UFO Conjectures

Friday, August 23, 2013

UFOs: Microbial Contact or Divine Mischief?

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.
In the ongoing "debate" here about the nature of Jose Caravaca's "external agent" and my views of revelations to various prophets of old and George Adamski too, we've come to a kind of impasse, with Bruce Duensing and Tim Hebert challenging (or trying to) my views about what or who has been interacting with persons who've allegedly encountered UFO beings.

Mr. Duensing takes a view, if I undestand him correctly (and I may not) that a kind of cellular life- form or cellular sentience may account for what UFO witnesses experience.

To help Mr. Duensing out, I'm providing some excerpts from Peter Fotis Kapnistos, a former contributor to this blog and Facebook "friend" in his 2008 copyrighted paper, Living Proto-Cells Made in Space:

In early 2001, scientists at NASA Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley they [had] produced “membranous structures” that mimic primitive cells found in all living things.

In the 1960s, a small number of software engineers developed the idea that the Universe runs on a grid of “cellular automata” and stirred up feelings of God commanding the ultimate biological supercomputer. 11 If a higher level of intelligence does in fact control the laws of nature, it would perhaps not be feasible for it to shape carbonaceous life without an immense amount of calculation.

Complex behavior may be coordinated by relatively simple interactions... within a single bacterial species as well as between diverse species, and can regulate a multitude of different processes, fundamentally serving as a communication network.

In the 1990s, Gordon Stewart, a young molecular biologist from the University of Nottingham, engineered bacteria to emit light and arrived at one of the most valuable discoveries in microbiology. He found that bacterial cells “talk” to each other using small diffusible signalling molecules.

Bacteria can physically store and transmit genetic information throughout a far-reaching biological network.

These excerpts -- and I'll provide Peter's full paper if anyone is interested -- seem to support the idea that cellular substances mimic thought or act in sentient ways.


I've taken the theological/psychological view that the revelations to the prophets of old, Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism), and George Adamski (and his contactee cohorts) are the result either of a massive neurological/psychological disorder or, rather, an intrusion by a divine mischief maker(s).

My view intersects with those of the Gnostics:

The word Abraxas was engraved on certain antique gemstones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as amulets or charms by Gnostic groups. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a god who incorporated both Good and evil (god and demiurge) in one entity, and therefore representing the monotheistic god, singular, but  (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not omnibenevolent. (See Hermann Hesse's Demian, and Carl Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead.) Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an Egyptian god and a demon, sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of Satan/Lucifer.
(The above from Wikipedia)

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world.

Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.

"Is Gnosticism a religion or a psychology?" The answer is that it may very-well
be both.

(That from gnosis.org)

Many UFO buffs and writers apply UFO accounts where beings are involved to the AmerIndian concept known as The Trickster.

That, for me, is a pathetic and simple explanation but perhaps full of truth in its succinct way: someone or something occasionally interacts with humans, in mischievous ways.

The idea lacks profundity as I see it, but it isn't far from my hypothetical truth.

So, do cellular forms connect with humans in UFO contacts or does an evil divinity?

The Biblical/Koranic and mythical tales tell me that an omnipresent being (or beings) are the cause of some UFO-related events.

Why this would be baffles, but thinking that a clot of cellular bacterium is the culprit stretches credulity, for me anyway.

You pays your money, you takes your choice. [Aldous Huxley in Brave New World]



  • Why should the cells IN AND OF THEMSELVES be entirely responsible? If all it takes is an electro-chemical stimulation to activate an entire memory sequence, then surely such cells, if so able to produce said electro-chemical stimulation, could produce all sorts of bizarre thoughts.

    Very small cysts, for example, have been known to cause all sorts of personality distortions. Nobody is attributing a higher intelligence to those cysts -- only that they tend to disrupt thought when found inside brains.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • I think that's what Bruce meant, Parakletos, but he intoned a cellular intelligence, if you read his remarks.

    Why insert that if one is only stating that the cellular mass is just disrupting the mental machinations?

    Bruce will elaborate I hope.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • When I began looking into the strange experiences of witnesses, the only consistent quality I could determine was the relationship between the observer and the observed could not be taken literally. Science at one point thought the mind controlled the constituent body, whereas we now know the mind informs the body and vice versa.
    The more science looks into either the nature of organic life or the energy that manifests it, the constituent subsystems that comprise nature are interlinked and exhibit both self organisation only in relation to the whole. In other words, there are no closed systems, only relationships that are contingent, evolving, mutating, appearing disappearing. However, I suspect Vallee is correct that information is energy and vice versa, and so all of these self organising subsystems could be considered intelligent without sentience, in of themselves in abeyance to the whole. Memory is much the same, a sort of genome, and consciousness is self organising in abeyance to it's environment. The aggregate sum of these various states are incommensurable to the whole yet they have similarities to it. The witness testimony comes from a rearrangement of relationships, if you will, reversed, where the inside becomes the outside and vice versa. This indicates a transient state of affairs that in the whole is cyclic, where memory is turned back on it's own associative functioning to project a simulation within the normal somatic simulations it processes continually under normally somewhat stable conditions. What causes this disfunction of neurology? This is where I point out that distortion in my opinion is not a theory and is a poor descriptor like "UFO" and if a theory is not explainable, it is not a theory. It is simply a mishmash of words, terms etc.
    Paul K is echoing Ibn Al Arabi in that image ( internal and external) and imagination are one in the same. There is no "Bruce" referents are not what is being described, the same problem of referents taking Ufology on wild goose chases thinking that this reversal of inner and outer simulations means somewhat like, there's little people in our radios or televisions, external mirror images of ourselves out to screw us over. Its just ( in my opinion ) an ignorant ontology.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • Continued...Using this cellular concept, one can see if energy and information are transcribable to one another, something must have changed, fairly rapidly in these relationships to alter biology ( neurology) on a transient basis, where we mistake intelligent but not sentient processing in a changed arrangement for the machinations of others like ourselves and theres the rub. We are fixed in our perceptions using ourselves as a comparative basis to measure experience, giving it this or that value. Like Gurdjieff said, it's like a player piano, no one is driving the cart. So of course we think because we see things as X and not Y, it must be X, it must be humanoid. However, we ourselves have changed our own environment, specifically, our energy environment as it is carried by the atmosphere. Compare 100 years ago to now, these experiences once rare at a certain point almost became commonplace in comparison.We are pumping an enormous amount of energy through the atmosphere, radically changing it's natural state. Again, you change one thing in a system, everything to a lesser or greater degree must be in abeyance these self organising subsystems to the whole. Take Persinger's God helmet as an example of this consideration. Atmospheric conditions effect the conductivity of the atmosphere as also does solar influences etc. Thats why I say it resembles weather and it moves like weather in waves. Our energetic environment has changed and I suspect this has had a transient effect on neurology for some who are prone whereas others are not. This to me is more disturbing, if true, than little clueless "green men."

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • "...Tim Hebert challenging (or trying to) my views about what or who has been interacting with persons who've allegedly encountered UFO beings."

    Challenging your views? I'd have to say that I'm trying to understand your views as your approach has been similar to that of studying a "shot gun" scatter pattern on a graph.

    I refer to your recent past blog posts where you have noted the following for our consideration: quantum mechanics, Gnosticism, Book of Enoch, variations of biblical accounts/thoughts, Mohammad, Joeseph Smith, Jungian thought, and your most recent, Adamski.

    All of the above mentioned, you have correlated as examples of a potential, yet elusive internal agent affecting an individual(s) perception of a UFO encounter.

    Despite my walking through your proposed abstract minefield, I tend to agree in principle that there may be an external agent, but one that is much simpler in nature though complex in it's own right.

    Thanks for an interesting post, as they all are, and look forward to others.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • "Our energetic environment has changed and I suspect this has had a transient effect on neurology for some who are prone whereas others are not. This to me is more disturbing, if true, than little clueless "green men." --Bruce

    I think you're sort of begging the question a bit, no offense. Why should some very few people be affected while the vast majority are not, though they all be exposed to the same 'atmospheric' conditions?

    I brought up cysts -- which can get hot from being inflamed, and can physically block signals that were sent elsewhere in the brain. I'll consider that a type of 'barrier' within the brain.

    There might also be errant cells which, for whatever reason, are not firing properly. So rather than blocking signals, these cells might amplify or distort the signal before it makes its way to its destination synapses.

    There are also scientists and engineers who operate around extreme electrical fields on a near daily basis. If your theory is to be believed, shouldn't we at least expect an increased incidence of UFO 'sightings' from those working under such electrical conditions?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • Parakletos,
    To answer your comment succinctly:
    1. The phenomenon may be very localised, confined to a small area.
    2. The sightings themselves in this close proximity that creates these experiences are not common. Less so now but they do occur.

    I am not disagreeing with your views. I find them very interesting, after all, these are all speculative theories. I think your theory is testable as well as my own. To me, they share an equal footing. Its a shame theres just no money to look into these and other theories. But the topic has been poisoned to the point of one facing ridicule if it is brought up. Five years ago when I said my suspicion was this was a natural phenomenon, people reacted as if I announced I was King of The Elves. Not much has changed. I think we share a common view, this is all due to natural, albeit, subtle natural causes, not space men.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • I forgot to answer your last comment. Scientists working with similar amounts of estimated energy have safety precautions to protect them. The projected energy of this is high determined by transcribing the measurement lumens. If I recall correctly, this facet was in the Sturock Report.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • Bruce,

    Yes, I also think we are mostly in agreement. But I also don't think it's necessarily an either/or. Both may be true, depending on the case before us. If electricity from 'without' can affect the functioning of the brain, then surely bio-electrical 'storms' from 'within' the brain can cause a similar if not identical effect. I think the 'god helmet' established this quite some time ago.

    But these electrical storms, whether within or without, must also interact with the brain, and depend on the information or information flow already there.

    If someone takes 'magic mushrooms' and sees "Lucky the Leprechaun" dash through the room out of the corner of his/her eye, are we to think that 'Lucky' was *IN* the mushrooms? Or isn't it more reasonable to infer that the memory of Lucky -- already present in the brain -- was somehow stimulated and activated by the drug?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • "Scientists working with similar amounts of estimated energy have safety precautions to protect them." --Bruce

    They're protected from the electricity itself, but not from the electrical FIELDS created by that electricity. Not every electrical engineer works in a Faraday cage.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • Parakletos,
    I also think we are working the same territory. I agree that at this point it is not an either \ or set of possibilities. As a rough generalisation, rather than a storm, more specifically I am thinking in terms of plasma energy. In this case though it seems it would have to have a very unique energy signature, so plasma is a placeholder. Very compact, extremely energetic. Lucky the Leprechaun must already be in place. I agree. Another point of interest is the energy potential of neurons which of course are gapped and one of their stages is quantum related where information can be ( to put it simply) yes and no at the same time. Is this the opening for the entry of a unique energy signature? The issue is your theory could be tested and correlated as well as mine through atmospheric measurements. My wife is a microbiologist and when she returns Monday I will ask her her views about your theory. It is provocative, to say the least.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • I am getting tired so forgive another, separate response to your question about electrical fields. I am thinking of a ionizing: high-level radiation which has the potential for cellular and DNA damage. The issue is a lack of followup in medical testing.No one takes this with any degree of serioussness except Persinger. Scientists are shielded but the circumstances where the intensity of the field is that high( to my knowledge ) is a rare occurrence.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, August 23, 2013  

  • Thank you, fellows, for taking the "dialogue" into a rarefied, esoteric realm few care about.

    Geez....I, like Kevin Randle, can't control the "conversation(s)" here.

    Does everyone have a point of view that doesn't bring people to their blogs so they have to use mine?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, August 24, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home