The ethical dilemma that has been revealed about the Roswell "Dream Team" in recent days should come as no surprise given the participation of Donald Schmitt, a person who should have remained a pariah in UFO research given the proven lies he told in the 1990s, lies that related to far more than just his background, despite what many many people would have you believe today (such as the Paracast hosts who had him on their show last week and gave him a complete pass on his past, although to be fair they just happen to be the most recent example of a long list of people who have given Schmitt a pass).
It's amazing how quickly people involved in UFO "research" forget and forgive transgressions that would sink a career in any self-respecting field of research. Schmitt has been back on the lecture and radio circuit for years, and has published several books with his current research partner Tom Carey... and when the "Dream Team" was formed he re-united with his original partner, Kevin Randle.
I'm not going to revisit the long and sordid Schmitt story in its entirety here - that's what Google searches are for. But here's Kevin Randle's summary of Schmitt in an open letter published in 1995 that summarizes it succinctly:
He (Schmitt) will lie about anything. He will lie to anyone… He has revealed himself as a pathological liar… I will have nothing more to do with him.
The fact that any of the Dream Teamers, and particularly Kevin, were willing to partner with Schmitt years later should tell you all you need to know the direction in which their ethical compass is pointing.
Donald Schmitt
In an e-mail published in May, 2002, Kevin laid all of the problems associated with Schmitt and his ilk (which has since grown to include figures like Phil Imbrogno) when he wrote to Bill Hamilton and chastised him for attending a lecture given by Schmitt:
"I find myself a little puzzled here. I have waited for some sort of response to this suggestion that Don Schmitt has lied about his background, education, occupation, parts of his Roswell investigation and the like, yet no one seems willing to challenge Bruce [Hutchinson] on these points. It seems to me that we are in agreement about this. Bill, I don't mean to single you out, but when you attended the lecture, were you aware of the baggage that Schmitt brought to it? If not, then what is your reaction now, to the information he presented? Do you find it to be credible? I am interested in why anyone would listen to a thing he has to say, given what we know about him."
He continued:
Don Schmitt, while we were still working together, told a number of people not to talk to me because he suspected that I was a government agent planted on him. Here was my friend telling people I was a spy and not to be trusted. Since I'm not a government agent nor was I planted on him, would this then be character assassination?
And yet here we are in 2013, with Kevin and the others working with Schmitt, who is at the center of the "slides" story. The "Dream Team" was doomed to abject failure as soon as Schmitt was included on the team, just as Radio and TV shows and publishers diminished their credibility the minute they decided to do business with Schmitt. The "UFO research field" remains a joke a decade after Kevin wrote that e-mail in 2002 precisely because many within it have failed to heed Kevin's good advice - including, sadly, Kevin himself.
If only Kevin had remembered the advice he correctly dished out to others in 2002.
How can we expect the scientific and journalistic communities to listen to us when some of those on the lecture circuit not only aren't telling the truth, they have admitted they weren't telling the truth, and turn up time and again selling their new and improved stories... Until we clean our own house, no one is going to listen to us. We're going to remain the lunatic conspiracy fringe whose positive evidence gets buried under the rubble of those who lie to us... and we're all so dumb that we'll just sign up for more we lies... So, that's where we are. We do not intelligently debate, we embrace those who lie to us, and we will not tolerate dissent... So, people, just why are we listening to Don Schmitt? I'd like to know the reason for it.
"Just why are we listening to Don Schmitt?" This is the real question that Don Ecker should ask when he interviews Kevin on Dark Matters Radio on Tuesday, October 1st. I hope he starts by reading Kevin's own words from a decade ago back to him, after which the only things that Kevin can say which would make any difference, and help him reclaim his credibility, are "mea culpa" and "I'm sorry".
This is a photo I was sent yesterday from someone in purporting to be of the "Ghost of the Bride of Room 473" in the Algonquin Hotel in St. Andrew's, NS, a story Holly Stevensand I investigated in 2009 for Ghost Cases.
My reply went as follows: "Thank you for sending along the photo. It's amazing what people can do with Photoshop these days."
But just because I was sent a clearly faked photo doesn't mean that the St. Andrew's story is itself bogus. Indeed, it was one of the cases that Holly and I looked into where we ran into some strange occurrences ourselves during the investigation.
I don't believe for a second that the "orb" was the spirit of the dead bride of legend. But could it have been a case of Holly buying a ticket into the paranormal "theater" that I often talk about, and an advanced non-human intelligence putting on a little show for us to discover later?
On the other hand, any species that can produce music like this still has potential to someday transcend the time grifters and space fillers and embrace the full wonder that the universe has to offer us.
In another era, this would have been front-page, banner-headline news. Now it's just part of the daily stream, buried in the bafflegab, largely ignored by people more interested in reading about twerking or the latest "reality" television "star"... or, within the "hallowed halls" of ufology, by people more interested in pretending to conduct a re-investigation of a re-investigation of an investigation of a UFO case that happened almost 70 years ago.
If there are aliens out there, or coming here, should we really be surprised if they don't want to talk to us?
The last few weeks have been instructive for me since I've returned to occasional blogging. It has been a stark reminder of the intellectual prison that is "ufology".
Articles posted by me about mysticism, philosophy, spirituality, and even some serious reflections on the UFO phenomenon... nothing. Not a comment, and at most a dozen or so readers. None of the so-called "news summary" sites of the paranormal picked them up.
That's fine with me. I write for myself - if people want to have a look, or comment, that's great. If not, that's fine too. I have a fulfilling career and a great personal life. This is just one of my many hobbies.
But I'm the exception that proves the rule. I value civil discourse. I cherish open dialogue and serious research. I try to start conversations that will inform, enlighten, and perhaps inspire people to think. The people I care about, like Greg Bishop, Nick Redfern, Aaron Gulyas, and the late Mac Tonnies, understand that. But it's not popular, because the vast majority of people have no real interest in the paranormal, or the mysteries of life. Sure, they may say they do, in the same way that people who go to see cage fighting claim to be fans of the sporting ethos, but the truth is that they want to see blood.
Mysticism, philosophy, even UFOs? Nope. Not interested.
The cage fight that is Roswell? Sign them up. There have been more hits in a single day for my article on Kevin Randle and the "Dream Team" mess than I've had here in years, well into the four figures. The Anomalist ran it. So did The Paracast (ironically less than a week after having Don Schmitt on their show and giving him a total pass). Others will as well.
But if ever there was a story here that people should have passed by, it's the Roswell / Randle one. I posted it because I felt a moral obligation to do so, and only after I had been dragged into it without asking. But while I viewed it as necessary, in the same way that taking out the trash is necessary every week, it's not something of which I'm proud, or that I consider valuable. It is garbage.
But that's ufology, particularly in the Internet era - a prison populated by conflict addicts and intellectual grifters. The people who read an article like the one I wrote but have no interest in all the others are as bad as the people I wrote it about - maybe even worse.
Fortunately I am free of the need to be popular, and have no interest in the inmates who are incarcerated in the prison. They can sit in their cells and complain all they want about people not taking them seriously, but they have no-one but themselves to blame.
After all... if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
If the story of the "alien body" slides from 1947 seems familiar, then that means you are old enough, as I am, to recall this narrative when it appeared back in the 1990s. It was called the Alien Autopsy film, it was a complete and utter hoax, and yet to this day their are still a few people who swear that it was absolutely real.
Just search for the name Ed Gehrman and "alien autopsy" and you'll see the gist of that kind of true believerism in action. Anthony Bragalia is the current incarnation of Gehrman, and while the notes might have changed the melody is the same, as is the underlying pathology.
As the prophets and Cylons said in Battlestar Galactica, all of this has happened before... and all of it will happen again.
On August 28th, I received an unsolicited e-mail from my friend Kevin Randle, in response to a note I had sent him thanking him for appearing on my podcast and offering my condolences on the death of Jesse Marcel, Jr. I am publishing it here in full, with no additions or alterations of any kind. I do so with great regret, because I value confidence highly and I had agreed after receiving it to keep this communication between Kevin and I private, even though I had not asked to receive the information and was therefore under no obligation to do so. But now, when to keep that confidence requires me to stand by and say nothing about subsequent statements that I know to be untrue, then the ethical balance as I see it has shifted, and I have a duty to set the record straight, even on a matter as inconsequential to me in the grand scheme of things as the Roswell Incident.
There has been, for several months now, speculation at the UFO Iconoclasts blog about rumoured "new evidence" that could break the Roswell case wide open. Some of the statements have come from Rich Reynolds, the man who runs the blog - others have come from various commenters at the blog, including Anthony Bragalia, one of the members of the self-proclaimed "Dream Team" that came together ostensibly to examine the Roswell case with a fresh outlook. That "team" also includes Kevin, his former research partner Donald Schmitt, Schmitt's current partner Tom Carey, longtime Roswell-as-ET proponent David Rudiak, and Canadian UFO researcher Chris Rutkowski, whom I had recommended to Kevin for the spot as "team skeptic" when I turned down his invitation to join. For the full history of all this, I recommend readers go to the UFO Iconoclasts blog and look through the archives.
Things reached a head this week when Mr. Reynolds published an article titled "The Rumored 'New Roswell Evidence' by Anonymous", the central claim of which centered on the question of whether or not the "new evidence" which is the focus of the investigation by members of the "Dream Team" was photographic slides purportedly from 1947 showing alien bodies (there were other peripheral claims made, but those are beside the point). Previously, Mr. Reynolds had published claims that the slides existed but were subject to a non-disclosure agreement, among other things.
Mr. Bragalia responded at the UFO Iconoclasts blog as follows:
Folks... bogus information from Richard Reynolds... and from anonymous. He is threading a tale to create whole cloth... but there are too many holes in Mr. Reynolds tale.
I knew this to be false, at least with respect to the central point of the existence of the slides and the Dream Team's interest in them, because of what I had been told by Kevin in the e-mail of August 28th. I asked Mr. Bragalia a simple question - was the central claim by Anonymous about the slides true? As I wrote in a comment at the UFO Iconoclasts blog:
How about Mr. Bragalia answer one simple question then that goes to the heart of the matter - are there slides, or not, that the "Dream Team" have access to and which purport to be from the Roswell "crash" in 1947?
If the answer is "yes" then the story as reported by Rich is, in it's most fundamental aspect, correct. If not, then Mr. Bragalia should say so, clearly and unambiguously, and in a public venue.
This is one of those "come to Jesus" moments where people have to make a choice. Admittedly, it's penny ante stuff in the grand scheme of things, so it's more like a "come to Jebus" moment, but still... within the context of the world in which Mr. Bragalia and the Dream Teamers live, it's the moment of truth. Is the basic story true... or not? Is Anonymous a liar (and Rich one too by implication), or is his / her account accurate in its core claim?
Mr. Bragalia's response? "Paul Kimball you must be kidding. I owe you nothing. Come to Jesus? How about go to hell?"
"I have seen no photographs, slides, or pictures of alien creatures associated with the Roswell crash," Randle explained. "I have participated in no investigations of such slides."
That was the straw that shifted the balance for me, because the truth, as readers will see from the text of the e-mail below, is markedly different. There are slides. There is a non-disclosure agreement (which has clearly been breached, because the information made its way to me via a "Dream Team" member), and Kevin has investigated the claims of the slides.
In follow-up e-mails after August 28th I pleaded with Kevin to release this information himself, or at the very least disassociate himself from the "Dream Team" for reasons that should be clear from reading his e-mail (especially as they relate to Schmitt). He told me he was going to do so, and then several weeks later sent a note apologizing for "dilly-dallying". Last night he sent me a note saying that he could not do so now that Mr. Reynolds had published what is clearly substantially correct information, and because I had commented on it at the UFO Iconoclasts blog. "Now is no longer the proper moment to bail. If Reynolds had waited a week or two, I would have been long gone." I am afraid that given how the past month has unfolded, I simply do not believe that, but the point is moot.
My response? The proper time to bail was the end of August at the latest, given what the e-mail published below exposes - skulduggery, mistrust, half truths and complete untruths, profiteering, true believerism... all the things that undermine real research, a point Kevin made to me twelve years ago when I first met him.
Whether people believe it or not, it pains me greatly to publish this, because Kevin is one of the very few UFO researchers for whom I still had any respect. At his core, I still believe him to be a decent and honourable man. But it is clear to me now that he cannot be objective when it comes to Roswell, and that has led him to participate in the evasions, half-truths and untruths, and behind-the-scenes skulduggery that is the bread and butter of the Ufology circus, and Roswell in particular, but which has no place in a true, honest, open and objective search for the truth.
I didn't ask to be dragged into all of this, and I won't be a party to it further for any reason. It offends me on many levels.
The truth abhors a vacuum. It is time for someone to fill in the void with the real story, and let the chips fall where they may.
Paul Kimball
From Kevin Randle to Paul Kimball, August 28th, 11:11 pm.
Good Evening, Paul –
Okay, here’s the deal, again just between you and me, and because Carey’s book has really screwed the pooch on this one. He had told me that it was about Wright Field and Wright Patterson Air Force Base. It was about what was there and I had no idea that he was going to delve as deeply in the Roswell pool as he did.
Two years ago we had a meeting (and a few others since then) about doing the ultimate Roswell book. I told him, and Schmitt after Tom invited him aboard, that for this to work, we’d need to come up with something new and exciting. I said that we could review the data as presented, weed out the crap, and present the case as dispassionately as possible, but we needed something beyond the witness testimony and the few documents held. This had to be heavily and properly footnoted with all sources revealed for the “peer” review to follow. (I put peer in quotes simply because I figured that some of the peer review wouldn’t actually fit the definition, but that everyone had to be able to evaluate the sources.)
They agreed with that but said nothing to me at the time. Now, here’s where it gets good. They knew, at that time, of a source who approached them and who claimed he had photographic evidence. Two color slides of the alien bodies, taken by a reputable geologist. The Kodak coding on the slides was proper for 1947 and there were plans underway to have the photographs properly analyzed.
To get that information, both had to sign a “nondisclosure” agreement and both foolishly did. The investigation took off from there. I don’t know if you’ve seen The Newsroom on HBO but they talked of a Red Team to evaluate the data that the White Team was getting. Although I was excluded, and I think of my role as the Red Team, I don’t believe that was actually their thinking. They’d signed the damned agreement and they were stuck with it.
What they didn’t count on was that the source would be down in Midland, Texas, talking to the geologist buddies of the man who took the photographs, and the story got out from there. I’m not sure what the purpose of the Midland trip was, but all it did was put the information out for others to find, including Nick Redfern. I’ve talked to Nick about this.
Here’s where the train slips off the rails. I have learned that the man with the photographs is not the man who took them. The man with them got them from his sister who was cleaning out an attic in Sedona, Arizona but the sister was helping her boyfriend in the cleaning who worked for an estate service. (Convoluted enough for you?) The slides were found in a box in a separate envelop taped to an inner box lid, away from other slides. The box apparently belonged to the second wife of the photographer… the other slides in the box contained pictures from that “era” including one of Eisenhower (which is obviously five years too late).
Neither Schmitt nor Carey told me the photographer’s name or the name of the man who allegedly took the pictures (though given the chain of custody, I’m not sure who might have taken the pictures but I had a name of the man who died decades ago and I know the name of the man who allegedly took them), but I have been able to learn all that, and found a telephone number of the man who lives in Chicago.
I’m sure that I don’t have to tell you the problem with these slides… oh, and the man who has them now and who has approached a number of media outlets attempting to sell them, is a graphic artist. And the date code on the slides is correct for 1947. Well, Kodak recycled the codes so the date could have been 1927, 1947 or 1967. No real help there.
I have been reluctant to say anything about this because, in the very off chance that the photographs are authentic, if I revel what I know, the owner will blame Schmitt and Carey for telling me, even though I learned everything through other sources. I haven’t wanted to screw up their chances of getting the pictures, but I really don’t believe the photos to be real.
This is the alien autopsy without the motion, without the photographer, or without a chain of custody. Say what you will about Santilli, but at least he claimed to have talked to the photographer. Carey and Schmitt aren’t even sure who that might have been. Someone other than the geologist might have taken them and given them to the man who taped them in the box.
While this little conspiracy of silence has annoyed me, I understood the necessity for it. If the photos were real, premature release could jeopardize the investigation and if they were fakes, then Roswell had just taken an unnecessary hit. If the investigation revealed them to be fake we could make that announcement without having to retract anything about their authenticity.
So, you say, what changed? Carey and Schmitt’s book… which, when I saw the nature of it, revealed more about the Roswell case. They simply couldn’t talk about what went on at Wright Field; they had to get deeply into Roswell as well. It looks as if we’re putting out the information piecemeal, put I had nothing to do with that.
My dilemma, then, is how to tell Tom that I’m now out. I hung in there with the unilateral decision to invite in Schmitt, even given his history of lying (which, BTW, continues in some arenas, and Schmitt’s grab for the spotlight to the exclusion of all others). But this latest book seems to sink our effort before we even get to the end point.
No, I do not believe the story which is the main reason for not mentioning it. Why get everyone all excited about something that is going to blow up… and I suspect Rich Reynolds, knows it and is hoping to catch me in this web.
I think that brings you up to date, other than to say that, again, between you and me, I have enough income from pensions that I could never sell another word and live quite comfortably. I write what pleases me now rather than what might be more commercially successful.
I don’t know if this fully explains the situation, but if you have questions, feel free to ask. I tell all this privately, but will maintain publicly the attitude I have shown up to now. I see no reason to reveal this even though there are some who believe they have a right to everything we had found.
Of course any comments you care to make would be greatly appreciated. I just can’t wrap my head around the chain of custody.
Kevin
Note: An addendum, at 11:20 pm Thursday, September 25th.
Now that the betrayal is out in full, let me say that there was nothing in my statement that wasn't the truth. Whatever Paul might believe, or think he's proved, I have never seen the slides, and I have not participated in the investigation of them.
Because it was not my investigation, I believed it was up to those others to publish what they had when they were satisfied that it was authentic. I simply had no role in it. I am astonished that Paul would violate my trust by publishing an email that was clearly meant to be held between Paul and me... and then I'm accused of duplicity.
My reply:
Kevin wrote: "I have not participated in the investigation of them.
From Kevin's e-mail to me:
"I have learned that the man with the photographs is not the man who took them. The man with them got them from his sister who was cleaning out an attic in Sedona, Arizona but the sister was helping her boyfriend in the cleaning who worked for an estate service. (Convoluted enough for you?) The slides were found in a box in a separate envelop taped to an inner box lid, away from other slides. The box apparently belonged to the second wife of the photographer… the other slides in the box contained pictures from that “era” including one of Eisenhower (which is obviously five years too late).
Neither Schmitt nor Carey told me the photographer’s name or the name of the man who allegedly took the pictures (though given the chain of custody, I’m not sure who might have taken the pictures but I had a name of the man who died decades ago and I know the name of the man who allegedly took them), but I have been able to learn all that, and found a telephone number of the man who lives in Chicago."
Kevin may want to try and split ethical and moral hairs, but the claim that he has "not participated in the investigation of them" is clearly false, because he conducted his own investigation, and reached conclusions from it.
And yet Kevin thinks I'm the bad guy here. Given what can be seen in that e-mail (and others that I will not publish but which followed this one), it sadly comes as no surprise to me that Kevin is trying the one tactic left to him, the last refuge of the PR scoundrel - blame the messenger, and try to shift the story.
To which I will add a final note. Kevin's comments to Brewer shaded the truth to a degree where the grey and the black are indistinguishable, and the white is long gone. I was appalled. I was also terribly disappointed that despite obviously knowing what the right course was, he refused to take it (despite saying he would), and continued his association with a known liar who once accused him of being a government agent, and whom he acknowledged is still lying (Kevin's words, not mine). But that alone wouldn't have led me to publish - his comments to Brewer did, because they were public and they were not fully truthful.
I regret it's come to this, but I never asked him to send me that information, and I'm not the bad guy here. I realized when I published it that this would almost certainly cause an irreparable breach between Kevin and myself, not because he would never forgive me (anyone who forgave Schmitt clearly has a high degree of forbearance), but because I'll never be able to trust or respect him again. I honestly wish it were otherwise. As I said, I'm terribly disappointed in him.
And there it rests, for each to judge on their own.
Every time I deal with a so-called "ufologist" I think of the late Mac Tonnies, who was worth any ten of them when it comes to intellect, integrity and imagination.
My good friend Rev. Kyle Wagner, the Anglican rector for Seaforth Parish in Nova Scotia, joined me this week for a wide-ranging conversation about faith, spirituality, the nature of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, whether or not there is evil in the world, how and why the Church still engages in exorcisms, what happens to us after death… and some paranormal topics as well, including ghosts, the prospect of extraterrestrial life (whether here on Earth as visitors or “out there” among the stars) and how it might affect our view of ourselves and our relationship with God, and Kyle's own personal spiritual awakening.
Kyle has a Bachelor’s Degree in history and political science from Mount Allison University, and a Masters of Divinity from the Atlantic School of Theology. His occasional blog can be found here.
This episode was recorded on 4 September, 2013.
Download this episode directly here, or listen to it at The Other Side of Truth podcast here.
Veteran researcher / author Kevin Randle joins me for a wide-ranging discussion about the Roswell UFO incident, and Randle’s work over the past two years with the ”Dream Team” (Tom Carey, Donald Schmitt, Anthony Bragalia, Chris Rutkowski, David Rudiak, and Kevin), who have been re-examining the evidence for and against the crash of an extraterrestrial spacecraft near Roswell in July, 1947. I challenged Kevin to make the his best case for the crashed spacecraft scenario, and then we dug deeper to see how well the evidence has held up over the past thirty years. The answers may surprise people familiar with Kevin’s long-held view that the Roswell incident was indeed a crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft - particularly his admission that despite his own personal belief that an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in New Mexico in 1947, when we examine the evidence as it exists today, "We really can't get to the extraterrestrial. We can eliminate practically everything else that you care to mention, but that still doesn't get us to the extraterrestrial."
Towards the end of the episode, we briefly discuss the other famous / infamous crashed spacecraft story from the late 1940s, the Aztec incident, and why both of us agree that it was a hoax / con.
This episode was recorded on 23 August, 2013.
Download this episode directly here, or listen to it at The Other Side of Truth podcast here.
I got a friendly note earlier this afternoon from a longtime reader who expressed her surprise that I was posting so much about religion and spirituality, particularly mysticism. She noted that it seemed odd for a self-described agnostic to be eschewing rationalism for New Age-ism.
A primer about my background is perhaps in order, in case others are curious, and in case I choose to post more on the topic. The subject of my still not-quite-finished graduate thesis in history was 19th century religion in New Brunswick, in particular the Free Christian Baptist Church as it struggled to reconcile the mystical and experiential roots of its New Light beginnings under Henry Alline in the late 18th century with the 19th century impulse to become more oriented towards the increasingly rationalist mainstream norms of the more established Protestant Churches. This led to a schism within the denomination in the mid 1880s between the majority who had integrated the Church more fully into the broader society, with an emphasis on things like denominational newspapers and bigger and more elaborate churches and paid clergy and missionary societies, and those who wanted to re-focus on the core spiritual experience that they felt was being obscured by non-essentials. They gravitated towards the holiness movement that had been started in the 1840s by the great Christian mystic Phoebe Palmer, who stressed a personal and experiential union with God, and they were eventually expelled from the Free Christian Baptists. They formed their own smaller denomination, called the Reformed Baptists - the Church that my late paternal grandfather, Rev. Hollis Mullen, was ordained in a few decades later.
Portrait of my grandfather Rev. Hollis Kimball,
by my cousin Judy Bouma.
I remember many conversations I had with my grandfather when I was young, and if perhaps I didn't quite grasp everything that he was trying to tell me at the time (I was still just a teenager when he passed away), they were embedded in my memory, and have served as the inspiration ever since for my own truth-seeking.
So mysticism, particularly of the Christian type, is nothing new to me, both from an academic and from a personal perspective. I remain an agnostic, because unlike my grandfather I have not been able to embrace a certainty about any of it - I've never had that profound encounter with "the divine" that he once described to me, and which changed the course of his life. But I keep looking for it, and trying to understand what it might mean by studying the works and ideas and lives of those who have had it... whatever it is.
Those seeking to understand the true nature of the paranormal would do well to immerse themselves in the writings of the world's great mystics, as opposed to more reports of eyewitness UFO sightings, ghost hunter television programs, or your average once-a-week sermon. A good place to start would be the work of German theologian Jakob Böhme, who lived from 1575 until 1624. He wrote about the non-duality between humanity and God (or, as I would call it, an advanced non-human, or possibly para-human, intelligence). As has been the case for many mystics, in 1600 Böhme had a "vision" that he believed revealed the spiritual structure of the worldto him, as well as the relationship between God and man, and good and evil. This was followed in 1610 by another, even more profound experience which convinced Böhme that he had a calling to speak and write about his experiences, and his interpretation of what they meant. He was viewed as a heretic by the Lutheran religious authorities of his time.
Böhme's mystical ideas were complex, and like many of us he struggled within the confines that language imposes on the communication of ideas. But the central thrust of his work, often presented told in allegorical terms, is clear and accessible, and still resonates today - like the Gnostics, he eschewed the external rule-making god of organized religion, and focused on the search for the Inner Light, "the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." [John 1:9]
Böhme posited that there was no difference (the "non-duality") between human beings and God - we are part of each other. He wrote:
Don't think that God is only in some far away heaven, and that the soul, when it departs the human body, must soar aloft many hundred thousands of miles off in order to reach Heaven. No, it need not do that to reach Heaven, because when the soul in Christ departs the body, it is already present in Heaven and there the soul is with God and in God, and also with all the holy angels, and the soul can suddenly be above and suddenly beneath; it is not hindered by anything. For in the unity of God there is no separation of seeming distance. Indeed, in what place should the departed soul of man rather be than with its King and Redeemer Jesus Christ? The fact is that near and far off in God are one thing, one comprehensibility; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, everywhere.
Moreover, this unity is found throughout the universe, for all that there is both here and throughout the universe is, in essence, one Person manifesting Himself. This seemingly outward universe is nothing more than the Godhead playing the joyous melody of His life through His creative instruments which are all of the varied physical forms found throughout the universe, especially the form known as man which He always intended to be His highest song of praise to His eternal and uncreated glory! So you see that wherever you are in this world, you are in Heaven.
The universe is the outcome and development of "One Grand Thought." All things are governed by one central law, and all planes of existence are related."This world," wrote Böhme "with all of its physical properties is in union with the vast vistas of the heavenly spaces above the earth. There is only one Heart, one Being, one Will, one God, All in all."
Böhme's work is deep and rich, and rewards those who undertake an examination of it with a broader insight of the possibilities inherent in what we call the paranormal, or the supernatural. If we are all one with each other, and the "divine", then the "paranormal" is more than even a reflection of ourselves - it isus, even as it appears separate and often confusing and mysterious, to the point of apparent inscrutability. But that could be the result of our own dislocation from our connection to our true self, which is still there, waiting to be discovered... and perhaps, on a subconscious level, reminding us through lights in the skies and other hints that there is something beyond the rationalist and materialist world in which we have imprisoned our true nature.
A good starting point for internet resources available for Böhme can be found here and here.
Are we just meat-based computers, or is there much more in there... and out there as well (as George Harrison wrote, within and without you)? That is the fundamental question underlying all aspects of the so-called paranormal, I believe - including UFOs. The great mystics - which include the Christian mystics - have been wrestling with this topic from the beginning of recorded history. Jesus, for example (the greatest of all Christian mystics, although I suppose that it would be more accurate to view him as a Jewish mystic) - in John 17: 21 - 23 [KJV]:
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
As I noted in my recent podcast with Dean Radin, this mystical core has been buried by the established churches for most of the last 2,000 years (with the odd exception), but it's still there, open to a much more interesting interpretation and discussion than you'll find coming from most pulpits. And it's in that mysticism that I believe the truth resides, should there be a truth to the paranormal beyond the structures of our rationalist / materialist worldview, because it offers us the opportunity to explore the most fascinating of all possibilities - that at a basic level (call it a quantum level), we are all God, and God is us - in which case, the things we are seeing are things we have created ourselves. As Hildegarde of Bingen put it: "You are encircled by the arms of the mystery of God." Or, as Luke wrote [17:21, KJV] - “The kingdom of God is within you”. Paul Kimball
Apropos of the general theme discussed in my book The Other Side of Truth: The Paranormal, The Art of the Imagination, and The Human Condition (namely, that the "paranormal" is an artistic presentation to us by an advanced non-human intelligence), as well as some ongoing discussions in the comments section on various posts at Rich Reynolds' UFO Iconoclasts blog about the nature of our possible interaction with this advanced non-human intelligence, I think this quote by one of my favourite painters, Max Beckmann, is apropos:
Art is creative for the sake of realization, not for amusement: for transfiguration, not for the sake of play. It is the quest of our self that drives us along the eternal and never-ending journey we must all make.
As I wrote at Rich's blog, I don't really care who is caressing the canvas with the brush, or when, or what it looks like - I'm more interested in what it all means, or is meant to mean. And therein lies the philosophical conversation that ufology (and all of the crazy paranormal stuff) has been missing, as does most modern formalized religion. But it's the only part of the puzzle that really matters, at least to me.
In the quest for meaning we find ourselves, and are transfigured in the process. But why would an advanced non-human intelligence engage in all of this, often in what seems to the modern rationalist / materialist to be the most obtuse and in many cases ridiculous ways? I quote again from Beckmann, who stated:
Imagination is perhaps the most decisive characteristic of mankind. My dream is the imagination of space – to change the optical impression of the world of objects by a transcendental arithmetic progression of the inner being. That is the precept. In principal any alteration of the object is allowed which has a sufficiently strong creative power behind it. Whether such alteration causes excitement or boredom in the spectator is for you to decide.
In order to understand "the other" (whatever that "other" may be), we must first think like an artist, whether a painter, a musician, a poet, an actor, a magician, a dancer... whatever. We must use our imagination, and try to feel what it is like to be a creator and a performer.
In short, we must think like them... and only then can we begin to understand them, and appreciate the works that they are creating.
Rich Reynolds at the UFO Iconoclasts has a new post titled UFOs: Alone in the woods with your thoughts and a wish-fulfillmentwherein he speculates about UFOs as a result of wish fulfillment on the part of the observer. An excerpt: You can read the entire post here. I find this an interesting line of thought worthy of discussion, but perhaps from a slightly different angle than Rich takes. I left the following comment:
Drab lives, with sexual frustration, could easily spark a wish to see or experience something unique or unusual.Today, the public (the masses) with their need to have fifteen minutes of fame –that damn Andy Warhol perquisite for life – could evoke, and often does, a wish-fulfillment, and in some, at the edge of geekiness, would use UFOs to bring that about. We often find, don’t we, that those who’ve seen a UFO or had an experience are people with a prior-to-their incidents interest in science fiction and its accoutrements (movies, TV shows, books, magazines)... That would be the basis for their wish-fulfillment, the underlying material(s) for their claim to unique human experience.
I find this idea to be an interesting area of thought experimentation, although perhaps not quite in the same way as Rich does. I left the following comment at his blog:
This leads me back to the idea I posited in my book, that some advanced non-human intelligence is interacting with us as a way to inspire us to imagine a much broader world (for lack of a better term - interesting and fulfilling also work) than the one to which we have confined ourselves (or been confined, depending upon how you look at it). That's what art, in all it's forms, does, and I see the paranormal as an artistic presentation (and sometimes co-creation). Thus, in a sense, "they" are encouraging us not just to "wish" (upon a star?)... but ultimately to make those wishes come true.
That's a photo of my Mom in May, 1966. I was born on 2 January, 1967, and I'm told I was a few days late, so I'm in this photo as well. I just didn't know it at the time.
Which makes me wonder - what will I be doing a second after I die?
I think it will be the same thing I was doing a second before I was born.
I just have no idea what that was / will be... which is what makes it all so interesting.
Historian and author Aaron John Gulyas joined me back in July to discuss his new book Extraterrestrials and the American Zeitgeist, as well as his forthcoming book The Chaos Conundrum. The conversation began with an examination of the Contactee movement, focusing on its place as a significant part of 20th century American social and cultural history. Aaron and I then engaged in a discussion about the underlying political message of the Contactees, and the differences between their more experiential and individualist approach to the UFO phenomenon as compared to the more institutional approach of so-called “scientific” ufologists such as Donald Keyhoe, and how those two divergent outlooks were often structured along class lines. The conversation then turned to a look at atemporality and how it might inform much of what we call the “paranormal”. Along the way, Aaron recounted a personal experience he had whilst investigating a haunted cemetery, and he and I worked in some observations about religion and politics.
