posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 08:03 PM
Orbs are not TicTacs
On the surface there is very little difference between a CE5 and a “normal” UFO. They are both usually “lights in the sky” that, under CE5
protocols, appear to react to thought and intention. But the deeper you dig, the more different they are. With the renewed interest in CE5 incidents
and the role of consciousness, we tend to lump these together. But we may be dealing with two entirely different phenomenon.
On the one hand we have physical craft. Take Bob Lazar's “Sports Model.” It is shaped like a saucer, has doors and compartments, seats for its
diminutive operators, and some sort of anti-gravitic propulsion system. They fly through the atmosphere and perhaps underwater as well. They are very
fast, and sometimes they crash and leave a debris trail of strange lightweight material. In other words, they are not all that robust. Stories abound
about them crashing due to lightning, or even our own radar systems disrupting their navigation systems. Though many people appear to think these
craft can travel the distances of interstellar space, an objective look at their construction makes this a dubious claim. Yes, you can travel via
Jetski across the Pacific Ocean but it would be a very perilous journey. Surely there is a Mothership somewhere nearby. Of course that is a
terrestrial concept from people of the Star Trek generation. It makes sense to us, but perhaps not to them.
These craft contain “beings” loosely based on our own bipedal body type, some of whom may have survived several crashes. We may have communicated
with some of them, We may have done some autopsies. They may communicate by a sort of telepathy. When they do talk, they do so in riddles. It's not a
straightforward conversation from our point of view.
The latest iteration of these craft is the “Tic Tac.” This is an elongated tic-tac shaped craft about 40 feet long (same as an F/A-18) observed by
Naval aviators such as Commander David Fravor, stationed aboard the USS Nimitz, who have seen these craft and taken pictures of them with highly
sensitive “FLIR” cameras. We've all seen the pictures by now. Going back into the historical record, many of the accounts in retrospect sound
very much like today's Tic Tacs.
But the more important point here is that they inhabit the physical world as we know it. If one were to land and stay put for a sufficiently long
time, theoretically (if you weren't fearful of radiation) you could go knock on its side and yell, “Hello? Is anyone in there?” There are many
accounts of people doing just that, or of finding themselves inside one of these craft and having to deal, usually unsatisfactorily, with the
occupants. From afar, these craft often appear as “lights in the sky,” either “daylight disks” or “nocturnal lights,” which are the lowest
categories on the Hynek Scale, not even warranting a “Close Encounter” designation.
A “CE5,” i.e.: a “Close Encounter of the Fifth Kind” is not on the original Hynek scale either, but has been popularized (though not invented)
by Steven Greer, who has developed a set of “protocols” designed to attract UFOs using lights, sound, and meditative techniques involving
“chakras” to summon UFOs to come close and communicate. Now Greer's techniques have been criticized and even ridiculed, but it's worth noting
that he is not the only one who has claimed success in using “intention” to influence “lights in the sky.” Jay of “Project Unity” has
reported success in influencing lights and clouds to operate in a decidedly deterministic fashion that would suggest intelligence. (He does NOT use
Greer's protocols.) One is also reminded of Chris Bledsoe, whose “lights in the sky” are considerably closer, blinking in and out from between
Attracting these objects seems to involves “consciousness,” a term many people in the UFO field admit has “something to do with UFOs,” though
no one appears to know exactly why. It is more of an acknowledgment that UFOs cannot be explained by mere nuts and bolts. There is “something else
going on here.” However, surely no one is suggesting that mere intent of consciousness is enough to summon a Sports Model piloted by aliens to land
in the front yard.
Aren't we discussing two entirely different phenomena here? On the one hand we have physical craft flying around for some unknown purposes, and on
the other we have ethereal lights responding to our thoughts and, really, not doing much else. So why are we conflating the two? The difference is
very much like the difference between birds and airplanes. Both fly through the sky, and there are other superficial similarities. Other than those
superficial similarities, birds and airplanes are as different as could possibly be. They may occasionally be mistaken for one another at a distance,
but there is no other reason to discuss them in the same sentence.
That's not to say that the two phenomena don't know about each other. They may be from the same place and some would suggest they hang out together,
but to say that a ball of light that can be summoned and manipulated via intention and consciousness is the same as a Sports Model is nonsensical.
They are not the same thing.