Yesterday was a remarkable day, where both a Spielberger Film and the third US Government release of UAP files occurred on the same day. Patently, not coincidentally, as a main theme of the movie (in development since 2023-4) is Government attempts to suppress evidence of first contact with extraterrestrials. (Yes, the timing is itself an implicit message, trying to help counter widespread suspicion: disclosure is happening.)
What are we to make of this, given 1, 2, 3 already and some "fresh meat"?
First, as a Daily Mail article picks up the story:
The third set of documents was quietly uploaded to the Department of War's website on the same day as the release of the Hollywood blockbuster Disclosure Day.
According to the Pentagon, there have been 'unprecedented levels of interest' in the UFO files, with the website receiving more than 1.7 billion hits worldwide since it launched in May.
The latest trove adds dozens of documents, photographs and videos to the government's rapidly expanding public archive of unexplained sightings.
No, I don't find their headlining an Apollo 16 astronaut's brief remark on a Moon gravity anomaly -- most likely from an impact -- a point to be taken seriously: "It could be an alien star base or something . . . " (Most likely, this is humorous banter, as the Astronaut immediately continues "Anyway, the next slide shows the front side of the moon" -- not a likely follow-up to a serious statement. [I suspect, DM is using British understatement to make a point, even while exploiting a click-bait like headline.])
Yes, it is interesting to notice how, in 1958, "[Dr Leon] Davidson was told by the CIA that the agency 'cannot resolve his problem concerning the space message and its transmitter because records on the matter have been destroyed by the evaluating agency.' " (Regrettably, whatever the substance was, it was destroyed; and yes, there is plainly some reason to be concerned -- rather than panicky -- about secrecy, cover-ups, destruction of evidence etc.)
However, so far, the most significant point in this third cluster is this:
That is, as a security matter, from 1948, they were aware of clusters of sightings of disk-like flying objects by the military, and believed another one was emerging, setting up a procedure for reporting. Notice, they directed that photographs be taken. Thus, those charged with defence were taking the matter seriously nearly eighty years ago. This is not just readily dismissed "National Enquirer" sensationalism, shifting the way we should be thinking.
Speaking of photographs:
DM comments:
This is hard to explain, certainly in terms of a vehicle, it sounds more like a hologram (raising the "Flatland" transdimensional model outlined in part 2).
As further context, I think it will be helpful to note from an early review of Spielberg's Disclosure Day:
We join “Disclosure Day” after Daniel has discovered that Fox Mulder was right: Not only are non-humanoid life forms real, but there are powerful people trying to keep that truth from the world.
[--> feeding conspiracism, directly Gov't. but between lines the church and its message]
Daniel has been working with a team of Wardex defectors, led by Hugo Wakefield (Colman Domingo), to release information to the world, including footage of alien encounters and brutal interrogations. [--> parallel to the files coming out] They’re just waiting for a sign to initiate the final stage of their plan: Unleashing every piece of recorded footage of alien encounters, aka Disclosure Day.
That sign [--> signs and wonders . . . ] takes the form of Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt), a Kansas City meteorologist who begins to experience the world in impossible ways. It’s not just that she can speak fluent Russian to her boyfriend Jackson (Wyatt Russell), but she can also understand people’s life stories by looking in their eyes. When a cop pulls her over, she can see that he had fought with his wife that morning. When she finally makes it to the air that morning, she begins speaking in what sounds like an alien language. Only Daniel can understand her
[--> speaking in tongues, prophetic revelations of secrets of men's hearts turned into ET phenomenon, feeding the challenge to charismatics, pentecostals & evangelicals generally]
. . . . Blunt particularly captures a woman torn apart by being not just the mouthpiece for [--> priestess/prophetess character] the most important day in recorded history [--> so, cross and resurrection are marginalised] but an emotional conduit to the world. She doesn’t want to be a savior. [--> notice that word] Blunt’s performance can sometimes feel big, but it’s also remarkably nuanced, particularly in the amount of work she has to do without lines when she looks into the eyes of another character whose life she can “see.” It’s a true vision of active empathy, which Hugo insists is what this is all about: A sense that we have been evolutionarily derailed by lies and emotional dishonesty. [--> uh huh] It’s hard to argue he’s wrong. [--> as in meet prophet Spielberg]
. . . . With “Disclosure Day,” he’s less interested in the impact than the ripple effect. What would happen if we knew the truth? [--> as in, we do not yet know the real truth] Would it unite us or divide us further? And what would happen to faith and religion if we discovered other “supreme beings”? [--> See the attack? See the philosophical and theological strawmen of God set up and knocked over?] This theme is evident in the discovery that Jane was once a novitiate. [--> in training to be a nun, Catholic church in focus now] While some scenes with her former Mother Superior, played by Elizabeth Marvel, can feel a bit blunt in their thematic exploration, [ --> That is, an attack too direct to put in the review] it’s just another place in which Spielberg is asking questions. [--> serious questions or attack questions?] His career has long been one of embedding filmmaking confidence with human curiosity, and both elements are on full display here.
Another early review hints at more that we need to recognise and prepare to address effectively:
One thing that David Koepp’s screenplay excels at is the character of Jane and her fundamental questioning of her faith. [--> there we go, Christianity is dubious and to be put in the dock] I’ve always found that the questioning of a higher power in the realization of a different higher being would only help to establish one’s faith more [--> gobbledygook, but obviously trying to demote God as taught in Scripture], but I love that she’s conflicted in how to feel about it, and she reaches out to her surrogate family to help her work through it. One of my favorite pieces of dialogue goes somewhat like, “Why would he create a vast universe and save it only for us?”
[--> the de-centering of humanity and our salvation, where we clearly need to bring out the wider Biblical order starting with angels and demons, cherubim, seraphim and more, including key visions of God, such as:
Ezek 1: 4 As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal.2 5 And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance:
they had a human likeness, 6 but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went. 10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle
[--> do you want a more alien-looking creature, here as honour guard of God?]
. . . . 26 And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance. 27 And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him. 28 Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain [= the rainbow, a sign of mercy and of judgement], so was the appearance of the brightness all around.
Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking.]
It’s a subtle and nuanced character arc that will get overshadowed by Disclosure Day’s more bombastic elements, but I think this is a particular high point for a supporting character that other directors would push further in the background.
Now, how will we respond, soundly and correctively?
- Clearly, there is an underlying dechristianising, dismissively doubt [doubt is the anti-virtue here, an inferior substitute for prudent warrant], marginalise and dismiss the church, the gospel, the scriptures premise.
- The readily accessible Ezekiel Ch 1 (among many other scriptures!) suffices to expose the strawman fallacy of a "local" god, not able to deal with other intelligent creatures . . . Here's God's throne with Cherubim honour guard, a throne of radiant mercy as well as of judgement.
- Further, to responsibly describe God is not -- repeat, NOT -- to diminish him. Yes, he is beyond finite limit, his ways and thoughts transcend ours, but he is good, wise, true, just, redemptive, love himself, so, again, we recognise . . .
The inherently good, utterly wise Creator God, a necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being, root and sustainer of worlds; worthy of our loyalty and of our reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature.
- This is already enough to answer many ill-informed caricatures; though that is not likely to persuade those whose minds are already set in hostility to the gospel.
- Obviously, if God's throne room can have patently alien honour guards, the Judaeo-Christian, scriptural tradition inherently has adequate resources to deal with extraterrestrials. And, as for "first contact" God is our first contact already, our first neighbour and host, setting the context to address angels, demons, and extraterrestrial creatures alike . . . as, Jn 1:
"Jn 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."
- So, we can have perfect confidence and adequate resources -- light -- to address any "shocks" to our understanding of possible or actual worlds, "dimensions," technologies, messages and beings. (BTW, as we see here, cherubs are polymorphic . . . "shape shifting.")
- As for playing games with tongues-speaking (here, of ET provenance) and eye-changes as a sign of ET-possession, that is uncomfortably close to demonic possession, something Spielberg has to know.
- I here think he is making a subtle anticipatory move, to make those who speak to demonic phenomena as one possibility, seem to be ignoramuses blindly defending a dubious dogma. (It is still legitimate to soberly note that our Saviour and his Apostles and Prophets recognised that there are destructive, deceitful spiritual phenomena that do not come from a wholesome source, requiring discernment and in some cases direct challenge in the name of Jesus to exorcise them.)
- This is why, we see in 1 Jn 4:1 - 6, again, a highly specific warning:
1 Jn 4: 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
- A word to the wise, is sufficient.
- However, we must again point back to the first of this series, where we are warned of a current teaching in the UFO-Contact movement, that precisely fits the 1 Jn 4 warning:
[A] sitting congressman—reportedly Eric Berles of Missouri—participated via speakerphone and delivered a chilling warning. He told the assembled pastors to prepare their congregations because, according to inside sources, the government was on the verge of dropping a reality-shattering narrative: that humanity was created by interdimensional beings, not God, and that Jesus and the entire Biblical story were fabrications masterminded by these entities.
- Thus, we are back to that biblical framing: we have excellent warrant for the reality of God and a prophecy-fulfillment-witness framework for the gospel; whatever seeks to undermine such or to marginalise and dismiss it fails the 1 Jn 4:1 - 4 test.
- (BTW, if we are dealing with self-confessed lying manipulators of millions for centuries, why should we give credence to anything they say now? [And, if some claim to be "whistleblowers," let us recall a certain sss-scaly "whistleblower" in Eden.] No, for cause, established gospel truth is our yardstick. This is not the first time that we have seen clever counter-narratives to the gospel.)
- Recall, here, 2 Peter 1 on myths vs eyewitness history and on Messiah prophecies (such as Isa 53, c. 700 BC) fulfilled in front of those witnesses (c. 27 - 30 AD, cf. record 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, c 55 AD) and faithfully handed down to us at terrible cost in the face of "dungeon, fire and sword":
2 Pet 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . . 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
- Thus, we can freely go back to moral government basics, that if a creature is free enough to reason, decide and act, it is free enough to be morally governed; where, the Ciceronian first duties undeniably apply to such entities.
- Undeniably? Yes, as to try to deny or sideline them, one implicitly appeals to them, to duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, neighbour, fairness and justice etc. Yes, these duties are preconditions for rational, responsible freedom that transcends blind chance and/or blind mechanical necessity. Yes, too, from love to neighbour, as Rom 13:8 - 10 etc outline, all the core duties hang.
- So, we have duties of the rational, responsible soul here, not merely arbitrary rules set up and imposed by clever argument.
- How would they apply to other creatures? If they are rational and responsible, they obviously directly apply. (In the case of God, they become a mirror, reflecting his "eternal power and godhead." God, being root of reality, creator, sustainer, first neighbour and host.)
- When we turn to machines, including weapons, computers, AI's etc, these extensions are the responsibility of their creators; as, we already see in the first tort cases against creators of AI's.
- Obviously, true angels will worship God and will call us to him; demons, instead, would try to subvert that.
- Other creatures may be innocent, or may be morally struggling as we are. The question then, is the Solzhenitsyn line- between- good- and- evil state of their hearts, just as it is so for us. For such, the gospel would be a message of hope.
And so, we are beginning to see a wider pattern, and to see how we can begin to exert discernment and provide prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership.
UPDATE, a colleague provides an at last, Christian leader response, try:
Let us arise and build! END
