posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:10 AM
A few things occurred to me after listening to Whitley Strieber on Coast to Coast AM last night:
First of all, Strieber talked about a scientist he knows of who recently had an apparent implant removed from his foot. Upon examination, the object
was found to contain carbon nano-tubes, among other things. Said scientist just happens to be in a field where he deals with carbon nano-tubes on some
Later in the show, the host asked Whitley to expound on recent changes in the kinds of contact experiences and sightings that are occurring. Whitley
mentioned the photographic evidence associated with Stephenville, TX, emphasizing that these involved aerial phenomena so strange, so far outside
anybody's frame of reference, that whatever we were looking at could hardly even be described, in his opinion, as "spaceships."
Though I don't believe he touched on it during the show, Whitley is one of the more credible folks who's refused to completely dismiss the
"California Mystery Drones" as a complete hoax. Not unlike the Stephenville UFOs, the drones are not analogous to any conventional craft in
anybody's frame of reference, so much so that people grope at words like "dragonfly" or "drone" as they try to come up with images to describe
these highly strange objects.
Where am I going with all this?
Well, I can't help but think about observations and theories which have been put forth over the years with regards to the UFO phenomenon's seeming
ability --or even tendency-- to mold and shape itself to fit the cultural and technological context of the era in which it is being experienced.
Jim Marrs gave a talk not too long ago in which he recounted newspaper articles from the early 1900's (I think) about sightings of "phantom
airships." In one such case, the experiencers reported coming upon a phantom dirigible which had briefly weighed anchor, and whose occupants said
they were on their way to go an bomb Cuba(!) and that their craft "ran by electricity."
Zeppelins and electric power were both state-of-the-art technologies around the turn of the century, the logic goes, so those are the terms in which
the experience is framed, either by the experiencer, the experienced, or both.
So in the case of the scientist whose "implant" was found to contain carbon nano-tubes, isn't it interesting that carbon nano-tubes happen to be on
the cusp of the current era's coming technologies? Could the inclusion of such structures in an implant represent a subtle form of communication* on
the part of the implant's creators, especially in light of the implantee's career?
Whitley's not the only person who's indicated that the current trend regarding the ET contact experience, lately, is that it seems to involve
scientists and researchers a lot more than "ordinary" lay people.
So we have the implant thing seeming to possibly conform to the established pattern of ET technologies appearing to mirror the technologies -and even
the aesthetic styles- of the era in which they're observed.
On the other hand, we have Stephenville and the drones, which appear to represent a dramatic departure from shapes, forms, and contexts which human
observers can easily fit into concepts like "aircraft" or "spaceship."
Could this departure from known contexts and analogs signal a dramatic shift in the nature of the phenomenon? Whitley's been saying for some time
that it's undergoing all sorts of surprising changes in how it presents itself, and he's not alone in that opinion.
Anybody care to put in their two cents worth?
*Notice I said form -not means- of communication. I make this distinction because the implants are said to emit some sort of low-power or
low-frequency radio signal, which implies the implant communicating with whoever did the implanting. I'm talking about the possibility that the inner
workings of the implant were specifically chosen in order to send a message to the researchers who would eventually analyze it.