Page Content (OCR)
genially at the same table with an abductee ready to discuss the width of a Markabian nostril to the millimeter, and continue on afterwards sedulously pursuing the detailed minutiae and technical discrepancies that suited Sa a ee ee The broad range of the public—at—large was faithfully represented, and each upheld the implicit viewpoint for which he stood with staunch disregard of the surrounding information—pool. There were, when one analyzed the broad groupings into which people factored out, apparently two major and antipodal "approaches" to the topic; when boiled down it seemed to be a matter of those claiming a description from the inside, and those prosecuting an investigation from the outside. The former might take the rap of "true believers", considering the paucity of "objective evidence" they seemed able to educe on behalf of their first-person testimonies; but the latter might equally absorb the critique of the "Doubting Thomas" orientation, more charitably categorized as the Missouri syndrome of "seeing is believing" (where the only acceptable "seeing", apparently, is literally that of the skeptic himself, the testimony of any others being doubted out of hand as if every witness deposition were ipso facto the report of a sneak-thief). The hue and cry for "documentation" that took place in the same room as the shouts of those already raped by beings whose existence was in question (over precisely that dust—raising issue) always seemed a forest—for—the-trees demand, effectually stalling the proceedings on the basis of an inappropriate principle. There never appeared to be a serious question amongst those for whom "documentation" seemed most sacred, as to the derivation of that special standard in the first place. Yet it obviously held the same place What made something "documented"? Military reports, filled out in triplicate and sealed by a Presidential blue ribbon committee? Then the subject of UFOs virtually had such sanctification, in the presence of papers newly released for instance under the Freedom of Information Act. Yet official stamps and executive seals can be doubted; primary sources can be called into irresolvable question every bit as much as secondary; and this was proving the case already with regular organized efforts to discredit the authenticity of even those photocopied sheets that came right to public view by way of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At this point then, not documentation but the exercise of independent intelligence, the summoning of innate values of feeling and intuition inevitably played a role as large if not ultimately greater than "hard evidence"; the heart and mind to question why "falsified" papers (propounding such faith—shattering subjects as MJ—12, and the existence of both alien craft and alien bodies in custody of agencies that have officially denied the same for so long) should be circulated by the source least likely on the surface to suffer a nimor of such magnitude, has to be drawn on by each for himself. Reliance on the sanctification of agency or newsmedia is, ultimately, the same thing as admitting the failure to ask for adequate documentation re one's ordinary, taken—for—granted notions that collectively converge upon such "values" as axiomatic. Where is the equally fervid request that all ideas and modes of conventional perception culturally absorbed from birth without a whimper "show their actual work"? Where are the authenticating and compelling equations behind them? 83 T-Bird_Vs_The_Flying_saucers.htm his style of acceptance. in secular culture as the Revealed Word held in the Holy. Now You See It, Now You Don't