« ...The "You" You'd Recuse... | Main | ...Autonomous And Therefore—FREE! »

Sedition Of The Light

 

Sedition Of The Light

Commentary provoked by Frank Longo's ...startling... documentary, Capturing The Light

 

 

Part I

 

 

Especially true in our westernizing civilization, we humans inhabit a thin skin of poorly perceived "reality" and think it complete and whole.  Too, also secure seems our fatuous "knowledge" that an acceptable God is in his heaven and on our side — without regard to which side, reader!  Our hapless ignorance regarding day to day existence looms, increasingly, ever more appalling. 

 

Fortunately Frank Longo provides persuasively that an optimistic glimmer of hope prevails.  See, once again, novelty makes its mad dash around an invalid status quo to discovery and inexorable progressiveness. Novelty finds a way, eh?  More on that in a moment.  

 

Back on track, the appalling state of our aforementioned awareness, such as it is, is well noted by the books and lectures of respected persons as diverse as Terence McKenna and Jacques Vallee.  These, among significant others, report that the paranormal in general and UFOs in particular exist, principally, to deflate and discredit a reductionist Science entirely too filled with itself. How does that work?

 

See, on the way to discovering what UFOs are, a hint provided may be what UFOs do.   Not, then, what are they, so muchMore, what are they doingThat's more achievable!

 

What do they do? What are they doing?  Well, they make otherwise cogent and therefore significant individuals question their authorities!  They throw "authorities" into disarray as a consequence.  They invalidate "authorities" as a result.  They provide for "authority's" irrelevance, is the upshot.  With the same effortlessness by which they are observed, they provide for a demonstration of authority's malfeasance and assign blame for same!  Ouch!

 

Contrarily, they propose these disarraying "questions" while still appealing to the individual, obliquely or directly.  That's pretty astonishing, eh.  Bottom up not top down.  Verily, as Richard Dolan has pointed out in his landmark UFOs And The National Security State, they are the very soul of [the new] sedition.

 

This aforementioned overconfident Cartesian-ism—scientism sans humility—is a discipline so decidedly hubris bound and repressively and irresponcibly arrogant that it dares to be the default arbiter of all that it presumes be laid before it, even that which it refuses to consider or investigate, at all!  Outrage!  If that were you, reader, somebody would throw a flag down, swear out a complaint, or seek a restraining order!  You'd be dealt with.

 

Such egotistical behavior fair begs comeuppance, am I right?  Well, UFOs affect to provide just that!  How? 

 

UFOs characteristically provide effortlessly observed if highly strange affairs.  Sentient individuals perceive with at least 5 pretty poor senses, right?  Too, these affairs involve meetings at all the different levels of the accepted range of UFO encounter as measured by the Hynek inspired "CE3K" scale: strange point source lights perceived to stranger physical interactions endured, but compassionately providing for its own plausible "there if needed" deniability, as it goes.  We wouldn't bother to do that.

 

Moreover, these close encounter affairs are witnessed many times simultaneously by hundreds or thousands of credible persons —police, pilots, and other practiced professionals— while "authority" fatuously looks the other way, infuriatingly, childishly chanting that UFOs are not a reality.  Flag down, Shermy!

 

Examples of just such affairs?  Unsung ufological hero Jerry Cohen provides: Kirtland AFB (11\4\57).  Hynek Blue Book Case (5\5\65).  Exeter, New Hampshire (9\3\65).  Malmstrom AFB (3/20/67).  Incident at Redlands, Ca. (Hynek, BB, 2\4\68).  Malmstrom AFB (11\7\75).  Iran F-4 Incident (9\76).  Belgium (1989\90).   Phoenix, Arizona (3/13/97).  South Illinois, USA (1\5\2000),  but more recently,  O'hare International Airport in 2007.  Stephenville, Texas in 2008.  All these, and —others— reader.

 

Science?  ...Only ever the staid portrait of piously insentient impotence!  UFOs have humiliated science at every encounter.  Embarrassed it at every meeting.  Shamed it at every turn. 

 

How?  By providing to that aforementioned broad swath of very diverse and with-it individuals their own singular hard-to-shake personal evidence, proof even, that it may be UFOs or the "other" comprising perceived reality... and science that is the faith based myth!  I've my own personal evidence.  Likely, the reader too.

 

It does not have to be that way.  Flatly, Reductionist Aristotle must reconcile the Holistic Plato, not supplant him.  This is what has occurred, I believe, and near the root of our problem.  How? 

 

With the errant Cartesian invalidation of "chaos systems" as the mother of all realities plus the naive presumption that reductionist "order" was exclusively superior.  We provided for a colossal limitation to our potential as individual conscious beings I sense, and bump our aggregate noses upon these limits, even now. A tiny fire illuminates a tiny darkness.  Consider, discounted by science is the synergy of the five senses already alluded to, and that which is beyond number and measure... spin, rate, and charge.

 

See, because Plato is supplanted and not reconciled, I'd contend, "Judeo-Christian-Cartesian Culture" and its causal cadre of conniving and capering imps—self-serving closed institutions large and small— prosecutes a selfish hubris, reader, to the detriment of our individual and therefore aggregate spiritual advancement.  Strong links make stronger chains.   

 

Consequently, this too ready reductionism or over-amped application of Occam eagerly provided by flogging Cartesian-ists provokes the ineffable "other" to challenge what we can perhaps perceive as the—largely inflated—conceit of Science.  This is a timely meme flying UFOs right up a reductionist's nose.  If he doesn't cop?  He is destroyed.  He's destroyed when he cops, too, but that's a good thing.

 

This challenge, again, is proffered by the "other" in diverse and well supported affairs typified by Frank Feschino's "shooting war with corporeal aliens," Zecharia Sitchin's flesh and blood "Ancient Astronauts", Budd Hopkins' intra-dimensional or trans-temporal "Insidious Invasion" of alien abductors, or the astonishing mysteries of Nancy Talbot's genuine Crop Circles, just to give a quick tour of the anomalous wrapped in mystery and buried in enigma. 

 

Really?  I hear the internal dialog.  Your attention, please. 

 

Consider.  How does Science meet the challenge of the "other"?  It is met with Research by proclamation, illogic, character assassination, ad hominem, professional irresponsibility, betrayal of trust, and abject denial... are default responses.

 

Moreover, stomp me another "Adams Grave," 'Doug'!  Spin me an additional "Catherine's Wheel," 'Dave'!  Right. 

 

"Dave's not here," folks.  In other words, the inability of conclusive science to address these mysteries —or even acknowledge them, reader— makes manifest the aforementioned humiliation, neatly.

 

Indeed, "high strangeness" is lately squirting out all over!  Bursting out from surprising places in surprising ways over a just discovered if surprisingly long period of time, science's shame is once again abundantly showcased!  Right under our noses too!  Consider, now, this current humiliation  of science and authority.  Be introduced to the strange story of Canadian Dorothy Izatt brought to us by Frank Longo in his très unusual film, Capturing The Light.

 

Indeed, Mr. Longo has produced a compelling DVD displaying just such an unmet challenge to Science as described above.  In it, Mr. Longo tells the astonishing story of Ms. Izatt, a very lovely and cognitively sharp if otherwise unremarkable octogenarian widow who communes with alien beings, frankly.  Too, she puts a fine point on this communication with 30,000 feet of eight-millimeter stock-shot, shot with twists into the outré-real you see right on the freaking film!  If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'.

 

Now, I likely would not even have given this account the remotest time of day—it's just too weird—but for the reaction of one man in particular to the tale.  David Biedny, frankly, was near jumping up and down in discussion of Ms. Izatt and the DVD in general on his radio program, The Paracast.  I was understandably intrigued, you'll discover. 

 

See, Mr. Biedny, a penultimate (sic) hard-nose and a man obviously going with the "better odds and smarter money," prefers to be known, I believe, as a proud son of the still very highly respected Cartesian reductionism discounted earlier.  He wants a reputation indicating his respectful attention to "logic," scientific "method," and "rules of evidence."  He shall not be accused of refraining from "best practice."

 

Flatly, Biedny wants his critical thinking skills respected if not taken for granted.  Too, as a recognized expert in digitally manipulated images he, to a degree, "wrote the book" on "photo-shopping" same. Consequently, his high confidence level —as was indicated by his aforementioned "on-air" happy dance— understandably intrigues!  What's "juicing" Biedny can certainly "juice" me.

 

What is going on?  The short version is that Dorothy Izatt appears to be one more interesting if characteristically unremarkable individual approached by the "other" and so further humiliating our too proud and arrogant Science as alluded above—I would presume for it's edification and our ultimate advancement, eh?  I digress.

 

See, way back in 1974 Ms. Izatt thought she was seeing something damned peculiar in her wide Canadian sky, and she couldn't get anyone else interested in watching with her or even believing her.  So, this plucky little bird of a woman —a tiny gal— grabs her husband's essentially unused 18 millimeter camera and, over a period of many years, shoots 30,000 feet of film in support of her contention!  She captures some gob-smacking stuff, reader!  I'm reminded it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.  I digress again!

 

Captured as physical evidence are astonishing arrays of light, shape, and detail on one frame of 8mm film!  This happens many, many times in footage otherwise clearly showing: UFOs, large and small... ...and other things.  This is not an easy task.  To wit: Mr. Biedny used the word "impossible."  He used that particular word I think because there is just no conceivable way to have captured the images captured on one frame of movie film in the manner shown.  He is not the only one to say so.

 

Yeah-yeah-yeah... more internal dialog... you've heard that kind of thing before.  Nip it.  See, this is a different case.  In this case, the "subject" had to cooperate with Ms. Izatt — even perform for her!  In addition, this was a performance not just for her and her camera, but also any camera used and any person along with her using their camera.  It gets a lot weirder than that, reader, and with nothing rolled and smoked!

 

Next time: Ms. Izatt approaches "authorities" one would think one should approach and is predictably dismayed, J. Allen Hynek's singular and serendipitous involvement with Ms. Izatt is outlined, and how a humiliation of what passes for 21st Century science is patently typified and then patiently exposed.  

 

 Dorothy & J. Allen Hynek

 

Part II

 

When last we met, Dorothy Izatt—the compelling subject of Frank Longo's film documentary Capture The Light — was introduced as the most current humiliation that our state of the art scientific reductionism endures.  See?  Perplexed by UFOs seen for years in day and nighttime skies, she endeavors—as one should you'd think— to find out what they are.  You know, take steps.  Make an effortProsecute the proactive.  Be brave, reader! 

 

Something different was in the sky, after all.  Something different had always been in the sky, actually.  Something "different" is in the sky, right now!  ...I'll nip that digression in the bud!

 

Finally, in exasperated result of these ongoing sightings, Ms. Izatt calls the authorities: constabulary, airports, newspapers, and other official entities, for an explanation.  Rather predictably through our filters, reader, these "official" bodies essentially dismiss her, suggest her drunkenness, or otherwise imply that she could do a better job keeping up with her meds!  Find no hyperbole in any of that.  In other words, just what you'd expect from the conflicted, mendacious, and cowardly mainstream.  Such is "authority," eh?

 

Well — they had their chance, am I right?  Feeling a little betrayed by society I presume, Ms. Izatt "hot-lines," local edge radio personality Pat Burns with her report. Burns' producer, Elaine Alexander, fortuitously suggested Izatt "capture" the UFOs observed... with a camera. Izatt promptly purloined her husband's unused Keystone Super-8 and began exposing film!

 

Well, three decades later she is 30,000 feet in —5.68 miles of celluloid, reader— capturing the visual impossibilities she reports everywhere she goes!  These "visual impossibilities"—succinctly explained—are inexplicable light sources traveling fast enough in an 18th of a second of elapsed time to paint veritable pictures in some strangely lysergic "smeared-light aftermathy" as the artistic medium!  They paint with light!

 

Moreover, these "brush" movements are precisely employed and deft enough to write Dorothy's name in fluid script three times... but in an 18th of a second on one frame of film!  ...Cue startled music, eh?

 

See, a single "point-source light" moved quickly and deftly enough to script the word "Dorothy" three times in that smidgeon eighteenth of a second requires that the light must burn very brightly indeed to be perceptible—so explaining the observed light flashes as she films.  The peculiarity, apart from writing her name in script, suggests that the quick bright light somehow knows it must get bright enough to expose the film in that moment, or disappear when it moves.  This begs intelligence, folks.  Too—and on the level of the genuine crop circle's cryptic missives in food crops—it bespeaks a cleverness expressing itself in an altogether different manner than has been seen heretofore!

 

Cutting to the chase, radio Producer Elaine Alexander is très impressed from the start and, surreptitiously enough, even hooks Ms. Izatt up with early last century's A-1 UFO goto-guy: Doctor J. Allen Hynek!  Well, Hynek sorts Ms. Izatt out in scientific short order.  At the end, he is, himself, blown-away!

 

First, though, there was a complete equipment disassembly, a thorough checking, and subsequent sealed reassembly of Izatt's camera as orchestrated by Hynek.  Too, this "equipment examination" would include Ms. Izatt herself, reader!  A battery of psychological tests and some hardnosed professional analysis insured Izatt's functionality as a "quality instrument of observation," by report, but satisfying the good Doctor entirely! 

 

"Passed Test" colors flying, Izatt is soon back in business running film through her camera, capturing impossible light, and... other things, reader... with multiple, better quality cameras now understandably supplied by Hynek.   It gets weirder than even this.  More in a moment.

 

Dr. Hynek advises Izatt to "lay low, and avoid the lunatic fringe" —a fringe, I maintain, sadly generated by the "official information void," largely—but "continue to amass [her] photographic data!  Izatt does exactly that!  Of note: because she did not remotely seek a "limelight, Izatt "hid out," essentially, for almost 35 years!  This is a little like Dr. Livingston ("I presume…") walking out of darkest Africa after years of absence in the 30's, reader!  Smoke that!

 

Let's shift gears. Dorothy Izatt is not good news for ufologists who adhere too tenaciously to their stark scientific reductionism, their reflex Cartesian-ism of numbered measurements, or their sullen insistence regarding the prosecution of what could be called an errant and futile "scientific hubris maintenance," as I've pointed out.  Izatt's experience appears to be a little richer and more genuinely selfless than that.

 

See—she's not just a lone and lonely nut desperate for attention in the dwindling time remaining her.  In fact, to a degree, and because she is an accomplished woman and matriarch of a grand clan of persons as agreeably reasonable as they are respectful and doting, she neatly refutes the "sad lone-nut" hypothesis. 

 

Too, based on her unusual assessment of her experience, it might appear that she is going to be the new darling of the so-called "Benevolent Space Brother" crowd... though, not so fast, Skipper!  Break your shin on that one!  Dr. Salla can back off.  Dr. Greer can change his Speedos. 

 

First, Ms. Izatt knows her business and, second, she is surrounded by a veritable platoon of educated younger men: sons, grandsons, and doting son-in-laws—forgetting the always more dangerous daughters across four generations!  Trifle Ms. Izatt at your peril, I suspect.  It remains: she communicates that "it," whatever "it" is, is decidedly not about her... ...and not all good, reader, not all good... start raising the black felt curtains.

 

She advises that individual "intention" is the key.  Good intentions produce good outcomes.  Bad intentions have... disturbing outcomes... ...or what was that lurking briefly behind Dorothy's chair at 2343 on the DVD while she discussed the consequences of a "less than pure intention."  Whatever it is, it is disturbing.  There are other wonders displayed.

 

Yes, Dorothy Izatt is in contact with something highly strange, she feels... and it communicated to her an expansiveness of her awareness spanning the entire universe and all the dimensions and intelligences contained therein, too, if I may paraphrase.  Though, denying the intimated guru-ship errantly suggested, Izatt maintains that she is able to communicate in this way with this ineffable "other" because she is "open to it… and [her] intentions are pure." 

 

In other words Izatt has no self-serving agenda to serve.  She's confident that anyone with an open aspect regarding them, with no ax to grind, and with proper intention, reader, can communicate with this "other" as she does.  In short, anyone with a mind to, can do! 

 

It appears that's no idle "airy-fairy" boast, reader!  See, persons who go along with Ms. Izatt on her little back-deck filming forays find that they themselves are seeing the subjects photographed, that there is a "communication" of some ethereality personally, and that they are able to photograph them, too?  That's right. 

 

Stop the train.

 

At this point, let us sum up briefly:  Predictability.  Check.  Repeatability.  Check.  An abundance of hard physical evidence.  Check.  Measurement of attendant variables: light, speed, rate, frequency... Check.   Quality observer/recorders of the phenomena... Check.  Documented history of the occurrence over decades by vetted persons... uh… check?

 

One would think that all of this would have the now well-battered Cartesian up on his tippy-toes, the reflex "reductionist" reduced to his lowest common denominator, or the compulsory klasskurtxian decidedly if uncharacteristically terse — made sullenly mute and unable to confabulate the usual "prosaic" to cover it, at all! 

 

Reader! Are not all the attributes of our well-flogged science toeing the line and present for duty… begging to be accounted for?  I would assert that they are.

 

Frank Longo portrays a very compelling vision of an evolving reality in his film Capturing The Light.  There is no pretense.  There is no confabulation.  There is no vast extrapolation or leap of faith.  It's all there, intelligent if unremarkable persons, persons like you and me, reader, trying to make sense out of the inexplicable... and succeeding to a degree somehow. 

 

Get more information yourself at: [cut and paste if necessary] http://www.capturingthelightdvd.com/

 

That's enough, read on.

 

 

 

 

Posted on 01.31.2012 by Registered CommenterAlfred Lehmberg in , | Comments3 Comments

Reader Comments (3)

Peoples imaginations can be scarey.Are there real ufos..I believe so..First,let me tackle something else..I have never seen an alien,but I would seriously doubt..They are the little green figures you see in books or on tv.If there truly are aliens..I would venture to think.They would look exactly as we do..You would never be able to tell the difference between an alien and a human..I have never seen an alien,,But I have witnessed some type of vehicle..It was an amazing site.I have never seen anything like it in shows about ufos..This ufo was incredible..The only reason I would call it a ufo is..I have never seen anything like it in my life..

February 15, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRobert

I think we as humans do not know jack you know what about the deep secrets of the universe. If and when we ever find out and the news is allowed out it will crush our society. However, it could put an end to centuries old blood wars and make us realize that in the spectrum of things we are grains of sand or mice in a very well kept cage.

February 19, 2012 | Unregistered Commenternoah

For what I believe to be a prophetic view of where all this is going, you might want to check out my new novel, Encore To Dying, at www.encoretodying.com. Yes, Robert, there are Starseeds among us.

March 6, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterLouis Gibbs

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Textile formatting is allowed.