Over the past few days I've been blogging about the rash of very strange space-and-UFO-related stories that seem to form a context from which to read President Obama's recent executive Order concerning space weather, and that context has included everything from the macabre and bizarre death of a UFO researcher in Poland to a set of Wikileaks emails implying that some sort of very deep politics - to utilize Professor Peter Dale Scott's term - is taking place behind the scenes in the past few months, and particularly, in the past couple of weeks. I've already referred to the strange wikileaks emails concerning contact between Podesta - campaign manager for Darth Hillary - and former Blink 182 rock star Tom DeLonge, who retired from the group to pursue his research and interest in UFOs and who recently co-authored an entertaining novel on that subject:
Now I don't know about you, but I have difficulty believing that anyone as highly placed as Mr. Podesta, or anyone as famous as Mr. DeLonge, would be planning meetings to discuss rock music.
But the story has broadened and deepened considerably by other Wikileaks detailing similar correspondence between the recently-deceased Apollo astronaut Ed Mitchell, and Mr. Podesta. Interestingly enough, the story gained some traction in Russia's media outlet, RT:
According to the first RT article, Mitchell made reference to a war in space, and of course, to how kindly space brothers are willing to share their knowledge of zero point energy in return for a human pledge of "no violence in space":
“Because the War in Space race is heating up, I felt you should be aware of several factors as you and I schedule our Skype talk,” Mitchell, who died in February, tells Podesta in the mails from 2015, before mentioning a “nonviolent” alien species that wishes to share with mankind “zero point energy.”
Mitchell, who includes in his email signature that he’s the “6th man to walk on the Moon,” warns Podesta that the “nonviolent ETI” are helping to share zero point energy with Earth but will not “tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space."
Notably, Mitchell does not advance any argument or details about the "War in Space race" that is "heating up," which opens the door to all sorts of high octane speculation: does he mean a war that is already going on? or a coming and planned "space war" (which seems to be the most probably interpretation of his remarks)? And just who are these "non-violent ETIs"? How does Mitchell know them? How does he know they're non-violent?
And most importantly: what's the quid pro quo? What is Earth offering in return for all of this bountiful technology, a technology which, if you've been following my research on the subject in various books over the years, and this past week's blogs, isn't all that beyond human theorization and engineering anyway?
For me, there's a disturbing hidden set of implications to Mitchell's "logic" and that disturbing implication is evident in the people he is contacting: if ETI is non-violent, why not step in and put a stop to it now? And more importantly, why would ETI want to deal with a political party and philosophy that has for decades been at the forefront of abortion on demand, and bombing the daylights out of millions of innocent Muslims and tearing their countries apart? This suggests to me that there's a moral cognitive dissonance at work with Mr. Mitchell's ETIs, and that makes me question that little matter of the quid pro quo.
All this brings us to the second article, and recalls the strange death of UFO investigator Max Spiers which I blogged about a few days ago. Consider these statements from the second RT article:
John Podesta arranged a meeting with astronaut Edgar Mitchell to discuss the US government disclosing information to the public on aliens, according to emails leaked by WikiLeaks. The meeting was described as a prelude to involving President Barack Obama in the discussion.
“Our government is still operating from outdated beliefs and policies” Mitchell wrote in the email from 2014, in which he requested “a conversation with you and President Obama regarding the next steps in extraterrestrial disclosure for the benefit of our country and our planet.”
Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the moon, said the information needed to be disclosed to allow humans to achieve “planet sustainability generation energies," as well exploring the cosmos without reverting to “colonialism and destruction” and as a way for the government to respectfully regard “the wisdom and intellect of its citizens as we move into space.”
In the email, Mitchell claimed that the US government made a conscious decision 50 years ago to “remove knowledge of the extraterrestrial presence from the citizens of our country.” This decision is no longer relevant, according to Mitchell, who said it is detrimental to “science, religion, and responsible citizenry.”
Podesta’s assistant, Eryn Sepp, accepted the invitation, but said, “John would likely take this meeting alone first before involving the President.”
The former astronaut, who died earlier in 2016, had communicated with Podesta via email before, warning him of an impending space war as well as Vatican knowledge of extraterrestrials.
Podesta, who is heading Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is known for his UFO fervor stating earlier this year that he had convinced Clinton to declassify UFO files if she takes power. In 2002, he openly advocated for the public release of documents on Area 51.
In the latest batch of emails released by WikiLeaks, Podesta was asked by author and Apollo museum curator Robert Fish to discuss how “hard scientific data” can be collected on UFOs.
“Based on significant personal experience, I can attest that UFO hunters are looking in the wrong places.” Fish told Podesta in the 2015 mail.
Podesta declined to meet with Fish, but said he will keep his contact information.
Implicit between the lines here is that there is a religious dimension to the UFO phenomenon, but again, details on any specifics are not forthcoming. There is, of course, the usual claptrap from government think tanks and so on that the idea of extraterrestrial intelligent life would be a threat to various religious fundamentalisms. But the last time I checked, both Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have long understood and held that there are other forms of intelligent life besides humanity. Even Christ hints of it in the statement "I have other sheep not of this fold."
Equally disturbing is the Vatican's alleged involvement. The history, and claims, of the papacy are there for all to see, consider Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctam for example; indeed, the universal claims of that institution and the tyrannical and oftentimes barbarous nature of its government and institutions led to the Protestant revolt in the 16th century, and to its excommunication by the Orthodox Church in the 11th. Why would this institution be chosen either by the powers that be or by ETIs - especially non-violent ones - for a "disclosure" event? It would seem, once again, that we are chin-to-chin with the moral dissonance phenomenon again, and in that, there is the dangerous possibility of great deception.
Over the years I've taken somewhat the opposite tack of the disclosure mania crowd, and argued that there may have been good and persuasive reasons for that government secrecy, namely, that perhaps the conclusion was drawn that these alleged ETIs were not friendly at all, but rather, as many ancient records seem to indicate, not only hostile to humanity but positively anti-human. I have argued that in any secret UFO study group, one facet or area of such research would be precisely the evaluation of those ancient texts, and indeed, Dr. Jacques Vallee, among others, stands as an example of one such expert UFO researcher with known connections to various governments' studies who has been sounding a much more cautionary note with respect to the phenomenon. And if not friendly, then the choice and decision had to be taken to be able to defend ourselves, in case the cost of acquiring all of Mr. Mitchell's wonderful ETI technology was too high...
In any case, the powers that be now find themselves in a conundrum, for having lied about the JFK assassination, OKC bombing, the Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 9/11 and virtually every other thing one can think of, why would one believe them on anything they have to say about "disclosure" and ETIs, friendly or otherwise? Why would one believe the likes of a Hillary Clinton, unless, of course, she was of a similar mind and character to that which she would "disclose" and declassify?
See you on the flip side...