The issue with this approach is:
Makes perfect sense. I also think reading it and taking it for it’s words literally creates a block. Where as inquisitive minds whant to know more about a reference.
Such as the term “heavenly beings”. What heavenly beings? It can’t be just that simple, there has to be more to it than just a general generic canned wrapper. What heavenly beings are they talking about? If they claim to have seen these heavenly beings at that time what were they seeing?
I dont think they were dillusional, I think they really did see them. But what did they see and how would they have to describe it based on their limited knowledge at the time?
So I think reading the words and taking them litrally without wondering more limits objectivity. Taking it literally is being stuck in the 12th century when “it is what it is, it is the miracle of God and never question it any further”.
There is so much that makes absolutely no sense based on current knowledge. But... Metaphorically and hypothetically it might actually make very good sense even based on our current level of understanding.
On related topic—I mentioned Matthew Pines in an earlier thread a few days ago.
Here is a new interview—three hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN2Le9dp_Ww
There is lots of brilliance here—and the last half hour discusses many deep issues of philosophy.
That said—on the UFO topic many folks are convinced that Pines has inside information.
In this interview he claims that there is a plan for major disclosure in the next twelve months—and it sounds like that will be the case regardless of who is in the White House.
He argues that driving that is a fear of “catastrophic disclosure” of some kind—and that the intelligence analysts have concluded it is coming soon and they want to get ahead of it.
It sounds like they are convinced there will be an “event”—where history becomes broken down into “before” and “after”. An example of that would be 9/11. Another example would be the JFK assassination.
The topic dominates the news cycles at the moment and then is a topic of discussion for all academic disciplines for years to come....
The reason for controlled disclosure in Pines view is not to prevent catastrophic disclosure—he argues that is impossible—but rather to mitigate the negative effects.
If a Presidential commission (part of the proposed NDAA that failed last year) is created it would be their job to figure out what needed to stay classified and what could be released to the public—and they could decide the order of the releases and try to generate an orderly disclosure.
If they could establish trust with whistleblowers it could work reasonably well.
But—the “Imminent” (as in the title of Lou’s book) issue is that time is not on their side.
As usual government is slow to react and events are moving away from them.
Matthew Pines specifically mentioned the Langley AFB December 2023 “incident” discussed here (with video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjVJLO6CK2I
The Air Force was apparently unable to shoot any of these down.
The “drone” explanation is a joke—these are true UAPs with classic UAP flight characteristics—wacky “flight” characteristics.