Print
Category: Ask the panel
Hits: 2104

A few weeks ago, there was an informal survey on Twitter. It revealed that the majority of ufologists taking part in the #UFOTwitter discussions were convinced that all the answers regarding the UFO phenomenon could be found by analyzing UFOs. Which is quite baffling…

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of these craft are intelligently operated. So, it would seem obvious that the focus should be on that intelligence that operates these craft. If we want to know, e.g., if they constitute a genuine threat, it is not the actual UFOs that we must pay attention to. Vehicles do not have intentions. Trying to understand the intelligent force or forces behind UFOs solely by observing UFOs, makes about as much sense as trying to understand humanity by observing cars.

Contact Experiences
Contact Experiences

And, of course, UFOs are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these intelligences that are engaging us. There is a whole array of different types of contact experiences, ranging from completely benevolent and beneficial to detrimentally brutal abductions. So, these would seem like a good place to start. Yet, they have been pooh-poohed for the last 70 years. To this day, most ufologists prefer to stay as far away from contact experiences as they can. And, as Mike Jamieson’s article illustrates, they have been giving the same impertinent excuses. It should be self-evident that we need to include contact experiences in our research if we want to understand the non-human intelligences we are dealing with.

It does not stop there. We have observed, both in contact experiences and in the ways that UFOs are operated, that they challenge our current understanding of reality. John Mack famously said we may have to refine our definitions of reality if we want to truly understand what is happening. JAR Magazine dedicated a series of articles to this: Series of Articles: Redefining Reality

Anybody who seriously studies this phenomenon inevitably must conclude that consciousness must be added to the equation, too. And that adds yet another dimension to the whole thing.

On Facebook, a contact experiencer recently commented that the current heavy focus on UAP while ignoring the other aspects does not constitute a limited disclosure. Instead, this is a hijacking of the narrative to deliberately steer it in a direction that benefits the Military, and away from the truth. Effectively, the current focus on UAP only turns the clock back by 70 years.

In the articles listed below, several authors from our panel explore different aspects of what was mentioned above.