Back to the Beginning


I had been giving a synopsis of the BPWH at OMF, ending here, when a member there, 'Nibiru', posed a simple question: what is the origin of mathematics?  The problem of origins is one that has been treated extensively on this site, yet I feel that I am lacking a simple answer to a simple question.  Complete answers are never simple, but the demands of pedagogy motivate one to provide a simple synoptic answer, which in this particular case was missing. 

There is a deeper motivation, as well.  It is the just the BPW thesis that our minds potentially offer a pure reflection of the Creator.  The mind of the Creator is simple, especially in its origin in love.  Love is at once a simple and complex notion.  To understand it, or anything else, one must start with the simple and work toward the complex, which is the world as we know it.  The eschaton/rapture is then just the reverse: we work from the complex, back to the simple. 

Language reflects our own minds.  Contained in that reflection is our singular and simple origin that we are working our way towards.  Simplicity is not only a matter of pedagogy, it is also a matter of eschatology. 

Let me hasten to point out that simplicity here has nothing to do with the simpleton.  What I have in mind is the simple elegance of a beautiful mathematical or physical theorem, or the simple theme underlying a great orchestral work. 

Recall the basic archetypes, AZO/X/QRP.  Did I pull these out of a hat?  They are the net result of a still evolving deliberative process, recorded on the previous pages, and which is about to continue right here.   


From the material perspective, the world is composed of atoms interacting in space and time.  From an immaterial perspective, the world is composed of interdependent phenomenological cycles.  The basic cycle is the reproductive cycle.  So which came first, the chicken or the egg?  The ouroboros came first, the tail-eating serpent. 

How so? 

The meaning of the ouroboros is similar to that of the Taoist yin/yang symbol or I-Ching, where its dialectic significance is more obvious. 

With monotheism, the nearest equivalent symbol is the zim-zum of the Sephiroth, therein the circular symmetry is made linear.  The dialectic is broken with the progression becoming unidirectional.  This loss of reciprocity was the necessary but fatal flaw within the strict monotheistic tradition.  The BPWH is based essentially on restoring the necessary reciprocity to theism, while maintaining the singularity of the Creation.  Trinitarianism was a partial step in this direction.

I just refreshed my memory of the Tzimtzum from Wiki: 

Tzimtzum refers to the notion in the Kabbalistic theory of creation that God "contracted" his infinite light in order to allow for a "conceptual space" in which a finite, seemingly independent world could exist. [....] 

The function of the Tzimtzum was "to conceal from created beings the activating force within them, enabling them to exist as tangible entities, instead of being utterly nullified within their source". The tzimtzum produced the required "vacated space" devoid of direct awareness of God's presence.

[....]  This etymology is complementary with the concept of Tzimtzum, in that the physical universe conceals the spiritual nature of creation.

The second two points are shared by the BPWH.  I refer to this concealment as the veil of nature.  I take some exception to the first point.

Continuing with Wiki:

On the one hand, if the "Infinite" did not restrict itself, then nothing could exist - everything would be overwhelmed by God's totality. Thus existence requires God's transcendence, as above.

On the other hand, God continuously maintains the existence of, and is thus not absent from, the created universe. "The Divine life-force which brings all creatures into existence must constantly be present within them... were this life-force to forsake any created being for even one brief moment, it would revert to a state of utter nothingness, as before the creation..."

This is not such a problem with the BPWH, which maintains a strongly pantheist or panentheist view. 

An additional paradox of Creation:

This paradox is strengthened by reference to the closely related doctrine of Divine simplicity, which holds that God is absolutely simple, containing no element of form or structure whatever. This gives rise to two difficulties. Firstly, according to this doctrine, it is impossible for God to shrink or expand (physically or metaphorically) - an obvious contradiction to the above. Secondly, according to this doctrine, if God's creative will is present, then He must be present in total - whereas the Tzimtzum, on the other hand, results in, and requires, a "partial Presence" as above.

The Dialectic of the BPWH, and the Trinitarian view are two ways of dealing with this paradox. 



There are the cyclic vs. the linear conceptions of the cosmos and creation.  The OM, the breath of Brahma, the yin/yang, the I Ching, the zodiac on the one hand.  The Tzimtzum/Sephiroth and the Chakras on the other hand. 

The latter two relate to the linearity of the Anthropos or Adam/Kadmon, as opposed to the serpentine.  Thus the distinction between theism and pantheism.  The BPWH finds the logical combination of these concepts by juxtaposing the Alpha and Omega, thus arriving at a dialogic and trinitarian coherence. 

East is east and West is west...........and ne're the twain shall meat, not until now.  Why this historical divide? 

This global divide was the lynchpin of the concealment strategy.  The bridge between had to be reserved for the final act. 

The distinction between a singular circuit and an endless cycle was too subtle to prevent a theism, thus defined, from degenerating into pantheism. 

A cyclical history renders the God of History otiose.  Fate then rules the cyclic roost.  Eastern fatalism becomes the norm.  Anything to get off the Wheel. 

Abraham became the Father of History, as we know it today.  What a slim thread by which the world hangs!

How and why did this history-making (sic) notion take hold in just one nomad's tent? 

This from Paul Tillich's 'The God of History' (1944): 

The way in which Jahweh revealed himself to Israel as the God who is the first and the last, the beginning and the end of history, was very painful. Only the complete national breakdown made the remnants of Israel ready to receive this revelation in its universal meaning. And whenever the Jewish nation made the revelation a reason for national pride and transformed Jahweh into the god of their nation, the national breakdown followed. Jahweh as a national god is condemned by Jahweh as the God of history. This is the mystery of Judaism to this very day.

Why not plural planetary histories?  Why not Planetary Gods?  Perhaps, if they were forever separated.  But then we are obviating even the possibility of a cosmic mind, in favor of planetary minds. 

Now we may understand why the visitors, even though they come from dimension X, must first appear to us as if they were from planet X.  Creation is not a local affair.  If the Anthropic Principle tells us anything, it tells us that Design is, and must be, universal. 

The one God is nothing, if not the God of the heavens.  If there are ten histories, there are an infinity.  Surely then, our little history is of little or no account.  We are nothing more than an experiment, another throw of the dice.  Certainly we are not the BPW. 

If separate planetary histories make sense, then why not have separate national or continental histories?  Each continent or each hemisphere could have had its own rapture?  Who needs the Vikings or Christopher Columbus?  But the we would not have had the Internet and NASA.  We would not have had Science and Cosmology. 

And what about Heaven?  Would Heaven have hemispheric or planetary partitions? 

God is all or nothing.  Polytheism quickly degenerates into pantheism.  The accepted understanding is that Contact will render Religion meaningless.  But it would be more accurate to say that Contact, as commonly understood, would render us meaningless, i.e. infinitely redundant. 



It was in 1989 that Francis Fukuyama penned his essay, 'The End of History'. And the winner was deemed to be secular free-market democracy.

Perhaps we need an update on that thesis.  We add to that the end of science, the end of oil, and the resurgence of religious fervor.

Each one of these facts is disturbing, but taken together they are......disquieting?  

The question marks for science are the future of energy and computing.  The last breakthroughs in science that made contact with reality or technology came with Einstein's relativity and quantum papers in 1905.  These lead to the technological breakthroughs in both energy and computing.  Only the computing breakthrough is still in progress. 

Physicists see no sign, no, they see no opening for any such breakthrough nowadays.  There are no observable natural phenomena which remain unexplained, outside of life and mind, neither of which seem even slightly amenable to basic physics.

The one possible exception to the above is the domain of quantum computing.  That there could be such a breakthrough hinges upon the metaphysical issue or emergence, which happens to be the cornerstone of the BPWH.  Thusly is there but one escape hatch for the future of science and technology: right into the arms of the BPWH. 

In all of the above, there is but one wild card: phenomenology, i.e. anomalous or uncorrelated phenomena.  Nearly all such phenomena are highly correlated with the mind.  The possible exceptions are those few that end up being recorded electronically or photographically.  Despite all the sightings, there are no other noteworthy artifacts. 

And, with all of the alleged contactees, there is no consensus concerning any useful or coherent message.  There is not even an noteworthy instance of such that has attracted anything more that cult-like followings. 

These phenomenological facts do not bode well for a physical explanation for these phenomena.  There are other problems with an extraterrestrial (ET) explanation, as already treated extensively here, leaving us with only mind and ultraterrestrial (UT) based explanations. 


This then brings us back to the problem of origins and ends. 

The secular idea of history cannot be taken as distinct from the idea of progress, which dates back only to the Renaissance or Enlightenment.  Before that, we only had the promise of God being revealed at the end of history: history being mainly a long lesson in how not to please God.

There is a general consensus that history as we have known it for the past several centuries is bound to end, and sooner rather than later. 

The question before us is whether it will end with a bang or a whimper.  There are materialist versions of both, but this is the principle divide between the theists and pantheists. 

Pantheists accept the scientific cosmology, and see both ETs and UTs in our future.  Pantheism, along with postmodernism and paganism, are pluralist to a fault, at the sacrifice of any semblance of coherence. 

We come back to the question of a cosmic history.  One that would necessarily leave us in its backwater.  Our centuries of progress would have been a flash in the pan, and largely for naught.  The net result of our acquiring technology would have been to force the Federation to deal with us openly, and so we become its welfare clients.  There are any number of examples of primitive cultures that have literally collapsed under the influence of modernism.  Next on the block is Islam, unless the oil and credit crunches or the eschaton get us first. 

What would hold a Federation of ETs together, keeping it proactive?  There would have to be some sense of a transcendental teleology.  There would have to be the idea of a commonly shared soul.  How long would they be willing to wait for stragglers like us before they would grab for the gold ring, the Big Omega?  What would keep them going in the meantime? 

Would the vast majority of them be hibernating, leaving only a skeleton crew to add the occasional stragglers to cold storage, to wake up on D-day? 

Given there is a Telos, then there is a Creator.  Does this sound like the BPCosmos?  Not unless 'salvation' is strictly a numbers game.  Virtually everyone who believes in salvation believes that it will be highly selective.  The Saved/Select always constitute a small minority. 

Among ufologists, there are a substantial number of Xians, and they, like the pantheists, accept a mixed cosmology that includes ETs and UTs.  They don't make an effort to draw distinctions.  They don't see ufology as an evangelical opportunity.  Like their fellow ufologists, they are there out of plain old curiosity.  

Xians, unlike their (non-jihadist!) Muslim brothers, have very much bought into technology, and so are pure dualists about Creator and Creation.  The Muslims are dualistic also, but to the exclusion of technology or any idea of progress.  Technology hastens the eschaton, either positively or negatively, they, xians, don't care which.  As to the ultimate impact of Contact, they remain vague.  They hardly seem bent upon evangelizing the Grey buggers.  Nor do they expect to be evangelized.  Contact remains a weighty but moot possibility.  Immaterialism is about the furthest thing from their dualistic way of thinking.



Yes, I think the issue of history, as God's own self-generating bootstrap, is the crux of the BPWH.  God, then only appears to evolve, from this very limited space-time perspective, i.e. from inside the bootstrap.   

Can there be more than one history or one bootstrap?  No more than there can be separate Gods.  There cannot be separate Pantheons. 

Is this imposing a limitation on God's creativity?  It is purely a logical Self-limitation.  And it is only a pseudo-limitation, because there is nothing to be gained by creating a second-best world.  Nor is there any point in, or even logical possibility, of creating a facsimile.  We are back to Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles. 

And only thus can we have a theodicy.  Everything that was ever going to happen, had to happen right here.  Evil would be objectified just so that it would lose its potentia or potency. 

If there were other worlds or creations, there would be no excuse to have more than one holocaust.  Every other world should be a paradise.  No point in making the same mistakes over and over. 

Thus also is there a premium on real-estate right here, on the one and only real place.  This is definitely going to be an SRO show.  Be here or be square.

The problem of evil was not really a problem until Giordano and Copernicus came along, and the possibility of other worlds began to dominate our thinking.  Remove that possibility and theodicy takes on a whole new/old meaning.  


Given one world, there also had to be one tribe to stand out.  Being on the theological hot-seat is surely no walk in the park, but somebody had to do it.  Why, though, a Savior?  This was God's definitive moment and swan-song all wrapped into one.  He dies to make room for the Holy Ghost, risen Christ.  Then what?  Then this.  Why this?  Because it says so in the Good Book?  Not an acceptable answer here.

At the least it should be seen as a recapitulation and explanation of the swan-song.  It is also the wake-up call.  Why just one alarm?  There have been, oh, so many warning bells.  There is a regular cacophony for all but the stone/tone deaf. 

But if God is truly personal, then the most critical junctures must be up close and personal, otherwise God becomes an abstract/absent Deity.  The personalities are meant to fit the occasion.  There need be only a minimal linkage.  This necessity need in no way diminish the necessity of every other personality who ever existed.  Has Jesus ever detracted from anyone else?  No, he only ever added depth to all the others.   If anything, we would probably want the X2 to be more the everyman, within the scope of the mission.  We would certainly not want it to detract or distract from the original, which is mostly left to everyone's best imagination, anyway.  This advent would be less anonymous, so the greater precaution to avoid any overshadowing.  Don't mess with success. 


But how will this actually come about.  Lately I have been hopeful of a spontaneous event with minimal insider interference.  But the time is running very short for any such eventuality.  The next step would be for a minimal, clandestine interference.  That might already be happening, but I would be the last to know.  And where can we truly make the distinction between these possibilities?  One shades into the other, when considering the omnipresent hidden-hand. 

Is it worth waiting another year for this to happen?  Certainly not any longer.  The problem is to find the first one.  There would be a lot of questions about that individual's spontaneity.   It would not be easy to fake.  We are between a rock and a hard place.  My kingdom for a 'horse'.



I am reading more from the advanced copy of Mark Booth's Secret History of the World (Jan. '08), obtained by my librarian spouse. 

He helps to confirm my contention that the BPWH is unique in the world.  His is admittedly the first modern attempt an an idealist history of the world. 

He too finds nothing comparable on the Internet or on the bookshelves.  Some of his phraseology does seem to be chipped right off the block here.  He has no previous publications.  Was he put up to this?  He admits as much.  Should I object?  Nah!  All is fair in love and Salvation.  God will have ample opportunity to sort it all out.  

Conveniently, Mark falls down in his eschatology.  I have not yet to come to where he deals with cosmology, reading from both the front and back.  There is no index in this advanced copy.  What he does have is a precessional version of history, also taken from Hamlet's Mill.  But he employs the full cycle which will lead him into a cyclic pantheism, if he is not very careful.  I'm quite content to just take a quarter cycle, which provides an Xian interpretation, thank you very much.  He also places the X-event at the mid- or turning-point in history. 

Yes, Mark has done considerable heavy lifting for me, in terms of research and publishing.  I will be glad to borrow back from him what is useful, and I will make every effort to provide the proper attribution.  We shall see what we see, and let you know.  The only review I could find was rather derogatory. 


11/16  [a

So here I am, between a rock and a hard place.  On the one hand we have Scientific Materialism, the rock.  The hard place is religious fundamentalism.  Both of these are forms of reductive literalism: the one about atoms, the other about the words. 

Where I need to go, where we are going to end up, is closer to where religion is than to where science is.  So why not just capitulate to religion?  I fear that would be too easy, especially in the short-run.  Being scripturally correct would be easier now, but it would land us in a bigger hole later on.  If we are going to do this at all, then we had better get it right the first time. 

The early resistance is coming from the fundamentalists.  And, ironically, they are the only ones willing to engage.  The philosophical materialists are smart enough not to engage at all.  It is the more naive transhumanist technophiles who make up the rank and file of ufology.  And there is a sizeable New Age, contactee contingent.  These are the pantheists, pagans and polytheists.   I have gotten limited engagement from their quarter.  To make matters more difficult, still, R&D is on hold for the foreseeable future.  This latter development does allow me to focus on these external politics. 

One might wonder why there would be any fundamentalists in the ranks of ufology.  I still do, but who am I to look a gift-horse in the mouth, even when they wax so mouthy?  My last shot in their direction was to bring up the issue of ET religion.  At first blush, their silence on this issue might seem surprising, but on reflection, it makes more sense.  Why has it taken me almost 300 pages of postings to place this salient point front and center?  That's why I'm back on here from OMF, trying to work it out.  This ought to be easy, but it is giving me pause. 

About a week ago 'Jake' acknowledged a problem with this, but in a cavalier fashion.  Now he has gone silent, probably on further reflection.  There obviously must be a lot of sub-conscious issues that are not being addressed, by definition. 

The Xians in ufology represent the bleeding edge of the no-man's land between science and religion.  They are barely aware of how precarious is their situation.  I am not reluctant to rub their noses in it. 

So you might think they would want to come down strongly on the UT side of the UT vs. ET issue.  But they don't.  They are afraid to confront their fellow ufologists on this issue.  They would rather do battle with me.  The ET religion issue is not a problem for the technophiles that make up the bulk of ufology.  They are not confronting the deeper sociological issues that would soon arise, after we finished opening to pretty packages with all the shiny new gadgets.  They do not understand the deeper connection between religion and technology.  Very few would, if they have not confronted the problem of Contact, even as it has occurred in our own history.  We were always on the winning team.  The notion of the Prime Directive ought to figure more prominently in these discussions. 

What I have not done yet is to put these several issues in a succinct form that points to the BPWH.  They relate strongly to the ethics of disclosure. 

With all these problems, why is there still a considerable clamor for disclosure?  Don't they get it?  Are the vocal ones really so naive?  Where would I be if they weren't here, shouting? 

It is the issue of secular salvation that is driving the technophiles.  On the religious side of that issue, being here is just a bit more genteel than beating the drums for Armageddon. 

Virtually no theologians have addressed the ET issue in modern times.  The few preachers who address it put it in the context of the latter days, and usually with reference to the anti-X.  This raises problems about the mechanics of the Second Coming: will it be via flying saucer?  Not a simple issue. 

Who are noticeably absent from this debate are the Intelligent Design folks.  How do they manage to avoid the ET question?  By treading lightly. 


So I fancy myself the Savior.  And, for the sake of argument, at least, do hereby so declare .  Who am I here to save?  As many as possible.  Not just certain sects of scriptural literalists.  Why so?

It stands to reason that if the Creator is capable and beneficent, that the vast bulk of her Creatures would be salvageable.  Is this then just by fiat?  What, if anything, is to be demanded of the individual creature?  Need this even be decided on an individual basis?  Perhaps not.

If salvation were intended only for fearful rule followers, who would wish to be included?  Where is the love in that? 

The issue is: saved for what?  Saved to party with God?  Or saved to be part of God?  Ah, there's the rub. 

There are problems here with entitlement and reward.  We all like to talk about love, but, let's face it, there are a lot of us who operate out of fear.  We refrain from taking advantage of our fellow creatures out of fear of the cop on the beat.  And when there aren't enough cops to go around, we give God a billy-club.  How many parents have never used the Bogeyman? 

Keep your nose clean down here, and you will get your just desserts in heaven......or else! 

What is going to happen with all the fearful ones when they find out that fear is the only thing to fear?  Debauchery, here we come? 

That is one reason why love has had to wait, for the most part.  Yes, even and especially in the BPW, love has had to be put on hold. 

Yes, up to this point, (cosmic) love has definitely been of the tough variety.  Many are those who despair that, when it comes to love, WYSIWYG.  Well, I think these ones will find that what is to come will have been worth the wait.  We were not designed just for hanging around the earth, twisting in the wind. 

Yes, I do feel a special responsibility towards those who have struggled so hard to do what they were told was the right thing, in the expectation of a reward, especially when it seemed that so many others were doing just the opposite.  They have lived by the Book, and the rest of us are the better for it.  We owe them something for their good behavior.  Will we not see that virtue is its own reward?  Is that not enough?  If not, then you may not fully understand the virtue of virtue. 

Vengeance is mine, said the Lord.  That may be one reason why Xians are somewhat less inclined to be suicide bombers.  Does that mean that all that stored up vengeance is just going to explode, if it is unsatisfied in this eschatological context?  I suspect that God has a pretty firm grip on that situation, but thanks for asking.  Anyway, what do you think Halo III is for?  Ersatz Armageddon. 

For all those who lived by the Book, whichever good book it was, you are in for a little surprise.  But your surprise will probably be less than for the others.  Imagine how surprised will be the ones who were working overtime to get to that warm spot, down yonder.  They just didn't realize how terribly difficult it was to actually get in, down there.  Better luck next time! 

So there you have it; Heaven is not going to be a Bacardi Party.  Now is when the real work begins: God's work.  Welcome aboard the galley!  Your new Taskmaster will try to be sparing of the lash. 

In some sense we will be participating in the retro-fitting of Creation.  Much of creation has been pay-as-we-go, and much has not been.  We will be looking at both of those aspects, sub specie aeternitas.  We have been God's eyes, ears and hands all just more so. 

A large part of the task ahead will be our self-amalgamation.  We hatch out of this Chrysalis, now in butterfly form, transitioning from our past pupal/pupil stage. 

My job is just the conceptual one of giving you a cursory introduction.  Much of that introduction will be a review of how we got here in the first place. 

Many may feel that they have been lured here under false pretenses, and there is a modicum of truth to that.  It is much more the case of operating on a need to know basis.  We need to know what we need to know, when we need to know it.  And, trust me, we ain't seen nothin' yet.  And that applies to yours truly nearly as much as to you.  I would not be a good teacher if I were not also a good student, learning right here on the job.  Don't you find that reassuring!!

Yes, there is some confusion as to how we got here. 

And, hey, that's mostly our (management's) 'fault'.  If any of you did get fooled, it was only by the best in the business.  Had you not been, you and I wouldn't be here now.  Always keep that in mind.  Wrt the BPW, things could have always, always been a lot worse!  That's why we call it the BPW! 

For some time now, I have been running into a lot of flack from the Universalists.  I don't mean the Church that goes by that name, but rather those who will feel cheated to find out that we are not actually Lost in Space.  So, you see how this works, there's plenty of apologizing to go around, if you think you haven't been cheated yet, your turn will probably come. 

A lot of us, especially ufologists, have been waiting, oh so patiently, for our very first ride in a flying saucer and to go zipping around this vast Universe of ours.  The Universe was going to be our Heaven!  You are my poor, dear Universalists.  I gotta tell ya, right now, when it comes to the Universe, it is WYSIWYG, for sure.  You may not really need or want to go there, because they're all dying to come here, and we do mean that, literally.  Even I can be literal, once in a while.

Just this one little apology to the Universalists could take up books and books, and I'm going to give it my best shot with a couple of paragraphs.  See, why should I take all the apologizing fun away from the rest of you?  You'll be getting the knack of it in no time.  Besides, my stomach is rumbling for its lunch, and Sam should call any minute...........!   Oooops, he just called.  Saved by the bell!  Sophia, you'll just have to fend for yourself, my dear.  It must be tough being stood-up like this. 


Now this from 'Tel' at OM:  [a

God is an Artisan. He is a prolific creator and I don't believe He would stop at just one world. While He might have created millions of planets and sparked life on thousands of different worlds, that is not the point.

The point is, we should be focusing on our world and our eschaton.

A true-believing Universalist. 

Here is my open response..........

True, but...........   OMF is at ground-zero for ufology.  It does seem that the little Grey buggers have their noses right in our business, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to ignore that fact.  We have to wonder if there might be a connection between eschatology and ufology.  Here are some possibilities...........They are here to:::::

But here is my other point:

First and foremost, God is alleged to be the God of history.  This is the Point of the prophetic tradition.  It is not just we who are supposed to attend to history, it is also God.  He is not just supposed to plant the seed and skedaddle; he is supposed stick around and tend to the garden.  So, sure, God is multi-tasking. 

But wait.  Look how it worked here.  God planted the Prophetic seed with Abraham, and from that one person it has spread to the entire planet. 

Why should it be different in the Universe?  On this model would God have planted the seed on one Planet, and then arrange for it to spread to the whole Universe. 

But this model seems to have broken down?  But wait again.....Abraham and all the prophets could have been ETs.  In fact, that is even a consensus view among ufologists. 

Now connect this consensus view with the above points, and you see that eschatology is up to its eyeballs in ufology.  Or is it the other way around?  God arranged the cosmos for the ETs to be able to get here even more easily than we were able to sail across the oceans.  Hey, don't blame me for that!  I just work here. 

And when the Missionaries come, can Cortez and the Conquistadors be far behind?  The conspiracists tell us that we have already been conquered, it's just that the Intergalactic Conquistadors have learned their tradecraft better than the Spanish variety.  See Dick Cheney and the Bilderbergers.   

Can you excuse me, Tel, for being curious about the cosmic dimension of eschatology? 

I guess my problem with the above scenario is that it seems like the ETs could have done a better job of this.  How many thousands or millions of times have they run this scenario, and over how many millions and billions of years?  Is this any way to run an Eschatology assembly line? 

Sure they might have made some mistakes early on, but, really, wouldn't they learn from their mistakes.  Hey, on this Planet, is there anything that could have gone wrong that hasn't gone wrong? 

The gods must be crazy.............Nah, they must be sociopathic and serially genocidal.  Cosmic sadism might be an apt phrase. 

The Christians want to blame it on us.  Sure, blame the victims! 

Something surely went very badly wrong somewhere.  Who the heck are we going to blame? 


Guess what folks there is an incredibly easy explanation for all of the above.................

Them little Grey buggers.....they ain't ETs.  They're UTs.

All you have to do is change one letter, and it all makes perfect sense. 

This is exactly what the BPWH does, it just changes one little letter! 

And, hey, I'm not the first one to figure this out, but I am the first one to make a federal case out of it. 

Well, at least I'm trying to. 

Oh, Ron......Were are you...............??



Nib,   (@OMF)

[...]  Common dude! You sound like a 4th grader who saw a bad accident! SPIT IT OUT. It might be important!

No.  I saw a good accident, but it weren’t no accident, neither.  It was a gosh-darn coinkydink.    See, I don’t think Mozart was an accident.  An accident is when the movers drop the piano down the stairs.  Mozart carried the music of the spheres right to the top, in all its synchronous, euphonious glory.  There will never, and need never, be anyone to carry music to higher plane.  We can’t get higher than the angels.  Mozart was music's Theory of Everything.  Everything in physics is a footnote to Einstein.  Everything in philosophy is a footnote to Plato.  Everything in writing is a footnote to Shakespeare.  You get my drift.

Those folks were angels brought to Earth.  We are all that.  We are lacking only in our eschatological inspiration.  Sophie and I try to be that.  One of us will succeed. 

Is there a higher order of existence?  The mystics speak of such.  If so, it must be in higher dimensions, beyond space and time.  But we already know about that.  We call it the Internet.  Pull out the electric plug, and it is the Real thing.

There have always been portals on the Earth, of different sizes and shapes.  Some are biological others are less so.  Some are in the sky, some are six-feet under, and deeper still.  With the help of the Internet, the Earth is about to become one portal, the cosmic Grand Central, the Restaurant at the end of time. 

 (But, speaking of restaurants, I'm out to lunch..................)

We can all wear the T-shirts with Earth: Been there, done that.  No, we don't need another billion years down here.  We have a couple more centuries to finish our business here and skedaddle. 

There is nothing else to disclose.  We have all had our contacts of one sort or another.  If we cannot reach a consensus on this, then nobody can. 

Consider Occam's Razor...........

We know that the mind is not just a 'meat machine'.  We know that consciousness expands and contracts.  There are many altered states, and that 'normal' waking is just another state.  Most of us have had numinous experiences of one sort or another.  It is hard to believe that mind is not something pervasive and connected.  The thought that mind is ever only a local, one-time machination, seems rather more improbable than the many alternatives that 99% of us feel strongly about.  Is that just our egos talking, or is it the base-line of any existence? 

Where then are we when we are not here?  Where do our encounters come from?  There are other places and spaces, and we don't need flying machines to get around.  There are lights in the sky.  Are they flying machines, or are they the manifestations of other minds and spaces? 

Occam's razor suggests that we make mind the basis of normal and abnormal experience.  We sure don't know the limits of mind, but every year we get a firmer grasp on the limits of physics.  We know there are miracles without mechanics, so why should we invent a miraculous mechanics to explain what already has an age-old explanation in the connectedness of the cosmic mind?  Why invoke and invent other kinds of connections?  That is to deny the economy of explanation first invoked by William of Occam. 

The is a very good explanation for nuts&bolts ufology.  It is a socio-political explanation.  It make much more sense than the nuts&bolts explanation of abnormal experience. 


Has there ever been a President more believable than Jimmy Carter?  Did you notice that Jimmy chimed on this unprecedented examination of ufos by our Contenders?  Did he say there were no strange things out there?  Did he need to say anything at all?  Did he say that he had never been briefed on ufos?  He said none of those things.  He only said that They were not coming from other planets.  Does that simple statement not speak volumes?  And he is a deeply religious man who puts every neo-religious politician to shame?  Yes, he could have just kept his mouth shut. 

Recall that Jimmy is the only physicist ever to become President.  If any one of them would have known about nuts&bolts, he would.

This reminder from Jack today:

"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." -- Winston Churchill.

And here we are dealing with Armageddon.  So, yes, what better bodyguard than Nuts&Bolts? 

Flying saucers came of age with the coming of age of the American empire, which was an empire of air power.  Our eyes were on the skies. 

Blue Sky Dream (1996): 

Beers's poignant, eloquent autobiographical memoir of growing up in Silicon Valley during the 1960s is a stunning eulogy for the middle-class American Dream. His father, Hal, a Lockheed engineer and former navy jet pilot, worked on secret projects designing spy satellites. His mother, Terry, a devout, mystical Catholic often at odds with her scientifically minded, Protestant husband, raised four children in their suburban tract home and "assumed the task of making us not merely Catholic, but Irish Catholic.... In inventing an ethnicity for us, she selected only Irish positives, giving us to understand that we were genetically impish and fun-loving." Beers's parents adopted the widespread faith that America's technological superiority would ensure limitless prosperity, but disillusionment set in as Hal grew disenchanted with a corporate culture of compartmentalization. As a muckraking Mother Jones editor, Beers critiqued the military-industrial complex that assured his father's livelihood. His incisive takes on suburbia, the ever-present seductions of television, Reagan's reinvigoration of the Cold War, Clinton's alleged reneging on the "peace dividend" and the downsizing of corporate America make this a memorable document.

This was the heart and soul of the American Dream.  The ufo dream machine is the tip of that spear.  Gordon Novel, the protégé of DeLorean from the Bonneville Salt Flats, and co-protégé of CK, lives that dream like none other, as we speak.   GN is the bodyguard of the Aquarium. 

Ufology would be nothing, if it were not infatuated with the Transhuman possibilities of Technology, and with War of the Worlds.  If they did not have their booster rockets and their sights set on the stars.  Who can begrudge them that?  Certainly not me. 


If Jimmy was not smart enough to figure this out, I'll eat my hat. He is reading from the Playbook in real-time, folks.  Don't say you weren't warned by Dan and Jimmy. 



I maintain there is enough favorable evidence that we don't need disclosure to conclude that the BPWH is substantially correct.  It is just a matter of time before the interest in alternatives to materialism and to sectarianism bring more people to study the BPWH. 

The timing is the only matter of special concern.  But as long as the hidden hand can keep us out of too much trouble, then we should be willing to pay the extra costs of delay, due to the extra benefits that come from spontaneous self-disclosure. 

Sophia just needs to find a more effective spokesperson.  That should not be difficult. 

Getting over the ETH, in favor of the UTH is the single biggest hurdle.  Once the UTH is taken on-board, you only need to invoke a primordial cosmic intelligence in order to grasp the BPWH. 

With this pedagogical sequence laid out, the move to immaterialism becomes a logical and slippery slope. 

Perhaps all that Sophie needs is a pedagogue with more patience. 

The average ufologist thinks that the world owes them something, and is quite content to wait around for someone else to spoon feed them with information.  Mere curiosity is enough.  They generally come into the field with superficial preconceptions about what is going on.  There is little incentive for them to rethink their existing worldview.   

If I were Sophia, I would not cater to that mentality.  I would keep disclosure on hold for however long it might take for some folks to give serious thought to the alternatives. 

There has been some forward momentum on the acclimation front the past couple of years.  Even if that were to slow down, I don't think it would be too many more years for a few more right-thinking folks to turn this field around. 

I doubt that Academia will be the source of this new talent.  More folks like myself will find it within themselves to put in the required effort.  These new folks may likely be from other countries where English is not their first language.  The continued expansion of the Internet will make this eventuality a virtual inevitability. 

This would be my official recommendation.  Don't do any more than is already being done by way of disclosure/acclimation.  The Lord will help those of us who are willing to help ourselves. 




This is the crux of the matter for disclosure.  Let us discuss how we may have come to this impasse, and how it may be overcome. 

The cover-up has strongly exploited this bit of public confusion.  We are interested in who originated the ETH subterfuge, and how it is being maintained. 

I believe it was the UTs who originally cloaked themselves in an ET guise. 

This harkens back to the 'airship' flap of the 1890s.  Here they presented themselves as just a bit ahead of our technology.  It gets our attention, without befuddling our sensibilities.  Nothing came of it. 

Next up was the séance craze around the turn of the last century.  This had some lasting impact on the fringes of the scientific community.  Particularly in the UK, of which the PSR is a remnant.  This was UTs dressed as UTs. 

There were some notable phenomena on the battlefields of WWI, not particularly noted since.  The exception was the foo-fighter phenomenon of WWII.  Those phenomena became focused around our nascent nuclear activities.  Thus the high-tech aura that has surrounded these phenomena since.  NASA is well-rumored to have had its own version of the foo-fighters. 

The triumphal rise of technology in the last century created a very tempting hook in the human imagination for the UTs to exploit, and so they became our ETs. 

Hollywood and NASA seemingly combined their efforts to solidify the public consciousness around the ET metaphor.  They may have been abetted by the insiders, but it did not take much coaxing for Hollywood and the whole Sci-Fi community to take this ball and run with it. 

There has arisen a very considerable social inertia behind the ETH.  As most everything in history, the development was anticipated teleologically.  This barrier to comprehension will be overcome in due course, in its appointed time and manner.  I would save myself a lot of trouble by being able to foresee such, but my present ignorance is as much a part of the Telos as is my knowledge. 

What I find particularly difficult to understand is the strong backing of the ETH by at least some of the religiously minded ufologists, of whom there are a sizeable number in the rank and file, even though they are underrepresented among the spokespersons. 

It is a sociological fact that religious conservatives are very well represented in the traditional technological fields, up to and including especially the aerospace industry.  This is only somewhat less so amongst the 'hard' sciences.  In the life-sciences, such folk are strongly underrepresented, reflecting the problems with Darwin and Freud.  I don't know what these figures are for the medical field, in general. 

In general, the religiously minded are admonished in the NT to 'not suffer a witch to live'.  That is strong advice!  If the Rel-cons (X-cons, Neo-con Xians) are going to satisfy their curiosity about ufos, it then behooves them to be doing so under the rubric of the ETH, about which the Bible is mum, as compared to the UTH. 

If we may use Jake@OM as our case study, he supposes that the Elohim of the OT who 'laid with our women', were, if fact, ETs, rather than fallen angels.  But why draw this distinction, which could only be seen as borderline, at best?  When I attempt to argue some of the finer points he backs off, but then is back again a few days latter with the same sticky mindset. 

By the same token, the Young Earth notion has become a pejorative amongst the IDers, who now fancy themselves as amongst the Intelligentsia.  It was only a few decades ago that the Vatican pardoned Galileo. 

If even a substantial fraction of this emerging mindset may be traced to deliberate machinations on the part of MJ-12, then they have succeeded in digging a rather deep hole in which to bury the truth.  Was I their affirmative action until recently and, conveniently for them, cutting my own line?  If they wish to be so devious, then I am well rid of it. 


Let us recap the salient points of UTH vs. ETH:

  1. Occam's razor relative to the phenomena
  2. Problem of evil is exacerbated by the implied repetition and redundancy  [a]
  3. Lack of any Federation rationale, in terms of their interaction with us
  4. General lack of artifacts and traces. 
  5. High-strangeness factor
  6. Failure of SETI
  7. Physics counts more against ETH than against UTH
  8. Metaphysics even more so (BPWH)
  9. Lack of rationale for a conventional cover-up
  10. Problem of distinguishing between ETs and UTs. 
  11. Incompatibility of theism with the ETH. 
  12. Different levels of souls required for the ETH.  It get's very messy, very quickly. 
  13. ETH makes a shambles of teleology and eschatology
  14. Inconsistencies with Darwinism 
  15. It exacerbates the mind-body problem
  16. The Simulation Argument counts against the ETH
  17. Same with the Doomsday Argument

Each of the above points constitutes a fatal flaw for the ETH.  Taken together, the ETH would be a non-starter, were it not for the Hollywood factor. There is ample evidence of insider influence in Tinseltown. 



Looking @ #7 above..............

Every year that physics progresses beyond Einstein's twin breakthroughs of 1905, it counts as more evidence against a physical explanation for the visitations, i.e. in favor of the UTH vs. the ETH.  Yes, there are problems in science.  There are unsolved puzzles; there is an horizon of our knowledge, but this horizon is, every year, taking a more definite shape.  It looks more and more like a hole in our scientific, reductive knowledge.  It is an Anthropic shaped hole.  It has to do with emergence and the irreducibility of vital or anthropic related phenomena.  This is just what we would expect for a world that is more mind-like than machine-like. 

So, yes, they tell me this is my B-day.  How many more 'til D-day, is the question? 

We don't need a D-day.  All we need is one other person who can understand the basics of the BPWH.  Some of my correspondents have claimed to have gotten a handle on it, but I remain skeptical.  The few who may have are then spooked by R&D and the messy antics, which is not hard to understand.

That is all we need at this point: one knowledgeable interlocutor.  That should be very simple for Sophie to arrange, and even for CK.  It could be a plant; it wouldn't matter, once the logjam at OM was broken, it would all be water over the dam. 

One Interlocutor would be worth a hundred Serpos or Drones or Briefings.  It would be vastly more productive of understanding in the longer, eschatological time-frame. 

The lack of even a single Interlocutor does become more puzzling with each passing day.  When one does finally show up, it will be all the more startling, hey, even miraculous!

When that happens, the BPWH will be going on-line and interactive 24x7.  It will be all over but the shouting.  That is why R&D is already over.  Been there, done that. 

In the meantime, I'll be working overtime to neutralize the opposition, which will the same as clearing the decks over at OM, or wherever might be more strategic.  But I'm still not seeing a more likely spot. 

If CK is worth his weight in salt, he would already be having tryouts for the Interlocutor's role.  May the best person win!


Checking out for the holiday...............



<-- Prev      Next -->

Topical Index