Being an incomplete statement of a complex idea...

At the inception of this group, it’s probably a good moment to state as briefly as possible what the reasoning behind it is, although that seems to me to be a bit of a tall order. What is this intended to be about; what is the basic idea behind most of my videos? This is actually difficult to explain, so I’ll have to do it slowly. There seem to be many sources which feed into what I am doing.

In fact, the whole thing goes back decades, right back to when I was a student in Cambridge, England, and found myself pulled back into “philosophy” (of science), having abandoned it when I failed to get into uni the first time, and more latterly when the study of Stoicism again led me back into serious reading and thinking, which was ironically easier out here in the Mysterious East where obtaining texts costs nothing thanks to the Internet, and I started to notice... something.

As additional context, I had been reading a whole load of texts about mysterious phenomena and UFOs literally for decades, and more latterly had been reading up on Bigfoot and other cryptid anthropoids when along came Carl Gustav Jung and the possibility of interpreting many of these things from a completely different angle; the input from Jacques Vallée seems to be highly germane, also.

Anyway, I got the only Grade A of my cohort in my first year in Cambridge (which was actually the second year for that cohort; long story) in the Philosophy and Sociology of Science, reading mainly about Karl Feyerabend’s “anything goes” idea of progress in science but already realising (for example) the fact that the rise of solid-state semiconductors did not really make valve technology useless, but the earlier technology was irreducibly complex in comparison (and therefore did not give itself to the kind of large-scale integration which led to the microprocessor); hence we still have the technology and it has been rediscovered by a whole new generation who prefer its tonal qualities to that of the corresponding semiconductor rendering. There was also the concept of “appropriate technology”, which had become something of a hot potato at the time as it was starting to be realised that (for example) high-technology interventions in places like Africa were rendered irrelevant without supporting infrastructure. But that is a concept which relates everywhere: the simple fact that one person thinks an idea is “good” (essentially because of their own individual ideas or biases) does not mean that it is appropriate, useful or even possible in a different location and situation. What this idea started to expose was the absurdity of irrational idealism.

Fast forward to today, and I had started to notice something strange, and this was at about the same time that I discovered the ideas of C G Jung and the whole thing seemed to click together. As I relate in the video, in his late publication: “Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies”, Jung initially dismissed the notion of UFOs being actual physical objects, seeing them as ‘projections’ from the unconscious into the conscious realm (which he felt represented “rumours” at a social level), but by the time he came to the end of writing the book had to admit that it was difficult to state that these objects were uniformly “unreal” (i.e. non-physical) when the number of photographed images was increasing - how can one photograph an image which exists only in the mind of the observer? We might add that another factor weighing against these phenomena being purely ‘visionary’ was that very often, they would leave physical traces behind - ash or other materials, radioactivity which could be detected, ground indentations (which might need quite substantial weight, depending upon the nature of the substrate), sometimes damage to vegetation in the area (including plants still smouldering or burning when discovered afterwards).

When we look back on all that has happened both before and after he published that book, we cannot expect Jung to have been completely correct. His view of the objects seemed to suggest a certain uniformity of morphology, and we know that this was, and remains, quite untrue. The term ‘flying saucer’ was created by the media in response to Kenneth Arnold’s account of seeing several bright objects flying at 9,000 feet close to Mount Rainier in 1947, but as discussed in my own video, he described them as ‘heel shaped’ (i.e. meaning a kind of capital D shape, as shown in his original report) rather than actually flat and round, but Jung seemed to think that they were all either circular (symbolically female) or cigar-shaped (symbolically male) with therefore a symbolic crossover into his pre-existing concept of the circle or mandala representing wholeness. Observations have shown, over time, that there is no set morphology for UFOs, that they can be almost any shape.

Recent events, however, seem to indicate that Jung was actually on to something. Readers here will recall the “drone flap” which blew up over the east coast of the US in late 2024, in which large aerial vehicles with bright lights were being seen in the skies at night. In the absence of information, rumours abounded, including the bizarre notion that they were of foreign origin, coming from some unseen “Iranian mother ship” off the coast. This matter was later clarified as "a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones and law enforcement drones." (1) Jung mentioned other similar instances, such as the Fatima event, where it later emerged that (a) not everyone present at the time recalled seeing the strange solar activity, and (b) interestingly, it had been raining previously and it was reported that after the event, people who had had wet clothes as a result now found them to be dry, so clearly there had been some kind of physical event, but the one reported primarily was not experienced by all potential observers.

Another odd feature which I only recalled after the video was completed was that, in earlier times (like the 1960s and 70s), when there were a lot more “nuts ‘n’ bolts” UFO types writing about the phenomena, there was an idea put about that the reason why a UFO could be seen one moment and gone the next, without apparently zooming off at an angle and simply disappearing in the distance, was that they had accelerated away at great speed along the viewer’s line of sight, so that they seemed to vanish instantaneously. However, having just examined Jung’s idea of them being a ‘projection’ from the unconscious mind, it is easy to see what may have been happening here: an individual is convinced that UFOs exist, and one day, sees one but - perhaps before he or she is able to (for example) pull out a camera and take a shot of it - it suddenly disappears, but if Jung is correct, it was never there in the first place. What happened was that it was projected into the conscious mind’s visual field by the unconscious mind, and when the ‘projection’ suddenly ended, the UFO disappeared. It was merely a short ‘message’ from the unconscious mind to the conscious.

As we suggested earlier, however, it does not automatically follow from this that sightings are all unreal or hoaxes. The late Dr. Chuck Missler discussed the UFO phenomenon in his video: “Return of the Nephilim”, and stated that there were several thousand images of UFOs which were considered to be genuine, and as we also suggested above, one could not possibly take a photo of an image which exists only in one’s mind - in such circumstances, one would have to draw it instead. It does, however, take us to the heart of the phenomenon’s strange duality, in that, as Jung stated, perhaps these ‘objects’ have been there forever, but we have only really noticed them recently at a time when (a) there was a real threat in the form of the Cold War, and (b) there therefore existed a wish for someone or something to deliver us from it, at the same time as (c) more of these aerial phenomena were being noticed, resulting in a sudden increase in projections. Or, as he himself put it:

It seems to me... that there is a third possibility: that Ufos are real material phenomena of an unknown nature, presumably coming from outer space, which perhaps have long been visible to mankind, but otherwise have no recognizable connection with the earth or its inhabitants. In recent times, however, and just at the moment when the eyes of mankind are turned towards the heavens, partly on account of their fantasies about possible space-ships, and partly in a figurative sense because their earthly existence is threatened, unconscious contents have projected themselves on these inexplicable phenomena and given them a significance they in no way deserve. Since they seem to have appeared more frequently after the second World War than before, it may be that they are synchronistic phenomena or 'meaningful coincidences.' The psychic situation of mankind and the Ufo phenomenon as a physical reality bear no recognizable causal relationship to one another, but they seem to coincide in a meaningful manner. The meaningful connection is the product on the one hand of projection and on the other of round and cylindrical forms which embody the projected meaning and have always symbolized the union of opposites.

Another feature common to many observations, and indeed, the one thing which really started to stand out to me personally after a lot of reading, was the factor of distance. By this I mean that very often, an object (or phenomenon) is observed from a great distance rather than very locally, which obviously affects the clarity and accuracy of the observation: as I said in my first GSMM video, we lose resolution when an object is distant, hence we lose any possible observation of details. Again, recalling the recent drone flap, one obvious feature is lights on aerial vehicles, and actual reported “UFOs” at night are also often observed to have lights of some kind, whether over the whole object (e.g. a glowing sphere) or as discrete lights distributed over its body. In this latter case, it would not be surprising to lose visual definition even if it were not remote from the observer at the time of observation. But the common feature here is that both terrestrial and assumed non-terrestrial craft have surprisingly similar features, and given that this is the case, is it possible that one is using the other to disguise itself, or is it possible that another (third party) has learned to do the same to hide its activities?

This was an idea that I had had for a long time: an “interested party” might be able to hide its activities behind some other phenomenon, which might be natural, known terrestrial or allegedly something else, as a means to deflecting or diverting attention or misguiding the popular perception of what was being seen, and the more time goes by, the more I am convinced that this is what is happening. Jacques Vallée had been suggesting as much for decades: that the concept of strange phenomena originating in the activities of beings from some far-off star system may be absurd, as encounters seemed to follow essentially the same pattern as that reported for centuries with the beings of folklore from all cultures around the world. And we notice that (a) there are such folk tales from any area inhabited by humans, and (b) aerial objects of unknown composition and origin continue to be reported from every part of this planet - including those which, if not for territorial or scientific reasons, might still be completely uninhabited. Check out the videos of Preston Dennett, he discusses tons of these cases.

Right now, I am trying to make progress on the second GSMM video, which moves on to the topic of Bigfoot (and allied anthropoids) as potentially real but also - as with the UFOs - this strange liminal duality according to which an allegedly non-existent animal, just like the UFOs, seems able to leave the same kinds of signs behind (for example, footprints) and is often seen from a great distance with the resulting poor definition of detail. We therefore have to contrast a potentially real anthropoid with a purely fabulous animal to characterise it as biological rather than purely legendary. I have already been working on the script for a third video, but that will have to wait.

The main take-away from all of this, however, seems to be as follows: phenomena with observable dualities in observations prompt us to ask whether it is either one thing or another, when the observations seem to suggest that it is really... both. This may be because there is really more than one phenomenon somehow conflated together observationally and difficult to differentiate. A possible analogy from science might be the argument over whether a photon is just a waveform or an actual particle. My suspicion is that confusion or deliberate misinformation as to what that phenomenon may be (i.e., a rumour) is used to hide the activities of some third party, activities which might lead to a large and negative reaction if the general populace really understood what was going on.

Above all, however, both Jung and Vallée suggest that whatever these observations represent, they are not the inhabitants of distant worlds whose amazing interstellar technology allowed them to traverse fantastic distances just to visit a small rocky planet for purposes unknown. They also suggest that whatever they are, they have always been here. My assertion, therefore, is that what we are seeing may be completely natural, but we are not allowed to understand it; and behind that ‘something’, whatever it may be, something else is being hidden. We therefore have to take the duty of analysis and understanding onto ourselves, and by thus exercising our sovereignty and avoiding the normie worship of authority figures and accepting their words without question, we will arrive at the truth.

References:

1: John Kirby, quoted at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mystery-drones-northeast-u-s-faa-authorized/