Uncategorized

Interesting how every now and then we get a story about the science behind UFOs…getting closer and closer to what the actual propulsion systems might be aboard these types of crafts being sighted. The latest Bing clip is talking about electromagnetism…but from what I’ve read, close but not quite a cigar. Read The Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, by Paul LaViolette, Ph.D. This somewhat difficult reading (because of the physics—but that can be skimmed over for other fascinating reading) talks about Tesla, and a little known figure-to-the-public, T. Townsend Brown. This book discusses subquantum kinetics, and Electrogravitic propulsion, the apparent science behind UFO-like craft sightings.

Fascinating reading.

I just watched the first two episodes to this new series, called Past Life, and just between the first and second shows, I’ve seen an improvement.

In watching the first episode, I had mixed—though generally positive—feelings about it. On the one hand, yes, it has lots of previously used  tropes and such, but, really, in its defense, how else you gonna portray this stuff in a hour? You gotta keep things like this moving, and for attention-deficit viewers and those perhaps already “up to here” with this kind of plot/story idea, it’d be hard to do. But I liked that it tried.

And though I liked the first episode, things seemed a bit rushed to arrive at the conclusion. As I’d mentioned before in my first post on the topic, I sincerely hoped that the stories would be well done, even if not all that much of a surprise, because how much of a surprise can you make something like this within the structure of an institute that investigates past-life issues? The entire show’s about finding past lives, so unless they do progressions v. regressions, and even once they’ve done that—what next?  Alien lives? The second episodes was much better and didn’t feel rushed at all. Without sitting down and thinking through how to do something like this, it will be interesting to see how they keep things “fresh.”

One thing of note is that in most of the research I’ve found is that reincarnational material usually—but  not always—seems to make itself known before the age of six, and so far it’s all manifesting in the teenage and adult years. I guess that, too, would be problematic for a weekly TV show aimed at an adult audience. But I really like how it tackled drug use. I like it because it shows the program is trying to show how past lives may affect current lives to an individual’s detriment. It might help in giving a different point of view to illnesses, instead of treating everything solely through use of medication. I’m not saying that all illnesses are a result of this kind of thing, but I am saying that there may be other issues and methods that might better deal with some problems.  But it can also give clues as to why we have certain inclinations and thoughts…why some things might unnerve us and why other things (and personalities and people!) might, for no seeming reason, turn us “on” or “off.”

Yes, the shows has so far been rather “cookie cutter,” but I’m willing to give it time and a chance to see how it develops and gets its “sea legs.”

This post is in reply to a comment Matt Bille had made regarding UFOs. I had mentioned them while reviewing First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong. Matt’s comment is reproduced, below (I have corrected misspellings):

“Frank, a good review, for the most part, of a great book. The reason the UFO angle is dismissed is that all the astronaut UFO/conspiracy tales have been long since shot down by the astronauts, NASA, and/or James Oberg. I don’t discount UFOs, but none of the alleged astronaut stories intrigues me.”

The problem I have with statements like this are on many levels, not to mention entire books have been writing for and against your position!  :-]  1) First, it’s an absolute. I know of very few absolutes in the world. Or the universe. The long and the short is that just because a theory or postulation or observation may have been “proven”… doesn’t mean it’s a law. Only an observed phenomena. Sure, some may be repeatedly reproduced, but it’s still only based upon specific observations that don’t necessarily preclude opposing theories or observations. The classic example I always use is wave particle duality. “I see a blue jay,” doesn’t mean all birds are blue jays. Just because I see a blue jay does not mean there are no cardinals nor finches nor chickadees nor…. 2) Based on statistics alone—I’m talking pure number crunching here—there is the possibility of extraterrestrial life elsewhere. The different rabbit holes we could travel down here are far too numerous to even attempt in a post reply. And as anyone who’s ever worked with numbers can attest, the same set of numbers in anything can be used as pros or cons. 3) I’m going to see if I can present a reading list (and yes, I did read every one of them!) in this reply to your post, Matt.  If not, I’ll make a separate post of it. In any case, these will be my rebuttal about UFOs, because so much has already been written about both sides of the argument. I know you say you don’t discount them, but you also seem to believe (though you state your position in third person, distancing yourself from directly saying “I believe what the gov’t is telling me…”) what the government tells you, that they don’t exist—which to me seems contradictory. In any event, to me, it really seems that discounting the possibility or probability of extraterrestrial life seems based upon beliefs. I’ve met and talked with Stanton Friedman, and he makes the best, most down-to-earth argument for them. Read his bio. An ex-nuclear physicist who worked classified projects for the government. Geesh, what more can I say, Matt? 4) Now, given the view in #3, I’m just going to cite one reference here (but see my suggested reading list, below), because there are so many, but  read Body Of Secrets, Anchor Books, 2002, by James Bamford, ISBN 0-385-49908-6. A book about the National Security Agency. Written by interviewing people who were (and are?) a part of NSA. It talks of what that organization does, about ferreting out secrets, of keeping secrets…but also of the out-and-out deceit. How people purposely lied in the interests of national security—and other reasons. Whether one lies to serve a national interest or not, people do it for reasons they feel compel them to do so, mental issues notwithstanding, etc. And in the instance of UFOs, if the government really knows anything, and feels compelled to keep what they know a secret—for whatever reason—of course they’re not going to say anything in favor of extraterrestrial life. Of course they’re going to deny. Again whole books have been written about this, too, but you can read Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will To Believe, Prometheus Books, 2001, Carl T. Pflock, ISBN 1-57392-894-1 as a counter to the belief in UFOs (also on my reading list). And as a counter to Mr. Pflock’s book, read any of Mr. Friedman’s books, or the tome UFOs And The National Security State, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, 2002, by Richard M. Dolan, ISBN 1-57174-317-0 (volume two has just come out, too), if you want to pick “just one book” to get a feel for the subject.  5) BTW, didn’t Mr. Oberg abandon his attack on UFOs at some point? Haven’t the time this morning to look into that. 6) And lastly, you wanna “talk NASA”?   Read DARK MISSION:  THE SECRET HISTORY OF NASA, BY Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara, Feral House, ISBN 978-1-932595-26-0

So, it’s cool that you don’t discount ET life, Matt, but I really have to take issue with your “…all the astronaut UFO/conspiracy tales have been long since shot down by the astronauts, NASA, and/or James Oberg…” statement.  Just my humble-or-not-so-humble opinion. But thanks for reading and taking the time to respond!

Suggested Reading

THE RIGHT STUFF, Bantam Books/Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1979/2001, Tom Wolfe, ISBN 0-553-38135-0

DEEP BLACK, Berkley Books, 1988, by William Burrows, ISBN 0-425-10879-1

DREAMLAND, Villard, 1998, by Phil Patton, ISBN 0-375-75385-0

LEAP OF FAITH, Harper Torch, 2002, by Gordon Cooper, ISBN 0-06-109877-9

BODY OF SECRETS, Anchor Books, 2002, by James Bamford, ISBN 0-385-49908-6

The Zeta Reticuli Incident (and Commentary), AstroMedia Corporation, 1976, Terence Dickinson

TOP SECRET/MAJIC, Marlowe & Company, 2005, by Stanton T. Friedman. MSc, ISBN 1-56924-342-5

CRASH AT CORONA, Paraview Special Editions, 2004, by Don Berliner and Stanton Friedman, ISBN 1-931044-89-9

ABOVE BLACK, OneTeam Publishing, 1997, 2006, by Dan Sherman, ISBN 0-9660978-0-7

UFOs AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, 2002, by Richard M. Dolan, ISBN 1-57174-317-0

THAT CRAZY LADY DOWN THE ROAD, Earth Star Publications, 2005, by Judy Messoline, ISBN 0-944851-14-2

ALIEN AGENDA, HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997, by Jim Marrs, ISBN 0-06-109686-5

COMMUNION, Beech Tree Books, 1987, by Whitley Strieber, ISBN 0-688-07086-8

TRANSFORMATION, Avon Books, 1988, by Whitley Strieber, ISBN 0-380-70535-4

BREAKTHROUGH, HarperCollinsPublishers, 1995, by Whitley Strieber, ISBN 0-06-017653-9

The works of Seth, Jane Roberts, and Rob Butts.

THE DAY AFTER ROSWELL, Pocket Books, 1997, by Colonel Philip J. Corso (Ret.) and William J. Birnes, ISBN 0-671-01756-X

SKY WALKING, Collins/Smithsonian Books, 2006, Tom Jones, ISBN 978-0-06-088436-9

DARK MISSION:  THE SECRET HISTORY OF NASA, BY Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara, Feral House, ISBN 978-1-932595-26-0

ROSWELL: INCONVENIENT FACTS AND THE WILL TO BELIEVE, Prometheus Books, 2001, Carl T. Pflock, ISBN 1-57392-894-1

THE ROSWELL LEGACY, New Page Books, 2009, Jesse and Linda Marcel, Jr., ISBN 978-1-60163-026-1

SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION, by Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D., Bear & Company, ISBN 978-1-59143-078-0

FLYING SAUCERS AND SCIENCE, by Stanton Friedman, New Page Books, ISBN 978-1-60163-011-7

RULE BY SECRECY, by Jim Marrs, Perennial, ISBN 978-0-06-093184-1

FIRST MAN, by James R. Hansen, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, ISBN 0-7432-5631-X

THE LAST MAN ON THE MOON, by Eugene Cernan with Don Davis, St. Martin’s Press, ISBN 0-312-19906-6

Learn everything you ever wanted to know about the first man on the moon. Read this book.

And I mean it.

The author, James R. Hansen, has done an outstanding job, even going back to the Anglo-Danish origins of the Armstrong (“Armestrange”) name. Man, I think I even knew what he had for dinner October 20, 1953. Now, I have to admit, it wasn’t quite like Mr. Cernan’s Last Man On the Moon (see my post). I really don’t mean to compare the two against each other, because one is a biography while the other is an autobiography, one is by an academician, the other by an astronaut/fighter jock,  but you really can’t compete with first-hand anything .The structure of First Man is important in its comparison to Last Man in one important element:  the structure of First Man very much mirrors the structure of Mr. Armstrong himself. Mr. Armstrong’s strong suit was never in dealing with people. He was 110% the engineer. A flight engineer. As he himself described himself, Neil Armstrong wasn’t so much about being the first to land on the moon…but more about advancing the science and engineering of flight. According to the book, he was thoughtful, analytical, and quite meticulous. To me, he was almost robotic in nature. Totally task oriented.

The opening of the book was one of the best ever—though it was never really capitalized upon…directly. Indirectly, one could look at the oft-quoted Buzz Aldrin statement spoken to Neil Armstrong after returning from the moon and run with it in any of a number of directions. The statement is: “Neil, we missed the whole thing.” Conspiracy buffs love to run with that statement, but after reading this book (and checking out the hyperlink to a Buzz Aldrin interview from July 19, 2009), it can also mean, “Hey, we were dang busy, we didn’t even get to stop and smell the roses!”

Mr. Armstrong seemed to keep everyone at arm’s length. He dove into his work, but he was notoriously close-lipped around people. Over the years, many conspiracy theorists make this to be because he “saw something” out there. “Something” being UFO-related (Buzz Aldrin seemed more the candidate for this, since when they returned, he really wanted to talk about the “lights” he’d seen while out there, interrupting NASA debriefing protocol to discuss them with reporters and all). We’ll most likely never know answers to such questions, but as I read this 700-page account of Armstrong’s life, it became readily apparent that close-lipped is or was how Neil Armstrong simple was. As I like to say, It was who he was; what he does. I don’t know what he’s like now, I got the impression that maybe he’s changed a little? Or is perhaps trying to?…but I think the man was simply the most reserved individual I’ve ever read about or met. And I know people of few words. Some people (I’m not one of them) are just like that. And when you lump Armstrong in with all the more colorful personalities of the other astronauts, well, I can certainly see the concern.

Mr. Hansen’s book does occasionally touch on the topic of the astronauts seeing “bright lights” and UFOs, and he disappointingly brushes it off in classic and casual debunking devaluation. I never understand this type of attitude from so-called scientifically minded individuals. Why is believing in UFOs a joke? Why must phrases like “…of import for those who want to believe in UFOs…” (top of page 430, in the paperback version) constantly be employed? Just because there is no so-call “proof” they don’t exist? Look at all the new discoveries by Hubble that were never thought to have existed. Keep an open mind for crying out loud—but that’s for another posting. But, in general, you will find nothing of real value regarding anything-UFO. The book is all about the man, the myth, the legend of Neil Alden Armstrong. This one failing aside, the book is a tome of information about Armstrong. An outstanding book—one authorized by Armstrong himself (and no, he did not co-author it). First Man gives enormous insight into the man who, arguably, defined Humanity’s greatest achievement.

After posting yesterday’s blog, it got me thinking—violence in writing. Or on TV, in the movies, whatever. I read Publisher Weekly, which includes the books-to-be-published reviews. These are reviewed by publishing industry professionals.  And as I read these reviews, it’s amazing how truly nasty some of this stuff is! And I mean in terms of content…and the heinous things that can happen to someone woven into fictional stories that so-called “niece people” want to read!

Now, I’m not stupid. Really, I’m not—I understand the plotting and creation of books.  Understand that books and movies and TV have to have something interesting going on, usually framed as “conflict,” to get a reader’s/watcher’s interest. You need something of interest going on, some conflict involved in said, and a [usually] satisfying ending. Attention-grabbing characters are a huge plus (this makes the work “character driven”). Action. Love. Intrigue.

But, geesh, some of these plots are really intricate and gnarly, putting the old and now-quaint Chinatown plot to shame (and I, having seen this in college as part of a class I took years ago, remember the interest and confusion I experienced while watching it—had I heard that right?! Wait, stop, rewind that reel!). Truth may be stranger than fiction, but I think fiction is really starting to blur that line!

All I’m saying is that there seems to be so much of it. And I’m no angel. I started out writing horror. Even in my current stable of efforts I’ve employed violence…but in my current efforts I’ve tried to frame it in a way as to explain it’s existence in some way. To present an understanding of it. To not use it as a means to its own end. Perhaps not totally successful, but that has been my attempt.

In Sleepwalkers, I used it as a way to express the emotional content of what was going on at the time in the “mechanism” I employed (don’t want to give it away) in the novel. In another manuscript I used it to show how violence could be a product of certain past-life issues.  In another I used it more as a live-by-sword-die-by-the-sword employment. But I always tried to frame its (limited!) use in a way to try to understand what violence is and how it emerges into our lives. But when I read these reviews of all these books to be, it just makes me cringe at what the reading public is buying! If elements of our lives are so filled with war and crime and the like (and we’re all complaining about it), then to be reading about the same in our “down time,” our “fun” time…well, it disturbs me. Instead of using so much graphic violence, the better way, IMHO, is to find more inventive ways to plot. To write. And I mean no disservice to the writers employing current methods. They obviously did a great enough job to land a publisher, but in having to focus so much time on such nasty and graphic details has to have an effect upon one’s life, if nothing else, in the outlook of one’s life. How you interact and relate to people. And that is at the heart of my concern.