[Golden Eagle]

Bingo! J. Allen Hynek reached the same conclusion.

Exactly the name that came to mind when I read Steve’s original post. Hynek was the initial and primary UFO investigator hired by the U.S. government, and spent years on the project. He was completely skeptical that UFO’s came from extraterrestrial origins, although you would never know that reading his current wikipedia entry.

I am convinced that these phenomena are just different manifestations of demonic influence.

It wasn’t until well into the 20th century that the manifestations were identified as “flying saucers.” Up until then, they had always been known more as witches on brooms, floating leprechauns, etc. Obviously if they were alien, and had advanced technology that brought them from halfway across the universe they would have been seen as flying saucers, or more modern in design, all along.

[Kirkwood]

I knew Dr. Hynek, and he was completely open-minded concerning their being extraterrestrial life forms. He even did a cameo in the Close Encounters film because he was completely open to this revelation of extraterrestrials occurring at some point in our future.

[Cvengr]

I suspect there is some relationship between the spiritual domain and UFO observed craft.

One weakness of science and “scientists” is their desire to ignore phenomenon. In a nutshell, they seek to be ignorant.

The scientific method appeals to verifiable experimentation before accepting the truthfulness of statements.

Now consider the domain of angels, elect and fallen.

Throughout Masonry, all 3 major systems of theology accept and discuss angels (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). We know of fallen and elect angels and are warned of the deceptive and criminal nature of the fallen angels. Much of the UFO reports are consistent with such spiritual domains.

Science refutes it as foolishness, because it is unable to reproduce their actions.

Consider a though experiment.

A man is captured outside a bank with a bag full of cash he had just robbed from the teller. He is taken to jail awaiting his hearing. When disposed before the judge, the charged villain is considered innocent until proven guilty (in a “pre-Mueller” world). The Advocate for the accused insists upon only a ‘truthful’ finding be accepted by scientific principles.

The take the accused to a movie set, give him a pistol and note to the teller instructing her to place all the cash from her till into the bag and awiat his escape before responding. They tell the accused, this is part of his hearing. If he robs the bank, then they know the charge is true and he will be found guilty. If he doesn’t rob the bank, then they won’t know of he is the robber, and he will be assumed innocent.

Now the charged villain is left to his own devices. Will he rob the bank or not?

When is doesn’t rob the bank, so as to escape condemnation, do we still believe we are intelligent in our scientific method to reproduce the event and now conclude he really isn’t such a villain as others so foolishly accuse?

This is similar to the present arguments against UFOs as not being founded in truth.

[Steve_Seattle]

Vallee points out that these manifestations tend to assume a form that is intelligible in terms of the social, religious, and technological expectations of the culture in which they appear. Thus, in a technological age, an age of flying machines, they often assume the form of spaceships.

Back in the age of balloons and dirigibles, they sometimes appeared in that form. In ancient and medieval times, they may have appeared as dragons, giant birds, trolls, or other mythological creatures. Vallee interpreted the apparitions of "Mary" at Fatima in those terms.