kansas City weather girl) character is not "speaking in tongues" - which has a specific meaning for Christians - especially of the charismatic persuasion, e.g.
Wherein I made reference to neuro biologist Michael Persinger’s work relating perseveration and hypergraphia
to an altered affect, and most importantly an overwhelming sense of
religiosity. Persinger didn't draw too many firm conclusions but one could
reasonably conjecture that any two of those manifestations could easily
transform to direct talking to an imagined deity.
But that isn't what Blunt's character was doing. She is actually speaking in a 'Morse-code' form of alien language to get to the threshold of disclosing their presence on Earth. (Acknowledged by Spielberg in his CBS interview 2 weeks ago). Hence, the aliens are using her to further the force of disclosure, not to "help humankind become spiritually mature."
So there is no basis for supposing the disclosure of UFOs as actual non-human craft, or related encounters, are usurping a role "traditionally occupied by popes and prophets and mystics, angelic messengers or the Holy Spirit." Hence, there is no potential or real challenge to organized religion. That is, unless it dogmatically specifies that divine creation of intelligent species is confined to our own planet alone. Which leads Douthat to yet another false conclusion:
"Which means that if God exists in the movie’s universe, the alien race seemingly stands in a closer relationship to the deity than human beings, and they’re here to act as the divinity’s interpreters and agents."
But having a superior intelligence to humans, i.e. to have been able to direct advanced craft to our world, does not mean having a superior spiritual relationship. So neither are they able to act as divine interpreters or agents. So there is really no tension with existing scripture claims, or moral edicts.
Douthat goes on to write:
“Disclosure Day” draws on the existing U.F.O. mythos in
multiple ways. For instance, in Spielberg’s story the cover-up of
extraterrestrial encounters is being managed by a government-affiliated
contractor rather than the Pentagon, which is something that various would-be
whistle-blowers have suggested could be true in our reality. (A U.F.O.-curious
Republican congressman, Eric Burlison, recently wrote that
“my investigation is following the trail into RAND, MITRE, Aerospace Corp.,
M.I.T. Lincoln Labs, and the Northrop Grummans of the world.”)
This is an unfortunate reference given that Luis
Alizondo, former director of The Advanced Aerospace Threat
Identification Program (AATIP), noted (in his book Imminent, p. 129) it is actually the Dept. of Defense Legacy Program - or
Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program)
in possession of UAP materials (including retrieved craft) of non-human origin, and keeping them under tight wraps. As Elizondo writes (ibid.):
"We were told specifically (as members of the AATIP group) that a defense contractor associated with the Legacy Program was in possession of UAP materials of nonhuman origin, made by some civilization from a distant planet. When Jay (team member) went to inquire for us, the contractor acknowledged that yes, they were in possession of this material. They said they would give us access to it but first we had to get permission from the secretary of the Air Force."
But of course no permission was forthcoming. Why would it be when the entire aim was to conceal the
whole re-engineering effort?
Douthat then goes on to write:
"Before those whistle-blowers started appearing, I was content with a spiritual interpretation of the U.F.O.
landscape, in which claims of encounters belong to the category of “weird
religious experiences interpreted through modern sci-fi-influenced cultural
conditions” and we shouldn’t expect spaceships to actually descend."
Flash forward to the referenced House UAP hearings in the
summer of 2023. Recall that Ret. Major David Grusch had
been emphatic, testifying under oath, that the Air Force had a program to
recover and re-engineer extraterrestrial craft.
Military Vets: Graves, Grusch (center)and Fravor at UAP Hearing.Asked specifically to elaborate on any "non-human
spacecraft" or artifacts recovered, Grusch responded he could not
discuss such materials in open session so suggested use of a SCIF (Special compartmentalized intelligence facility) at the
hearings. This was required for congress to access sensitive
materials.)
He was not
"cagey" about it at all, as some media buffoons implied. He merely
recited the conditions under which the hardest (highest classified) first hand evidence
- including 4k imagery - could be divulged without him being imprisoned
under The Espionage Act (which was used to put former AF
officer Reality Winner in a federal slammer for 5+
years for leaking docs pertaining to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
To his credit (and seriousness) Douthat adds:
"I will
be content with it once again if the administration takes the step that many
figures involved in the disclosure push are now urging, and issues formal
protections for anyone who comes forward with material evidence of secret
programs and nonhuman technologies."
But again, this would have to go through the DoD's Legacy program and we already know that it would not consent to give such permission to Elizondo's AATIP group. I.e. to get the first hand materials from a contractor. Indeed, there is no evidence the Air Force even let David Grusch open a SCIF to reveal what evidence he had at the 2023 House hearings. And certainly, IF they had, any congress critter who beheld it would first hand would need witness protections - say if they were to openly divulge it to someone outside the SCIF.
These are aspects that Neil deGrasse Tyson never seemed to grasp, probably because he never did the background work. That was when he facetiously blurted: "Ya know, just fork up the aliens then we wouldn't have to believe! to CBS Morning interviewer Matt Guttman:
As before, Neil either thinks it's funny that UAP-alien evidence is classified, or somewhat incredible that the Pentagon would actually impose prison sentences on anyone (like Grusch) openly revealing alien presence, existence of re-reengineered craft. However, not if the latter are part of an ongoing re-engineering process - which was Grusch's point. So Neil's frivolous demand is partly understandable, but totally unrealistic.
Douthat goes on to write:
"When I interviewed Representative
Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida (one of Congress’s leading
U.F.O.-secrets believers), on my podcast a week ago, this was her explanation
for why we have so many claims without confirmatory evidence: The people who
have the proof fear prosecution or retribution.
I like to think that if I had the kind of evidence that drives
the plot of “Disclosure Day,” I’d take some pretty substantial risks to be the
person who revealed it to the public."
Errr....NO, you would not actually take those 'substantial risks'. Not if it meant ending up in the slammer (like Reality Winner) did for 5 years, or worse, for violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Which Douthat readily acknowledges in his next paragraph, writing:
"But talk from journalists is cheap. So I’ll just say that the
administration officials who are so enthusiastic about hyping anomalous
videos should be equally enthusiastic about whistle-blower protections."
Totally, absolutely concur. Which they have not done up to this point, nor submitted the first-hand level quality files and films. Which is why in my earlier (May 11) blog post on it, I referred to it as just more Trump distractions.
See Also:
And:
Do Aliens Exist? Steven Spielberg Believes They Do - The New York Times
