The Empire Strikes Back (ESB), 4: As Disclosure Day and the third US Gov, release of UAP files come out, let us ponder evidence and our true "first contact"

 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:

The 2024 FBI report documented the sighting by a US Army intelligence officer and four other members of his unit.

In February 2022, as they left their office building in Colorado Springs, they saw the strange UFO hovering over the Cheyenne Mountains [HQ for NORAD, the joint US-Canadian nuclear attack defence command].

The object was described as creamy or whitish, somewhat translucent with a slight shimmer and made of irregular, non-overlapping panels like 'articulating fish scales.'

The UFO stayed perfectly still, but the panels on its surface shifted slowly in waves. After about two minutes, the object suddenly vanished as if it cloaked itself in mid air.

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, eternal0, 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.
• As for playing games with tongues-speaking (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. 
• Thus, we can go back to 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.
• So, we have duties of the 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, reflectinh his "eternal power and godhead.")
• 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, angels will worship God and will call us to him, demons would try to subvert that. 
• Other creatures may be innocent, or may be morally struggling as we are. The question then, is the 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

The Empire Strikes Back, 3: This Friday, Spielberg's "Disclosure Day" movie will be released in the US, with

 . . . Mr Spielberg -- who is a believer in UFO's, ET's etc -- himself being on record that it challenges the views of the Christian Faith. As, Jubileecast reports:

The movie, which opens in theaters on June 12, examines how such a revelation could affect public trust in institutions, including government and religion.

Spielberg suggested that confirmation of intelligent life beyond Earth could force many people to reconsider long-held assumptions about faith.

"If this truth were just known overnight, if the government announced, 'Yes, we have been keeping this from you since 1947,' that would mess up a lot of people," Spielberg said during the interview. "And the movie also takes the position of the church. What does this do to the fundamental beliefs that many of us have? Is God our God only on this planet, or is God a God for every system where there's civilization, intelligent life, and even developing life?"

The article is less than straightforward (given, "church" above) as it discusses the controversy that has begun to brew:

The comments quickly generated discussion online, with some social media users accusing the director of attempting to undermine Christianity. However, Spielberg did not specifically reference Christianity during the interview. Instead, he raised broader theological questions about how faith traditions might respond if intelligent extraterrestrial life were discovered.

Further, as we may see from a trailer, the movie portrays what would be recognised as possession states -- altered voices, changed eyes etc -- and so this underscores that we must address the link to the UFO Contact Movement as has come up in our previous posts 1, 2:

So, we are about to see the ongoing US Government disclosures amplified by a potential blockbuster by a leading movie producer, who in a CBS interview went on record:

"Based on the circumstantial evidence of everything that I've gathered throughout my whole life, everybody I've listened to and every documentary I've ever watched and all the testimonies in Congress that I've heard, I absolutely think that they have been here, and they are here," Spielberg said. "And who knows, maybe they've always been here."

This puts the known teachings of many in the UFO Contact movement on the table. As we noted in an update to the first post in this emerging series:

[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, it is fair for us to point out the apologetics responsibilities of the church and its leaders, as on observation, too often we are disinclined to take them seriously. Let us start, with the underlying warrant-base for the gospel, which is shown to be a yardstick for truth:

With that base in mind, we again draw attention to 1 Jn 4:1 - 4:

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.

So, already, we know that some of what we are dealing with is of questionable spiritual value and truthfulness. As we noted in that same first post:

This framework is of course rooted in the good, structural reasons we have to believe in and know the reality of the good, loving God, and to receive the gospel of his crucified, risen Christ. Obviously, any intelligent being that rejects – as opposed to is ignorant of -- God and Christ, then, we have reason to see as in grave error, including the possibility of being an agent of a false, counterfeit spiritual message, the spirit of antichrist. 

Let us assume, our putative extraterrestrials exhibit moral struggle, much as we do. In that case, the gospel is for them, too! (Perhaps, as with the Narnians in Lewis’ Chronicles, in another form, as with Aslan.) 

If they are open to God and the gospel, fundamentally, all is well; but, we must be aware of the dangers of first contact, and must manage the process prudently.  

If they do not have or are not open to the good news of the Kingdom of God, then, we are in a different situation. 

One, where, we would have to take some readings of the early chapters of Genesis and related passages in the Revelation, etc., far more literally and seriously than we may be wont to. Which, would also be a strong sign of how late it is on the Biblical prophetic clock.

That remains the position. END

PS: Update Fri Jun 12, I clip food for thought from Mike McDaniel at AT:

Spielberg has had quite a box office drought, but he scored with E.T and Close Encounters, and he’s doing appearances in which he says he now believes there is intelligent life out there in the universe. He’s in the movie, money-making, business, so is he suggesting his movie will have us questioning our faith typical Hollywood marketing hype, or is he on to something more profound?

There is, so far as I can tell, nothing in the Bible that precludes alien life, or that enthrones man as God’s exclusive, superior creation achievement. There are suggestive passages, such as John 14:2: 

“In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.” 

“Father’s house:” the universe? “Many mansions:” different planets/species/intelligences? Common speculation, but our science suggests sapient life is possible elsewhere. Does that mean confirmation it exists and may be considerably more technologically advanced than us invalidates faith in God?

Why should it?

It has been often observed that to define God is to limit Him, limit him to what we, His creation, can imagine and understand. Why should we imagine that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God is limited to creating sapient life on a single planet in an infinite universe? And are we to think confirming he did create life elsewhere must somehow invalidate our faith in His power and majesty? Or is it more likely that’s the insecurity of those who resist reliance on God and think accepting Him on faith, which is what He leaves to us to choose, somehow diminishes them?

The confirmation of extraterrestrial or extradimensional life will certainly change the way we think about much, and may introduce technological transformations, but human nature doesn’t change, nor does the nature of God.

As the aphorism goes: “Man plans; God laughs.” Steve Spielberg is but a man, like the rest of us.

The Empire strikes back, 2: A second trove of UFO/UAP Files has been released, including key footage of sudden acceleration from Syria

 

A Reaper in flight, note "chin" sensor turret & underwing missiles

After two weeks, a second set of files has been released by the US Government, including the video clip as captioned. 

That clip, as released, has blacked out text on circumstances of the video; which was taken by a Reaper drone orbiting over Jordan and monitoring part of south-western Syria. However, such text is commonly available and is of little consequence. Further, this clip confirms the more complete version discussed in the video following, which dates it to 2021 and sets it alongside an article with details from the operator dating to 2022. So, in key part, this release validates the evidential credibility of those earlier reports. 

The key discussion begins, first at 17:32 where context is set, and then more directly from 24:33, and with the full clip from 29:52 on:

The key issue is, " 'instantaneous' acceleration," when the object suddenly zips to the right [East], having already broken targeting lock. This reflects several of the UAP characteristics:

• sudden and instantaneous acceleration [violates Newton's laws of motion]
• positive lift without visible means of propulsion [and no obvious lift devices like wings etc], 
• hypersonic velocity without signatures [esp. no sonic booms] 
• trans-medium travel (moving between air and water), and 
• low observability ["cloaking"]

This object shows the first two, and the "zip" may be at least supersonic. Let's put up a sequence of annotated screen-shots -- though, of course, we should watch the video, and the US Government release has slowed versions that help:

Where, the anomaly also seems to be able to detect that the Reaper Drone's observation turret is locked to it from some number of miles away. It breaks lock then zips away. Contrast the background features, this is not simply an over-rapid pan and zoom.

A report on the observer at 28:05 in the video

While, some will fuss that only sensors controlled by duly accredited Scientists count as giving valid observations or demand to inspect machines, parts and bodies rumoured to be in possession of the US Government, it is clear that such an objection would be little more than the "gold standard evidence" dismissive fallacy. The video released by the US Government clearly confirms the validity of the earlier unredacted release, we have statements by the operator, the material is -- in Simon Greenleaf's terms in his treatise on Evidence -- is fair on the face and now clearly comes from a responsible source and repository. (Thus, it meets the Ancient Documents Rule standard, and it now is those who object to credibility who face the burden to show otherwise.)

This case, then, is decisive. 

Repeat, DECISIVE.

U/D, May 28, let's add 2+ hrs of footage (mostly of "orbs" but with oddly humanoid figures size ~ 2 m) with locations in the description below at YouTube:

Coming from the UFO/Contact "community," here is a supposed photo in low light of an extraterrestrial being "levitating" at 44:19 here, similar to a "Grey":

This levitating "ET" image, if trustworthy, from the "contact" community, has strong parallels to medium/spiritualist phenomena, and opens up the issue of Gnostic-like teachings of claimed ET's, as came up in the initial KF post, here. Clipping, "[A Us Congressman] 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 again, 1 Jn 4:1 - 4 is our "test the spirits" watch-word, given that we have good warrant for the overall creation > history & prophecy > Christ, cross & resurrection > Church & mission > culmination biblical framework and especially the gospel as we may see by comparing the c 700 BC Isa 53 with AD 55 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 and AD 50 Acts 17:22 - 31.

So, yes, while much has been dubious or questionable for decades, there are phenomena on fair record, with reasonable supportive testimony, that establish observations of the five UAP phenomena. These are beyond our global technology base, and in some cases -- sudden/instant acceleration (change in speed and/or direction) suggest something beyond our current knowledge of Physics. It also corroborates that previously released or leaked documents, video files etc were sound, increasing credibility of a core of earlier reported observations. Obviously, that does not warrant all claims, reports, documents, video etc, or speculations as to causes (or on the nature of extra-terrestrials, if there are any), but it does shift credibility and therefore burden of proof.

Evidence of higher propulsion and flight technology is already impressive, especially as we are not seeing signs of heat engines using visible propellers or jets (which would not work underwater). Likewise, we are not seeing wings, whether fixed or rotary (yes, the whirling blades of helicopters are actually rotating wings). 

But it is the onward question of sudden/instant acceleration that is transformational. The questions of momentum do not allow such sudden velocity shifts. That implies something is happening that gets around components of Newton's Second Law, force is the rate of change of momentum, 

F = dP/dt = d/dt[(m*v)] = m*a, where m is constant.

. . . where m is mass and velocity, v, is the rate of change of displacement, x. (And yes, the effects we see are well within the range where newtonian dynamics are relevant, v under ~ c/10, and notice, relativistic effects speak to influences of velocity-tied mass shift, and/or to the analytical equivalence of acceleration and gravity.)

So, we are potentially looking at alterations of mass and/or space, raising issues of manipulation of gravity or space or both. 

That points to what science fiction terms "gravitics," and/or to "interdimensional"/ spacetime warp effects. Given, that there are significant UFO reports going back 80 or so years, that may be why modern Sci Fi uses such ideas. 

As a crude illustration, suppose there is a higher order dimension, so that -- and this is a classical Sci Fi story (c 1884!) -- a sphere passing through the plane of two-dimensional, XY-plane Flatland starts as a point, becomes a growing then shrinking circle and disappears. 

To the flatlanders that would look like a violation of the scientific law of matter conservation, sudden appearance, inexplicable growth and shrinkage, then sudden disappearance. Skeptical Flatlanders, doubtless, would deride and dismiss reports from "dubious" sources, and officials would be tempted to suppress and debunk such claims. Where, obviously, the revelation of a higher dimension, z (not just x,y) "up/down" would be a worldviews challenge that could easily be utterly disruptive. Save, perhaps to imaginative mathematicians who could construct a space, with z algebraically, and assess the logic of its properties and of objects in that higher space, e.g. a sphere. 

Thus, we see the domain we need to open up to as analytical tool, Mathematics, the disciplined study of the logic of structure and quantity; with its ability to identify (with associated Ontology -- study of being) possible worlds and construct what we could call abstract, logic-model worlds, with key "necessary" entities, properties and principles that are trans-world. No wonder we are seeing discussions of "transdimensional" entities. 

The Flatland toy model for interdimensionality

Let's play with Flatland a bit; identify a sloped line that is in W' = (x, y, z) that is moving along the z-axis, which would then look like a point moving in the W = (x, y) plane. If the line is curved or moves in a way reflecting a shallow angle in Z relative to XY, then we could see an apparent very high speed, and/or acceleration without "visible means of support." Especially, if the line L in Z is curved we could see fairly sudden shifts in v, from low to high, and if kinked somehow, apparently instant. Where, a small delta-z change, with a sufficiently shallow slope, would give a large delta-W, i.e. small changes in z give surprisingly large changes in (xy) -- indeed, with a pair of scissors, the speed of motion of the point of intersection of the blades can greatly exceed that of the blades themselves.

That is a special case of the line moving through Flatland, but one we could more readily visualise and perhaps experiment with (taking due safety measures for sharp, pointy objects!):

Similarly, if the object pops up to the Z then comes back down to XY, it will seem to vanish and reappear -- without, visible means of support. (And, rapid popping up then returning would create an illusion of moving in XY when all the actual motion is away from the plane. That's how moving pictures work, by showing us successive stills at closely spaced times, leading us to perceive motion.)

Then, shift to two time axes and higher order space, as time is a key variable here. suppose an object actually moving in t2 is moving slowly in that higher time, but with a shallow slope, would appear to be moving rapidly in our timeline, t1. Again, without visible means of support. 

So, it makes sense to think onward in terms of inter- or trans- dimensional behaviour, opening up to a wider reality. 

Of course, this does not prove interdimensionality, it just helps us open up our thinking by providing ideas-space to move beyond our common experience. And yes, that ability to think more broadly, is valuable. Just in case, let me prompt, on . . . 

-------------------

Further, we are not here addressing moral reality or the roots of reality, that will await the point where "teachings" come up more explicitly. We already have pointed to new age, neo pagan claims in the prior post, and to how we should respond to "First Contact." END

The Empire strikes back? (First notes on the emerging stories on the to be released UFO/UAP Files held by the US Government)

Overnight, during my usual insomnia struggle session, I ran across claims that the US Government had called a meeting with pastors, to discuss emerging news regarding extraterrestrials, described as “transdimensional.” This is obviously connected to the recent discussion to release UFO and UAP files, and -- this is an inference on my part, given timing -- may be tied to Secretary of State Rubio’s upcoming visit to the Vatican.

Here, is a Youtube video:

A UK Daily Mail article adds:

Influential pastors are claiming that they have been told to prepare their followers for shocking revelations about UFOs which may upend belief in the Bible.

Perry Stone, a well-known evangelist, author and Bible teacher from Tennessee, warned that fellow pastors were recently invited to a secret meeting with US intelligence officials to prepare for the release of secret files on extraterrestrials.

According to Stone, the officials warned a small group of pastors with a large reach in the Christian community that the government was about to release reports and possibly videos of aliens and spacecraft which were not from this planet.

In the April 27 video posted to his YouTube channel, the evangelist claimed that pastors were told about the existence of 'reptilian' creatures, UFOs and materials from a non-human origin and 'other things that almost sound like something out of a sci-fi movie.'

On February 19, President Trump ordered the Pentagon and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to release all information the government possesses regarding UFOs and alien life.

Last week, Trump said that the first files would be released 'very, very soon' and would contain some 'very interesting' things for the public.

However, officials in this secret meeting allegedly said the information on its way may cause some Christians to question how the universe was created and even lose faith in religion.

Stone said: 'You're going to have people who are going to say if there are galaxies and there are allegedly other creations in the galaxies, then the whole creation story is a myth, and you're going to have people that's going to apostatize and turn from the Christian faith because they have no answer for what they're about to hear.'

What are we to make of this? 

(Clearly, there are scientific, historical, evidence/warrant, credibility, theological/Christological, worldviews and apologetics issues here.)

First, that the US Government is reaching out to Pastors tells us they are concerned this might be disruptive to the Christian Faith, and to many sitting in our pews, where the Judaeo-Christian tradition is a key stabilising buttress for our civilisation, especially for families. That is a key clue.

How should we respond as Christians, as Church leaders, as thinkers and leaders in the community?

(For, I am not impressed by the sort of podcast responses that I am seeing, we need something deeper, sounder, more substantial. In absence of more august personages, kindly, ponder the following.)

These sketches (courtesy ChatGPT5.5) are illustrative of comments made by US Congressman Eric Davis, about Greys, Nordics, Insectoids and Reptilians, which have been taken up in the back corners of the Internet. There are no current credible images etc. 

Let us suppose that indeed, evidence emerges of dragon-like reptilians (or greys, or little green men or more humanoid creatures or of androids etc). That would mean, we see material creatures, with intelligence and obviously much more advanced science and technology. Which instantly would warrant concern, gven the history of the past 500 years as to what happened when dugout canoes, spears and arrows encountered sailing caravels armed wth cannon and arquebuses. Including, the question of novel diseases to which we have little or no natural immunity. (Actually, from H G Wells’ War of the Worlds, both ways.)

That already points to the possibility of consulting with the speculative, science fiction and fantasy community. They have been contemplating such first contact scenarios for generations.

However, there is a deeper issue.

The Ciceronian first duties apply to any responsible being

For, presumably embodied creatures would be contingent beings, and with intelligence, would be equally governed by the ciceronian first duties: 

1st: to, truth

2nd: to right reason

3rd: to warrant (and wider prudence)

4th: to sound conscience

5th: to likewise morally governed neighbour

6th: so too, to fairness, and to

7th: Justice 

. . . 

xth: etc.

That is, they would be morally governed creatures.

So, they would be subject to critical truth tests, outlined in 1 John 4:1 – 4,

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.

This framework is of course rooted in the good, structural reasons we have to believe in and know the reality of the good, loving God, and to receive the gospel of his crucified, risen Christ. Obviously, any intelligent being that rejects – as opposed to is ignorant of -- God and Christ, then, we have reason to see as in grave error, including the possibility of being an agent of a false, counterfeit spiritual message, the spirit of antichrist.

Let us assume, our putative extraterrestrials exhibit moral struggle, much as we do. In that case, the gospel is for them, too! (Perhaps, as with the Narnians in Lewis’ Chronicles, in another form, as with Aslan.)

If they are open to God and the gospel, fundamentally, all is well; but, we must be aware of the dangers of first contact, and must manage the process prudently.

If they do not have or are not open to the good news of the Kingdom of God, then, we are in a different situation.

One, where, we would have to take some readings of the early chapters of Genesis and related passages in the Revelation, etc., far more literally and seriously than we may be wont to. Which, would also be a strong sign of how late it is on the Biblical prophetic clock.

Maranatha!

As/if events develop, I intend to follow up, DV. END

UPDATE, May 8: I have found here, a further claimed elaboration:

[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.

If such a story surfaces, it would be little more than resurfaced -- long since discredited -- Gnosticim, and of course would precisely fit under 1 Jn 4:1 - 4 as a blatant manifestation of the spirit of antichrist. So, whose report should we believe? Obviously, the report of the Lord; not least, as, we here have a reported self-confession of deceit, so such entities fatally undermine their own credibility and lead us to a simple explanation, they are deceivers, not to be trusted.

However, there is a deeper level. 

It is arguable that biological life as we know it could in principle be explained by a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter et al. Inferring design of cell based life is not tantamount to inferring that God is the source of such life. But then, we run into the problem in the well known joke about making man out of mud: get your own dirt.

An illustration of Cosmological fine tuning

That is, our observed cosmos, in many ways, is exceedingly fine tuned towards supporting Carbon Chemistry, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet, cell based life. So, the real issue is not could you design a cell, but could you design and build a cosmos towards cell based life, and then effect such life. 

Where, in the cosmos, we have an order of embodied beings -- us -- who are morally governed. That points to the need for a good, wise God as the root of reality with a moral dimension. So, we already have excellent reason to set aside alleged claims by self-confessed deceivers, "transdimensional" or not.

Let us await details . . .

UPDATE 2, INITIAL RELEASE: "The first batch contains 162 files, including 14 images, 28 videos and 120 documents from several locations spanning from the U.S. to the Middle East to the moon, and dated last year to as early as the 1940s. Included in the files are old State Department cables, military mission reports, email correspondence, photos of unidentified object sightings and transcripts from NASA crewed spaceflights."

Nothing has really caught my eye here yet [poorly laid out file lists], just some reports of odd sightings from the Moon, and a 1960's case reporting 4-ft tall creatures that was long since published. DM reports some files here. US Rep Tim Burchett says, "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say “Holy [SNIP]” is coming." 

FURTHER UPDATE, MAY 10: I note a TV interview, in which Mr Burchett discusses recent observations that both he and his interviewer were aware of (which, confirms, that there is a breaking the news incrementally strategy in action), including sonar of a "football field" [~ 1 acre] sized object deep underwater, moving at 200 miles per hour . . . which will feed into existing, beyond- direct- Bible- teaching speculations about "[demonic] marine kingdom[s?]." In context, he hopes for more recent files briefed on "a couple of weeks ago" to be released, and acknowledges himself to be a Christian, arguing that scripture has room in it for other creatures -- "Ezekiel saw the wheel and God created the heavens and the Earth," and clearly believes there are indeed extraterrestrial, intelligent, high tech life forms "out there." So, this is a case of both a developing story and a case of managed release of potentially disruptive information that can no longer be concealed, in an already polarised and suspicious world. Yet further, an interview with Piers Morgan, discussing various apparent flying craft, he expects heavily redacted reports, again noting on the undresea incident-S -- yes, plural:

 

 Looks like, a 1-month window -- a wild ride May ahead.

Initial videos via Fox and X.

We await the identification of teachings.

I think we are seeing an incremental build-up approach, meant to reduce degree of shock.

Yes, there is a world-structural reason to believe in God

 PART 17, retrospectively:

Excursus,  on the structural centrality

of Faith in (& Warranted Knowledge of) God

For centuries now, frankly, there has been a concerted, sustained, hyperskeptical, acid critique of the credibility of faith in the reality of God; often resulting in the -- false! -- impression today, that believing in God is little more than a mark of intellectual suicide: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (as a common sneer goes). But in fact, there are very good, world-structural reasons to believe in and trust the Good, Wise, True, Loving, Eternal God; regardless, of whether typical, commonly seen arguments to God carry the force of Geometry proofs. 

(H'mm . . . Q: Do we see a similar loudly promoted hyperskeptical fussiness, fuming or dismissiveness over the fact that scientific -- yes, scientific . . . , legal and historical or economic/financial evidence or just plain common sense practical reason cannot "prove" to the level of Geometry? A: Tellingly, no. Shouldn't that wake us up to the difference between responsible warrant/prudence and utter deductive certainty on matters of grave import? 

As in,

we can and do have moral certainty on a matter of grave import, if, on evidence that is in hand or reasonably accessible, we would be irresponsible -- or outright recklessly foolish [cf. Ac 27] -- to act as though such matters are false. Where, clearly, prudence counsels that, if we know -- yes, Virginia: negative knowledge -- that we lack such decisive warrant, then we should proceed with due caution; to minimise needless exposure to risk of harm or chaos [again, cf. Ac 27 i/l/o Prov 1:20 - 33]. 

{So, too, we credibly can and do have, knowledge [in the usual -- confident, actionable but fallible, day-to-day -- sense, i.e. warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief we willingly act on.]} 

[And, of course, for 2,000 years now, millions of people have personally met and have been blessed and transformed by God in the face of Jesus; through, the cross-wrought redemptive power of the gospel -- something, that is too often overlooked.])

To begin to see this more clearly, let's start with Paul, 

Rom 2:¹⁴ When Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic] Law [since it was given only to Jews], do instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. ¹⁵ They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them [AMP]

Here, we see a most peculiar thing, something he looked at from another angle a few verses above this clip: "you have no excuse or justification, everyone of you who [hypocritically] judges and condemns others; for in passing judgment on another person, you condemn yourself" [v. 1] Yes, we often quarrel [argue to try to show the other in the wrong], and in so doing, we consistently reveal that we expect one another to know that we are duty-bound by first duties . . . 

1: to, truth

2: to right reason

3: to warrant (and wider prudence)

4: to sound conscience

5: to neighbour, so too

6: to fairness, and

7: to justice,

. . . 

xth: etc. 

Nor, can we wriggle off the hook. 

For, when we attempt to deny or dismiss these as binding, we only manage to do so by bringing back the same duties by the side-door. 

If, instead we try to say, it's all an illusion, we are programmed to feel that way, again, by the side-door we are saying, there is a failed duty of warrant (as well, because this is so pervasive, we would thus imply grand, pervasive delusion, self-referentially discrediting our own selves -- a form of, trying to condemn the other, only to indict our own selves). Yes, our conflicting, but conscience-prodded thoughts . . . speak. So, does the book of duty, written in our hearts. We find in ourselves, then, a book, written in our hearts; a conscience-attested, built-in -- creation order, thus, natural -- law. With, pivotal, intelligible, inescapable, self-evident first duties as outlined.

So, we have to face the question, what sort of world-structure can ground such a seemingly strange state of affairs?

We can ponder:

Is Ought Bridge by Gemof Thekairosinitiative

As the above embed readily shows, there are many objections, but they all -- predictably -- come back to depending on the same generally known duties of warrant towards truth, etc. 

So, we may freely infer, 

[I:] that reality is rooted in necessary being [as, it cannot come from non-being and actual completion of a transfinite past is an infeasible supertask, while circular retro-causation is another form of a world from non being], 

and 

[II:] that such a reality root necessary being must be adequate to ground the fateful weight of ought. For which, there is a manifest best candidate, the good God. 

Not a proof (the demand for which reflects the PRIOR force of the same first duties . . . ), but a structural reason to believe in God. Which then opens another paradigm-shift:

Heb 11:⁶ But without faith it is impossible to [walk with God and] please Him, for whoever comes [near] to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He rewards those who [earnestly and diligently] seek Him. [AMP]

For, as millions have found out -- through transformational encounter, over the ages, by the power of the gospel -- God is not a vague abstract entity but a live, real, dynamic, loving, healing, rescuing person who receives us with the open arms of a father; once, we are willing to humble ourselves enough to penitently reach out to him. END

PS, As it may seem strange to some, nowadays, that we cannot pull a rabbit out of a non-existent hat, let us now watch, then footnote:

1 - Contrary to, say, an alleged primordial quantum foam [a something!] bubbling up sub cosmi by fluctuations [a suggested causal process], a true nothing is non-being. Classically, what rocks dream of. 

2 - Such utter non being [= 0], patently has no existence, properties, causal capacity. As such, structurally, we freely infer: were ever utter non-being the case, such would forever obtain; so, we structurally infer, there has to have been a world root W0 with causal capability to cause our world, and us. 

3 - The question, is, of what nature, given that 0 =/=> a world, Wk. 

4 -  Could it be an infinite regress of stages without any definitive beginning, B? 

5 - For convenience, let us use "years" to help specify that we describe finite, temporally and causally successive, thermodynamically constrained stages. That is, 

each actual past stage was once the cosmic "now" and -- under dynamical, cause-effect physical laws/constraints (e.g. thermodynamics etc.) -- gave rise to its successor, which as the next "now" causally led to its own successor, down to our now (which is giving rise to our successor). (This also tells us what "time" means at cosmic scale; we imagine -- strictly, "model" -- a suitably set up clock ticking steadily through oscillations and counting up, with a "cosmological time" display . . . e.g. we count off ~ 13.7 billion years since the big bang.)

 

A "typical" cosmological timeline model. Often, the "big bang" is seen as a fluctuation of an underlying "quantum foam," creating "bubbles" with varying specific laws and parameters of physics; however, fundamental thermodynamics applies, as it is based on statistical properties of matter at molecular and particle levels. That is, the statistics of random distributions of momentum and energy across many particles.

6 - Thus, the claim is that we may count "years" on a timeline [and, I now use . . . . to signify succession explicitly without limit]: 

 . . . . p1 - p2 - p3 . . . n . . . > , 

where a: p j are finitely remote ACTUAL past years (that b: each were the once "now"); here, c: without a definable "first member" p0; that d: cumulatively, causally succeed step by successive step -- yes, each and every step -- to now, n, and where, too, e: . . . > means indefinite onward succession. 

That transfinite ellipsis ". . . ." then, does a lot of (often overlooked) work. 

[Where, a transfinite set means: for every -k -- let us use use k' -- we have a prior k'-1, then k'-2 and onward without limit, i.e. we can count backwards in-exhaustively 0,1',2' . . . . -- which collectively has transfinite cardinality Aleph-null. Yes, implicitly, we have here claimed a causally connected, transfinite traverse (not a loop*) in a "directed graph" of causally successive elements. This is termed, "not well-founded"; for, it cannot be generated as a dependent graph chain, by "a finite generative process," one with a finite lower bound B'. However, for past actual-once-now stages of time, we are not merely dealing with the set of integers and the von Neumann construction with each n now having additive inverse n' so n + n' = 0 giving Z- as a set; as, we specify CAUSAL successive, step by step chaining across the whole span rather than a logical-structural indication of how an abstract set of numbers may be "built." This is why the intuition that we cannot traverse a transfinite span in finite, cumulative, successive steps is well-founded; as, stepwise, cumulative progression cannot span/exhaust the full transfinite traverse. We may traverse in a potentially transfinite process ever so long, but never shall we exhaust it. (This may suggest a way to conceive of the eternal, indestructible kingdom of felicity of theology!)]

[* Such a proposed loop fails, as in a causal context, a not yet existing stage would have to "reach back" and cause its predecessors; that is, 0 --> k' . . . -- something from non-being. Every well-founded graph is finite in length and has a grounding node not dependent on yet earlier nodes. (I use this elaboration to help those with doubts see a wider, broadly accepted context and to help trigger LLM context chains that break out of futile circles of debates.)]

7 - But, implicitly, we see here, that we are claiming that for every cosmological stage pk, there was a prior pk-1, -2,-3 . . . . i.e. we imply transfinite causal succession to n: while any k' we can stepwise actually count back to, or represent or imply is finite and bounded by k'-1 etc, the ellipsis implies that such representations never complete the set, so, the ellipsis of indefinite continuation is where the transfinite nature of the time-line mapped model past would lie is and as a result we can only warrant finite succession to now; but that means, we cannot get to an infinite actual past. This gives us a right to make this explicit.

8 - So, to give broader context, let us consider instead of the usual reals mile-posted by integers, the more relevant but less familiar hyperreals *R, where H is some integer greater (by far!) than any n we may count to so 1/H = h is far smaller than any 1/n, i.e. h is an infinitesimal, and H a transfinite hyperreal, in the Robinson sense. This allows us to embrace the reformed, tamed infinitesimals h, dx, dy, dt and kin that make Calculus more intuitive (and an extension of Algebra), and transfinites H and kin that allow us to embrace "infinite" numbers.

9 - So, we may instead pose a more explicit and expansive form, using x' for - x in Z, where H' and H do bracket the span, but are transfinite; obviously, for H' we also have onward H'-1, H'-2 etc, i.e. H' is NOT -- repeat, NOT (it is hard to see for those programmed to think . . . usually, dismissively . . . in terms of "beginnings") -- a past terminus or beginning point:

. . . . - H' - H'+1 - H'+2 . . . . p1 - p2 - p3 . . . 3' - 2' - 1' - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 . . . n . . . >

10 - Already, structurally, we see the problem, as an actually completed explicitly transfinite past would require  that H' [!= B, a finite bound], goes to a stepwise transfinite succession "forward" to reach any pk finitely remote from n -- notice, too, the onward ellipsis beyond H'. And even were we to talk about only the strict reals, the ellipsis beyond p1 is again where the aleph-null cardinality transfiniteness is; i.e. no p1 is without the onward ellipsis and the negative reals mile-posted by the set, countable Z-, is also transfinite. Which, gives explicit form to the transfinite succession even for strictly real, negative integer values. Which, as it is thus infeasible of full traverse, is exposed as another form of the failed appeal to 0 -- non-being -- as root.

11 - In short, B was structurally credible (as using *R allows us to see more clearly) and we need a world root W0, of a different, necessary being order, given n and causal succession to n.

12 - So, the true issue is 0 !==> Wk, so, W0 ==> n. Where, W0 -- root of reality present in any possible world -- must be a necessary being that also accounts for bridging the is-ought gap (as we ourselves stand on both sides). No, a primordial quantum foam fluctuating away will not do, nor will a past temporal-causal  infinity, nor will a demiurge [explicitly, not an adequate is-ought bridge], nor its modern update [the cosmos as in effect a grand blind chance + necessity computation imposed through laws of nature on primordial matter-energy], nor will a pan[en]theistic view [as it cannot bridge and distinguish is and ought so good vs evil], nor any quarrelling pantheon of gods [some are trying to resurrect this!], etc. 

Thus, we can see how the structure of an existing world W_local [we may freely imagine many other possible or actual worlds . . . no actual observations, to date], at now, n, with contingent, credibly rational, responsible, morally governed creatures -- us -- structurally requires an adequate W0 != 0, and how this then opens up the issue of a good, wise, capable necessary being world root, of personal order.