Wednesday, May 22, 2013

AA Trail Of Coincidence

On April 28th, the UFO UpDates List, moderated by Errol Bruce-Knapp, suspended Edward Gehrman. Mr.Gehrman broke a ban on discussion of the 'Alien Autopsy' (AA) film. That's the film that millions of people around the world have seen clips from, and, in numerous publications, still images from.

When it first emerged, anyone who had already read many reports of contact with living or deceased aliens, and somewhat studied science fiction art, as I had, would have noted that the 'creature' in the film was, in some ways, similar to other written about and/or sketched aliens. [There were also, possibly, features of the AA creature that didn't match any previous alien representations in fact or fiction...]

A similar, if not necessarily identical, alien type can be found accompanying an H.G.Wells story, depicting inhabitants of the moon ('Selenites'). There is a June 1957 front cover of Fantastic Universe science-fiction magazine, by the leading SF artist Virgil Finlay, that portrays what looks like a child in the AA creature family, alongside an apparently crashed flying saucer. There are the two head/shoulders sketches of an alien-type that was said to have kidnapped Staff. Sgt. Charles L.Moody, in August 1975 (Ref: National Enquirer, May 11 1976 p.4)    

Much more recently, in 2010, a sketch was published that was done decades earlier by David Bowie, as a guide for the back cover of his second album, released November 1969 (Ref: Kevin Cann Any Day Now p.169 (Adelita, 2010)). The artwork  by Bowie includes an alien depiction (by Bowie), of which the head and shoulders are remarkably like the Charles Moody sketch (and equally worth comparing, in that part, to the AA creature).

The Alien Autopsy film first featured on National TV, in Britain, during a weekend when 'The Man Who Fell To Earth' was also shown. This is a film that came out in 1976, starring David Bowie, as an Extraterrestrial. Among 14 locations where filming for it took place was Roswell, New Mexico. According to one published source, screenwriter, Paul Mayersberg, has said that there were UFO sightings while the movie was being made; but, I have no further details on location/witnesses etc.

Press coverage on the AA film, in Britain, made a link to Bowie in the headlines used (e.g. 'Space Oddity'), and one LBC radio presenter made comment, at the time of the U.K. broadcasts, to a possible link, in content, between Bowie, as E.T. in 'The Man Who Fell To Earth' and the alien in the autopsy film.

The AA film's existence had earlier been made known, on BBC TV, in the U.K., by Reg Presley (born Reginald Maurice Ball in 1941, Reg died this year). The alleged source of the film (cameraman) was said to have also filmed Elvis Presley. It therefore might be seen as a notable coincidence that a man who had taken on Elvis's surname, years earlier, should have also been the one to reveal this particular film's existence. It also might be worth noting - if you take seriously the possibility of significant coincidences - that, as lead singer of The Troggs, Reg Presley was in one of the two support groups to David Bowie for a U.S. TV Special he put together, in 1973.

The 1976 film 'The Man Who Fell To Earth', directed by Nicolas Roeg, starred David Bowie, as Thomas Jerome Newton, and Candy Clark, as Mary-Lou. In 1977, Bowie's 'Low' album was released, with a view of him, as Thomas Jerome Newton, on the front cover.

For years, I've thought the title 'Low' to be significant, as an allusion to Robert Low, one of the key participants in the late-1960s University of Colorado government UFO study, which was under the direction of Dr. E.U.Condon.

Last month, I bought and read the book 'UFOs: An Insider's View of The Official Quest for Evidence'. In it, Roy Craig reveals something I must never have read or heard before, or else, not noted the significance of - the name of Robert Low's assistant. Here are three relevant paragraphs from the book:

..With three or four subcontracts of this type, including one for a chapter on the history of UFOs and related sightings, Mr.Low was assuring the project a voluminous final report, and he obviously considered it his personal duty to put it all together.

Low's preoccupation with "building the record" for the project's final report did not meet the approval of his administrative assistant, Mary Lou Armstrong. That preoccupation, along with Low's basic attitude toward the project, were strongly criticized by Mary Lou in a letter she wrote to Dr.Condon two weeks after Drs.Levine and Saunders were fired...

...Sympathetic or not, Mary Lou had been part of the mutiny; her continued employment with the project was not feasible. Dr.Condon accepted her resignation. Another key staff member was lost from the project. Mary Lou no longer would be available to take incoming calls regarding current UFO sightings - or to help prepare the project's final report... 

Monday, May 13, 2013

Was Margaret Thatcher A Good Christian?

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. St. Matthew 5:5

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. Peter 5:2

But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. James 4:16

Confess your faults to one another, that ye may be healed. James 5:16

And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?

But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.

And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, if any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. St. Mark 9:33-35

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God. St. Mark 10:23-24

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. St. Luke 16:13-15

Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.

For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. Proverbs 4:14-17


Friday, May 10, 2013

Technology Will Not Set Us Free

"..Blow up the TV
Blow up the car
Without these things
You don't know where you are..."
Toyah 'I Want To Be Free' (1981)

What's So Great About A Telephone?

A largely unseen and unknown group of people, commonly referred to by the others - the pack consumers (packcons) - as "THEY", will continue to devise new technology, promoted in a condescendingly indoctrinating fashion, by massive amounts of multi-media advertising. All human beings on the planet are "targeted" by the elite materialist fanatics of Big Business, and the few of us who can see the System for pretty much what it is, are surrounded and outnumbered by the others - the packcons. We, who don't see cars, mobile phones and other ubiquitous, often health-damaging technology as being brilliant, or even very interesting, are surely judged by them to be, at best, weird and/or stupid.

It used to be quite simple, straightforward and healthy. You had a telephone in your home, with numbers on it to dial. There were telephone boxes around town that you could use when there was some rare, important reason. The way to speak to people you really wanted to speak with was 'face to face'. There was no doubt about that; but, every now and then, you might phone up, or be telephoned by someone, either to make arrangements of some sort, or, because the other person lived too far away for you to be able to often see them. A telephone was only a secondary form of communication - nothing very special; nothing to get excited about; not a thing to periodically 'update'; not worth spending much money on. Just... quite a good thing to have around for the occasions when you had a use for it.

A man in a park, with a pack of dogs surrounding him. He is smartly dressed and holds a bag, which he opens up. Reaching in, he pulls out bone after bone and throws them out to quite a distance away.. And, as he does this, the multitude of dogs rush off towards the flying and landing bones. These bones have little or no meat on them; but, nevertheless, the dogs, on reaching them, grip them firmly, possessively in their mouths, and dart around, repeatedly glancing back at the smartly dressed man. The looks convey the impression of obedience and appreciation: as if the bones are what these dogs really, really want - nothing in Heaven and Earth more desirable to them than bones to chew on.

There was a time when I used to get the sense, from predictions I saw in the media, of what life in the future would be like - that technology would make life simpler and easier for people. But, much of recent technology is dedicated to making life more complicated. I still have a telephone which allows you to speak to and hear a caller immediately you pick up the receiver. But, there are other phones that people now have in their homes, which require you to, not only pick them up, but, also, press a button, before you can get through to the line the caller is on. This is not progress - it is making life more difficult. As well as making human everyday existence more complex, and fixating unwarranted significance onto a mediocre, secondary form of communication, these types of phone are constantly 'on', endlessly streaming out toxic radiation into the environment they operate in.   

The Rampant Polluters Drive On, Complaining About Others

Among the bizarrest examples of illogical thinking I've ever encountered are those provided by car drivers who complain about cigarette smokers. At times in the past, I've heard those who drive on roads, in town, condemning people smoking cigarettes outside buildings, on the pavement. To any rational person, it is obvious that it is the drivers on the road who, as well as taking up considerably more valuable space, and (unlike the smokers) making a terrible noise, are, also, pumping out far, far more poisonous chemicals at innocent human beings in their vicinity ('pedestrians'/'cyclists') than the smokers do.

When there is such a vast amount of harm being done, to human beings and other forms of life, by the very large number of car drivers, as well as by the smaller numbers of other road vehicle users, it is absurd for anyone to point their finger at the cigarette smokers' comparatively trivial activity, on the pavement. It is rather like a situation whereby regular talks are given in a large hall, with an audience in attendance. While the talks take place and the crowd listens, a few mice are scurrying around the outside perimeter of the hall and herds of loudly stampeding elephants run, almost continuously, through the centre of the hall, towards the far exits. The elephants are driven and whipped to run, into and across the hall, by people on the outside. Some of these people, who are themselves responsible for the stampeding elephants, complain about the few quiet mice on the edges, saying how "filthy" and "unsightly" they are.

Recently, there have also been discussions about people who smoke in vehicles that carry children. This is said to be bad, and, supposedly, should be made illegal, because of the harm that the cigarette smoker does to the child, or children, on board. Again, here we have a bizarre discussion, whereby we are expected to believe that these complainers about cigarette smoking within road vehicles really, really care about the health of children. As we listen to their argument, we note, perplexedly, that they mention nothing of the poor children who walk along pavements and cross roads, outside of the lit-cigarette-bearing road vehicle... the children who are remorselessly subjected to the deadly toxic chemicals that this very same vehicle is emitting. Classically, one complainer, during a radio discussion, alluding to the effects of so-called passive smoke within a car, commented: "You wouldn't want to see a cigarette in the mouth of a child, would you?" I don't know about you, but I'd personally far rather see a cigarette in a child's mouth than a car exhaust pipe.        

A Relentless Mania To Persuade

I have here an unopened, larger than A4-size envelope, received circa-December 2012. At upper-left of the front of it is a rectangular transparent window, within which my home address is printed. Below that, is a row of letters and digits, in two clusters. Above, and to the right of this row, are three further rows of digits, in five separate parts. At top-right of the front of this envelope is stated: UKMAIL express parcels & mail, and, in the top-right corner box: Delivered by Royal Mail C9 10001. On the opposite corner, at back of the envelope, directed downwards, it says: recycle. At centre-right (also text downwards): Return address: PO Box 691, Halifax HX1 TWB. Finally, along the lower-left, horizontal text reads: This package contains promotional material from Virgin Media.

Prior to receiving this large envelope, I had already received, perhaps, approximately 15-20 separate mailings from this same company regarding their broadband service. Those earlier mailings came in a variety of formats, and included one or more examples of special limited offers repeatedly emphasized, among the propagandising spiel, that was seeking to persuade me to accept and pay for their service, rather than the one I was already committed to. If, when I first started getting this unwanted commercial propaganda, I'd been aware of how much more of it that I would continue to be the recipient of, from the same company - all trying to lure me towards the same narrow consumerist goal - I would now have a big pile of the stuff, which could be referred to, at any time, as a reminder, a resonant testament to the fanatical, predatory mania of Big Business.

But, don't worry, folks, all is not lost: since getting the first large envelope, which I decided to retain, four further large envelopes have been delivered to me...

The first of them, received January 2013, has the same address and similar letter/digit arrangements on the rectangular viewing area (some lines of letters/digits are the same as on the first envelope, some differ). On this Propaganda Envelope 2, there is also a downward-directed bar code beneath UKMail express parcels & mail. On the viewing area of Propaganda Envelope 3, received February 2013, the clusters of letters and digits are differently arranged. One line of five digits and one line of letters and digits are identical to those found on the earlier two envelopes. The barcode is still vertical in relation to the other content; but, now, is in the lower-left area. Propaganda Envelope 3, delivered March 11th, has a barcode in the top-right again; but, printed on a rectangular sticker, or pasted-on paper, rather than being printed on the actual envelope. The format of text within the viewing area is similar to Prop.Env.3 - other external detail not different. The most recently received Prop.Env (April 10th) doesn't differ any more significantly from the three earlier unwanted arrivals than they differ from each other. It is the same general idea from outward appearances.

This company is so prolific with their advertising propaganda. They behave as if there is an endless supply of money available to them to churn it out at us. It will be interesting to discover to what (if any) extent they continue to send these large envelopes and/or other material to me, in the months and years to come.

Drifting Towards Total Surveillance

When I was in my teens, and read George Orwell's '1984', I never, for a moment, imagined that I would ever live in a town overrun with the sort of camera surveillance that Mr.Orwell describes in his book. Obviously, I was naive about the machinations of people in power, who are so fixated on accumulating money, and exerting control over the lives of others. The requirement to go to school five days a week, and to do homework, was more than bad enough for me to have to deal with. How could I have then known that, one day, in the not very distant future, CCTV cameras would be filming us, in London, almost continuously, wherever we go.

I think we can take it as virtually beyond doubt that the logical extension of the current heinous situation, will be cameras set up within our own homes, filming us at all times - inside, as well as outside.

The only way that this seemingly inevitable drift into complete surveillance-control of the human population, by the fanatical extremists in power, could be averted, is through a major revolution of understanding and action by "the masses". Currently, however, most human beings show little sign of being anything other than complacently accepting of the surveillance status quo, which treats them with no more respect than a greedy, materialistic land-owner would be likely to treat a herd of cattle, held captive in his possession.