|
THE
ROCK OF AGES PRINCIPLE
MUFON
UFO Journal
May
1990, p. 10-12
Dr.
Barry H. Downing
As a member of the
Board of the Fund for UFO Research, I was recently given access to a
letter from a man in Sheffield, England, addressed to Budd Hopkins.
The letter was classified by Hopkins as a “possible abduction”
which had not yet been investigated.
The man said he and a
friend were driving along a dark road one evening when they saw a
“brightly-lit object” beside the road ahead. At this point he
“was absolutely frozen with terror, for no reason.” His friend
had a similar reaction, but as they drew near they realized the
object was only a tractor.
Long
after the original experience, the man drove over the same stretch of
road where he “was overcome with a sort of panic, and my eyes
started to fill with tears.” Having read Intruders,
the man was now wondering “if you know of any cases where UFO’s
have effectively ‘disguised’ themselves to the onlooker as
everyday objects (in this case a tractor)?”
DISGUISED
UFOS
The issue of disguise
is one of the most fundamental aspects of the UFO mystery, and should
become one of the next major areas of UFO research.
Up
until now, the disguise issue has been only on the fringe of
research. But it has long been a major theme in John Keel’s work
particularly in Trojan Horse
and The Mothman Prophecies, with
their speculations that UFO beings can mimic our culture, either with
the Men in Black concept, or perhaps via unmarked helicopters that we
hope are flown by the CIA.
The
issue of disguise and deception also surfaces in Raymond Fowler’s
The Andreasson Affair: Phase II,
Especially
in regard to the strange phone calls Betty received, the helicopters
pursuing her, and her vision of the door she was not allowed to tell
about. Whitley Strieber was similarly concerned about disguise and
the demonic in Transformation.
Most abductions, in
fact, appear disguised by some type of memory suppression, which is
how Budd Hopkins discovered the “missing time” principle.
Jacques Vallee coined the term “metalogic” to describe his
interpretation of the disguise-deception issue. I suspect that one
reason why the disguise issue has not been dealt with more thoroughly
is that the ET hypothesis continues to remain the most popular theory
among must serious UFO researchers.
The ETH permits us to
believe—perhaps hope—that UFO beings are mainly like ourselves,
except that they have been traveling in space a little longer. But
there is now a vast bank of data that suggests that UFOs can do
things that simply outstrip our imagination, that UFOs come from a
world in which things are not as they appear.
The
issue of disguise—the metalogical—even shows up in just those
places where we look hardest for nuts and bolts: in the
Crash/Retrieval field. In the February 1989 issue of the Journal,
for example, Leonard Stringfield reported the story of a crashed UFO
about 30 feet in external diameter, and the size of a football field
inside.
PERSONAL
BELIEF
I
realize that belief is a personal matter, but speaking for myself, I
find the evidence that our government has had access to several crash
retrievals very convincing; likewise, the evidence for multiple UFO
abductions seems equally convincing. The problem is how to interpret
the meaning of these aspects of the UFO phenomenon, particularly if
UFOs can take on almost any disguise.
My impression is that
UFO researchers are sharply divided over the disguise issue, in part
because it has not been systematically addressed. We all know it is
potentially part of the UFO problem, but we are not agreed as to how
it should be assessed in our weighing of the data and in the
formulation of hypotheses.
Part
of the recent debate among Hopkins, [David] Jacobs and Vallee
(February 1989 Journal),
is that Hopkins and Vallee do not agree on the importance of the
disguise issue, either in the process of gathering data, or as to
evaluating it.
Perhaps
to over simplify, Vallee is strongly committed to the
disguise-deceptive nature of the UFO phenomenon, and therefore he is
extremely skeptical that we can formulate any useful conclusions
about what UFOs are, other than that they apparently control us, like
“a rat pressing levers” (Dimensions,
p. 280), and that they employ disguise and deception as part of the
control system.
Because
of his belief in the disguise issue, Vallee believes Hopkins and
Jacobs are being too naïve in the process of gathering data via
hypnosis. Vallee believes the UFO phenomenon can feed us anything it
so desires through the abduction process; furthermore, those using
hypnosis can too easily contaminate the data with their own
preconceptions.
Hopkins’
answer to this charge is that the only time Vallee was truly
scientific dates to his earliest work, Anatomy
of a Phenomenon. Since then it has been all
down hill, with Vallee getting more and more lost in subjectivism,
from Passport to Magonia
to Messengers of Deception
to Dimensions.
I would not want to
defend all of Vallee’s work. He and I have corresponded privately,
and we do not agree on how to address all the issues. But we do
agree that the disguise-deception issue is fundamental to the
evaluation process.
Budd
Hopkins and I have also talked privately about the moral behavior of
UFO beings. Hopkins has written an article, “What They’re Doing
to Us” (International UFO Reporter,
September/October 1987), in which he expresses anger over what he
calls “extraterrestrial indifference” to the deep psychic trauma
caused by UFO abductions. I certainly cannot deny his right to his
anger. He says they have a “flaw in their apparent power,” in
that they carry out their abduction experiments with such disregard
for human suffering.
The reason why such a
discussion should occur between Hopkins and myself is because I have
long argued for the “God Hypothesis,” and from Hopkins’ point
of view it seems un-God-like to abduct people and terrorize them.
For Hopkins, a truly moral God would not relate to planet Earth like
the UFO reality apparently does.
ROCK
OF AGES
The issue of
disguise, deception and UFO morality leads me to suggest that current
UFO research consider what in theology I call “The Rock of Ages
Principle.” The root of this principle derives from Exodus,
Chapter 33.
The
background is that Moses has met God at the burning bush, has gone
with God through Passover and the Red Sea, has met God at Sinai to
receive the Ten Commandments, and despite all this, Moses does not
yet feel he has really seen God. Moses says to God, “show me thy
glory.” And God responds, “you cannot see my face; for man shall
not see me and live.”
Nevertheless,
God develops a compromise plan. “ I will put you in a cleft of the
rock,” he says, “and I will cover you with my hand until I have
passed by.” From this story comes the old hymn, “Rock of Ages,
Cleft for Me.”
God is too powerful
for any human to see full face on. What does this mean? Is God an
energy system like the sun—if we get too close, we will be baked?
Or is God a psychological power which is so great and complex that in
His presence we lose our identity, like a child brought up in the
presence of an over-bearing parent? The text does not say.
From
this concept comes the explanation of the hidden nature of God. God
stays hidden out of love for us. If he came into the open, we would
expire. Yet, if he stays completely hidden, we find ourselves
godless. The compromise is disguised revelation. Moses sees a
burning bush (not a tractor)—harmless enough. Closer inspection
reveals the presence of God.
“Chosen
people” (like Andreasson and Strieber?) are targeted for revelation
as a means of protecting the larger society. The people at Mt. Sinai
say to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will hear, but let not God
speak to us, lest we die.” (Ex. 20:19)
Jesus speaks in
parables to disguise his revelation (Matthew 13:13), and there are
elements of disguise in the resurrection appearance of Jesus to Mary
Magdalene (John 20:11-18), as well as to the two disciples on the
road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).
The revelation of the
apparent voice of God to Betty Andreasson came from behind a large
eagle-like bird. She was protected from the full power of the
divine. Yet even with that protection, she went through tremendous
anxiety and pain.
GOOD
OR EVIL?
One
reason why all of the above matters is that we may be approaching a
time when we have to decide whether UFOs are good or evil. And how
we evaluate the disguise-morality issue has an important relation to
our conclusion.
I
say we may be approaching a time when we have to decide, because
there are rumors from John Lear and others that our government is
deeply involved with UFOs, perhaps in direct contact. According to
these rumors, at the beginning UFOs gave us technological assistance,
but lately they are carrying out “experiments” with humans that
are getting out of hand. Suppose the government goes “public”
and cries “Help!” President Reagan theorized about UFO bad guys
that could conceivable unite the world. How would we react if the
government actually announced the reality of such a scenario?
Budd Hopkins would
agree that UFOs are immoral: John Keel though miles from Hopkins in
methodology, would also agree with the bad-guy analysis; Christian
fundamentalists already claim that UFOs are in league with the devil.
If the government care forth and identified “the enemy,” much of
the UFO and religious communities would undoubtedly flock to their
viewpoint.
Suppose, however,
that we adopt the view that UFOs are a reality so superior to humans,
so powerful and complex, that it would destroy the human race if it
came in direct contact with civilization as a whole. (Remember what
whites did to Native Americans?)
Yet
what might UFOs do if they wanted to help us? They might do
something to cause the governments of the world to change their
nuclear weapons policy. Lawrence Fawcett and Barry Greenwood, in
Clear Intent, as well
as Bob Jacobs in the January 1989 issue of the Journal,
suggest that UFOs have already intervened in our global military
situation, which implies that their occupants may not be as morally
uncaring as Hopkins has suggested.
How could this
interaction with our government have been carried out without
destroying the government’s ego structure? One way might be for
UFOs to disguise themselves. “We’re friendly people, just like
you,” they could claim, “except that we happen to be from another
planet.”
As I read Leonard
Stringfield’s two part series on “UFO Crash/Retrievals,” I did
not necessarily doubt his data. Instead, I found myself thinking
that his report sounded more like a wreck on the Los Angeles Freeway
than the story of advanced space vehicles from another world. Why
are Boeing 747’s safer to fly than UFOs? I found myself suspecting
that all UFO crashes may be staged, as part of the overall disguise.
Whitley
Strieber reports in Transformation
that the Visitors showed him a drawer full of apparently dead bodies,
from which he concluded that they only used bodies “as we use scuba
gear to penetrate the depth of the sea” (p. 40). The observation
suggests that crashed UFOs, along with the dead bodies left behind,
may not be proof that they are mortal, after all.
Up until now, UFO
research has occasionally reacted by denying strange evidence: right
angle turns are impossible; abductions are impossible; government
involvement, and UFO crashes are impossible, and so on. We now know
it is all possible. But we also have to take the next step.
We have to be willing
to suppose that every piece of UFO evidence could be some form of a
disguise—not as a tractor, perhaps—but nevertheless we must
suspect all UFO revelations fall short of a full disclosure of what
the reality behind the event we observe really is.
SYMPTOM
OF FEAR
A truly benevolent
reality which is vastly superior to humans might realize that we need
a rock to hide in because if we look the UFO reality straight in the
face, we may die. We need to consider the Rock of Ages Principle.
We also need to suppose that the terror many feel in the presence of
the UFO reality may be an inevitable part of the UFO revelation
experience.
Returning to the
letter to Hopkins from England, the man’s terror is a common part
of the UFO abduction experience, including the religious type of
abductions of Andreasson and Strieber. The man’s continued terror
of the space where the sighting occurred is also common.
Biblical
encounters with God were filled with terror, had spatial
consequences, and often involved trance or sleep as a coating of
insulation. Abram met God in a deep sleep, and “a dread and great
darkness fell upon him.” (Genesis 15:12) Jacob had a dream of the
angels of God ascending and descending on a ladder to heaven, and
when he woke up he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this
place.” (Genesis:28:17) He then built an altar there; the place
became a sacred space, a place of dread.
Mt.
Sinai became a holy mountain because that is where Israel had its
basic UFO experience (Exodus 19-30). In our modern UFO abduction
cases, the place where the abduction occurs, that lonely stretch of
road, suddenly becomes a place of fear and awe—it becomes holy
ground.
I think Vallee is
essentially right when he says that the UFO phenomenon is “more
complex, more interesting and more profound than any of us has ever
dreamt.” If he is right, we need to suppose that this reality is
intelligent enough to know that it can only show itself to us in
disguised ways without destroying us.
And
if UFOs are using a disguise to protect us—the Rock of Ages
Principle—then we must be very careful about passing judgments on
this reality that label it as either immoral or demonic. It appears
to me that the UFO reality is behaving in such a way as to
communicate its presence to us, and much of its complexity to us,
without destroying us at the same time. Furthermore, we must suppose
that what is “good” from the point of view of UFOs might not be
good from the point of view of the American government. Pharaoh
probably did not have a high opinion of the “pillar of cloud and of
fire” when it drowned his army in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:19-30).
But it looked good from the Jewish point of view.
Even if most students
of UFOs do not accept my God Hypothesis, I believe we need to think
very seriously about any data that indicate that UFOs often use a
disguise in relating to humans. A vastly superior reality might well
do this, not out of evil intent, but because to confront us face to
face might lead to our death.
We need to suspect
that if some kind of UFO disguise is at work, then even if our
government has crashed UFOs, and is working with live alien beings,
it may still not have the full picture. If we remember that our
government is taking a tight security approach to UFOs, that means
UFOs are evaluated only on a “need to know” basis. Very few
minds have access to the whole picture. Most of those minds would be
scientific-military, not necessarily the best minds to deal with a
reality which may be right in front of their eyes, but not be what
they see.
I remember a Roman
military-political leader sending an alien Jew to the cross almost
2000 years ago because he did not understand what he was looking at.
We are poised for a war of the worlds, and if there is a war, I am
worried that the governments of this world could again be the bad
guys.
We wish to thank MUFON and MUFON JOURNAL for giving permission to reprint this article.
|
