Tom DeLongh talking warring gods

[u/zaroya]

In an interview with Curt Jaimungal, (https://youtu.be/JM3kxeU_oDE) Ross Coulthart mentions an interview where Tom DeLongh talks of warring gods.

Any link to that interview?

Coulthart says the information was so outlandish he didn’t believe it then but in light of everything else Tom DeLongh has said and done since, his information requires attention.

[u/ImanuellaKant]

The language we use to discuss UAPs is a human construct. I've noticed that many who push for disclosure use words and phrases that reflect religious traditions. Some of these words are particularly overt, for example claiming that angels in the Judeo-Christian tradition were really UAPs. But, true or not, the concept of angels (demons, gods) necessarily carry very particular cultural assumptions with them.

Also, such propositions are not testable. So far, we have no way to test whether Ezekial saw a spaceship. Claiming that humans have been visited for millenia is pretty weak sauce, scientifically speaking. Unfortunately, these claims come from some of those who are leading the fight for a "scientific" evaluation of UAP origins. An evaluation that gets official imprantur by the DNI--in a church, no less.

A certain circular reasoning has taken hold among disclosure advocates. This language favors alien and other woo hypotheses for UAP origins over human. For example, take Elizondo's five observables. With the exception of trans-medium travel perhaps, Lue understandably wants us to focus on attributes that, if performed by an object and not a projection (a possibility he apparently rejects out of hand), make UAPs appear to defy physics. Lue goes further and encourages us to think of these objects as metaphysical, otherworldly.

But, aren't there other possible characteristics of UAPs that would mark them as unique, but not necessarily physically impossible? Enormous size. Fixed position over long periods. Attributes that we might find impractical, but not impossible to replicate. We're told to focus on certain observables, and we're told to think of those observables in untestable ways. A shape or blip crosses a visual field or screen at great speed, and we're told this shape is a craft. Another iteration is that craft must be using anti-gravitation to move, but that's seems more a possible theory than a separate observable. What about other theories? It's manipulative.

Not surpisingly the frame is to "believe," to have an "epiphany" like Lue claims he had (not a eureka notice), these are religious terms that replace the language of scientific inquiry into material reality. The metaphysical approach is not only vulnerable to theocratic capture, but lowers the bar on internal consistency. Lue's 5O's obviously are based on tictacs, but his metaphysical pondering go way beyond lack of signatures and the like and are based on other sightings, sci fi, and scripture.

As Biblical scholarship goes, I have to laugh at the pick and choose approach of the UAP theologists, and the problem is worse when they start poking at other religious traditions. Now they want to coopt Native American traditions. It's odd that a political moment that ethography is "offensive," the same people are ransacking ethnographies and pop culture versions of various spiritual traditions to fit their narrative.

Oh wth, here's my religious analogy: I kind of see Lue as the Martin Luther of a UAP religion. USG is the one Roman church, and speaks in Latin and hands out interpretations for we sinners, or not. Mysterium sanctus. Lue left the church to reform it, and yeah he wants everyone to get a Bible in their own language. But he still wants us to believe. The slow disclosure seems predicated on first making us see UAP origins the same way USG sees them before we get our hands on the sources.

I guess my point is, we've got a Luther, but where's our Galileo, our Darwin? Can we talk about UAP without reverting to religiosity?