Technorati Tags: blog stats

Technorati Tags: astrobiology, astrotheology, Christianity, ExoTheology, extraterrestrials, religion, theology, ufology

Here’s a wonderful link that very thoroughly, and painstakingly, debunks all the Mayan 2012 calendrical predictive paleobabble.  It’s long, but worth the time, at least if you care about “white and nerdy” astronomy and calendrical science.

Here’s an additional paragraph from the discussion group:

What will happen on December 21 is that the sun will cross the galactic equator (which is not the same thing as the galactic plane), another event which is nothing special, and happens every year. There’s a slight variation in timing because the year isn’t an exact number of days long - the timing pretty much repeats every four years. The Mayan calendar rolls over on December 21 2012 as the various cycles the Mayans used to adapt the length of the year to the length of the day all coincide on that date. There’s no more significance to that event than when the various cycles of the Gregorian calendar coincide. We keep counting the years from an arbitrary starting point, while the Mayans started over again - but in both cases, it’s just a way of keeping track of time.

Why am I posting this on UFO Religions? Because some people want to link 2012 to the end of the world, and also link the end of the world with ufology.

Since I am an amateur in these matters, I’d like someone who has expertise to read through the material at the link above (and it’s very detailed and targeting a number of apparent myths associated with 2012) and tell me where the material at that link is flawed. I will gladly then post those criticisms on the Yahoo group for a response.

I’ve said on occasion (on other grounds) that biblical prophecy has nothing to do with the 2012 stuff, and this material does little to make me backtrack. I personally think it’s a mistake to connect eschatology with UFOs. I do, however, think there is a possible connection between biblical prophecy and the kind of *thinking* that is part of UFO religious doctrine. Those are two different things.

Technorati Tags: 2012, eschatology, extraterrestrials, Mayan, prophecy, religion

Technorati Tags: catholic, Christian, Christianity, ExoTheology, theology, UFOs

Below is a short summary of Paul Davies’ thoughts on the self-made universe.I got them from Uncommon Descent, but I reproduce them here since I need you to read them before I tell you what’s annoying me (and any other clear thinker) again:

Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life – including intelligent life capable of asking that “why” question?

Paul Davies of Arizona State University in his new book “Cosmic Jackpot” argues that the cosmos has made itself the way it is, stretching backward in time to the very beginning to focus in on “bio-friendliness.”

When asked by Alan Boyle why the universe is bio-friendly? Is it intelligent design, or blind chance, or none of the above?

Davies replies: “There are three popular responses; the intelligent-design argument; the idea that if we had a final theory of physics, then all of the undetermined parameters in the laws would be fixed by that theory; and the third is the multiverse.

What I find lacking in the conventional intelligent-design argument, is that they appeal to something outside the universe that has to be accepted as given and cannot be proved. I’d like to try to explain as much of the universe, including its bio-friendly laws of physics, from within the universe – and in a way that doesn’t appeal to something outside of it.

Even standard physics says the laws of physics are friendly for no reason, but have just been imprinted upon the universe at the time of the big bang from without, by some unknown mechanism. Again, the argument makes an appeal to something outside the universe, instead of something intrinsic to it.

For most people, the first interpretation is, “Well, God did it.” What I’m saying is that that gets us nowhere at all. It just shoves the problem off to some other realm. But saying “God did it” is no worse than saying “the laws of physics did it.” They both basically appeal to something outside the universe.

The problem with saying God did it is that God is unexplained, so you’re appealing to an unexplained designer. It doesn’t actually explain anything; it just shoves the problem off. But to say that the laws of physics just happen to permit life is no explanation either.”

Uh . . . okay.  But I have a simple observation to make at this point. Davies’ words supposedly are to be taken as though the self-made universe (I guess that’s in one of his three options — maybe the multivere — but I don’t want to put words in his mouth) is superior to intelligent design or palin old physics and its laws.  Here’s my question: Either the self-made universe is operating within and at the behest of the laws of physics, or it isn’t, in which case OUR universe is operating outside the bounds of the laws of physics that physicists have constructed (for our universe, if you’re following). So which is it, Paul? If the former, then your self-made universe idea is as defective as the “plain old laws of physics” view you just criticized. If the latter, then you have a universe that planned itself by laws of physics other than the laws of physics that operate within it. We have “wholly non A” coming from “wholly A” by some sort of “natural” generative process. At that point, one has to wonder where the EXTERNAL “wholly non A” laws of physics for that sort of goofy operation came from. Thanks for solving nothing (again).

Aaarrrrrggghhhhhh!

Technorati Tags: multiverse, Paul Davies, physics, self-made universe

In Part 3 of this discussion topic, I focused on the first of two descriptions of “alien” and talked about how that definition does not conform to the biblical characters we know as demons, angels, and gods. This first description of an “alien” went like this:

1. It isn’t human

2. It is from a different planet than earth within our universe / dimension.

3. It has a determinate life span (it can and will die in this universe / dimension)

4. It has to maintain its existence through some means of nourishment (i.e., it isn’t a machine) and through reproduction.

5. It is subject to the laws of physics by which our universe / dimension operates.

I noted that I didn’t believe any of these are in the Bible and discussed how biblical descriptions of angels and demons don’t really mesh with these descriptive criteria. Here was the gist of my position:

What this means is that, if there are real space aliens (beings that meet the above criteria), then they cannot be demons, since demons do not conform to these criteria in biblical theology. That said, such aliens could certainly be evil and demonic (using the adjective, not the noun) and unworthy of trust in any way. It would also mean that such beings cannot be angels for the same reason.  They would just be aliens, a separate category. But the point is of course moot without proof of actual aliens. If aliens are interdimensional, though, then things change.  The demon equation goes back on the table (I’ll explain in part 4).

This last comment-about the “interdimensional description-is my focus in this post. There is far more congruity between that description of an “alien” than the “physical, THIS dimension” description.

First Things First: What “elohim” Means At Its Most Basic Level

Readers are likely familiar with my discussion of “elohim” when it refers to the singular God of Israel (well over 2000 times in the Bible) that constitutes part of my rebuttal to the silliness of Zecharia Sitchin and his followers. That focus isn’t where I’m going here. Yes, elohim most often refers to the lone God of Israel (upwards to 98% of the time I’d guess).  But the curious thing is that elohim is used to describe several other entities besides the God of Israel. Elohim is used to describe the following in the Hebrew Bible:

1. The God of Israel

2. Demons

3. Angels / Sons of God

4. The spirits of human dead

I’ll spare you a lengthy discussion of what’s going on here (for Bible verses and brief comments, see this paper extract drawn from one of my published articles).

Anyone who’s read much of the Bible knows that neither the Bible nor its characters consider these four personages equal in attributes (power, character, etc.).  There is a huge difference between the attributes of God and the spirit of a dead human being. So why are they all called elohim? Because elohim is, at its most basic level, a “place of residence” term.  That is, if your “proper” realm is some place other than the reality plane embodied humans occupy, then you are, by definition, an elohim.  An elohim is a being that is a resident of another, different reality plane. Elohim can visit our reality plane and we can visit theirs, at least according to the Bible. There are many occasions where elohim (angels, demons) come to earth and interact with humans. There are also occasions where prophets get to see the other “dimension” or reality plane. The most common human path to that reality plane is, of course, death. The “other side” (other reality plane) has its own geography, too (heaven, hell/Hades/Sheol, that sort of thing).

In our scientific terminology, our concept of another dimension is basically the same as the ancient idea that there are other non-human reality planes where the gods (the elohim) live. It is an unseen realm, but considered just as real as the one we by nature inhabit.

Christians use terms like “spiritual world” or “supernatural realm” to describe this “elohim reality plane,” but those terms aren’t very accurate. Why not? Because, since ALL beings that exist are created by God, who is the lone uncreated being in biblical theology, then ALL other things must be made of something–they are material. We just mistakenly equate “unseen” with “non-material” but this is not allowed by biblical theology. Only God is not made of something. He is described as an uncreated spirit in the Bible.  He inhabits a reality plane that is occupied by the unseen entities he created (and of course may occupy ours). He is “realm independent,” but his “normal” place of residence (this is not a denial of omni-presence) is the unseen reality plane.

Applying this to the Alien Question

It’s pretty easy to see how these ideas dovetail with the discussion of “aliens.” If an alien is NOT a physical life form in the sense described in Part 3 and above, then perhaps “aliens” are members of another reality plane (dimension in our modern scientific parlance) that can interact with our reality plane / dimension.

What would the ramifications be? A number of questions and possibilities arise. If there is only one other dimension, this would suggest that angels and aliens and demons are all occupants of that reality plane — but there can still be differentiation. But there could also be overlap. Flying craft are still problematic IF one could ever prove that UFOs are BOTH alien in origin/manufacture AND physical (in terms of our reality plane). But we have all read instances where a UFO will break the sound barrier and NOT create a sonic boom, suggesting that whatever it was, it wasn’t physical (in our reality plane sense).

In some ways, this second description leaves us with the same questions and categories (angels, aliens, demons, gods can all exist and not be the same - they just share the same reality plane “normally”). The Bile does not put a number on the number of dimensions there are, primarily because such questions are not the focus of the Bible.  It wasn’t written to answer this question any more than it was written to tell us what’s really in fruit cake.  But the second description can also mean overlap and therefore lend credence to the demonic view — that what we think of as aliens (the Part 3 description) are actually best understood as beings from another reality plane that can enter our reality plane as they wish–possibly for the purposes of deception.

So what does this get us?  It shows that the demonic view shouldn’t be dismissed. But it also shows that, even if aliens are from a different reality plane, we cannot use that as a conclusive argument that they must be demons. The other-dimensional view is more useful for the demonic view, but isn’t a slam dunk. In short, even the other-dimensional view doesn’t compel a single Christian view.

Technorati Tags: aliens, ET Life, ExoTheology, extra-dimensional, extraterrestrials, interdimensional, theology

Thanks to Greg Bishop’s post for the initial alert here.

Technorati Tags: alien gods, alien greys, aliens, Webre

I’ll get back to my posts on whether there is only one Christian view of aliens this weekend. For now, I wanted to post the official report on the Roswell dig conducted by Bill Doleman a few years back.  The dig, as you may recall, was the focus of a Sci Fi channel documentary hosted by Bryant Gumble called, “The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence.”  Here is the first paragraph of the report by way of introduction:

In the Fall of 2002-with funding by the SCI FI Channel-archeologists from the University of New Mexico Office of Contract Archeology (OCA), together with technical advisors Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, volunteer excavators and a professional geophysicist conducted a scientific investigation at the reported initial Roswell impact site in search of just such evidence. The location, known as the “debris field” and “skip site” is located on federal Bureau of Land Management land within the former Foster Ranch, where, as the story goes, rancher Mac Brazel found strange metallic debris one morning in early July 1947. He subsequently took samples of the material into Roswell to the sheriff’s office, thus launching one of the most interesting, if controversial, chapters in New Mexico’s colorful history.

The full report is here in PDF, but I have reproduced it below in full as well (it’s only five pages long).¹  I have also inserted links to images where appropriate (in the chart below, under “FS number”; photo credit: Chuck Zukowski).

2002 Material Synopsis

By Dr. Bill Doleman

In the Fall of 2002-with funding by the SCI FI Channel-archeologists from the University of New Mexico Office of Contract Archeology (OCA), together with technical advisors Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, volunteer excavators and a professional geophysicist conducted a scientific investigation at the reported initial Roswell impact site in search of just such evidence. The location, known as the “debris field” and “skip site” is located on federal Bureau of Land Management land within the former Foster Ranch, where, as the story goes, rancher Mac Brazel found strange metallic debris one morning in early July 1947. He subsequently took samples of the material into Roswell to the sheriff’s office, thus launching one of the most interesting, if controversial, chapters in New Mexico’s colorful history.

This was the first fully scientific investigation conducted at the site, and I served as principal investigator. It was performed under an Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit issued by the BLM and an official was published and submitted to the SCI FI Channel and BLM in 2003.  The report was reproduced in full in The Roswell Dig Diaries (published by Pocket Books, a Division of Simon and Schuster) in 2004.  The site was revisited briefly in 2006-again with SCI FI Channel funding as part of the series SCI FI Investigates-at which time excavations focused on the area of a possible subsurface anomaly that had been discovered in a backhoe trench in 2002. The time allotted (two days), as well as the shooting schedule, severely restricted the amount of digging that got done, and a backhoe was used to clear the area with the goal of discovering further evidence of the anomaly, but none was found.  Additional geophysical research was also done and a report is in preparation.

In addition. there was reportedly an earlier, unofficial investigation using archeological methods and sponsored by MUFON that took place in the late 1980s.  No known report of this activity was ever prepared.  The 2002 testing project did discover what could be small, shallow test pit remnants whose degree of weathering suggests they’ve been around for a number of years, however.  Given ongoing controversy about the actual physical location of the debris field, it was suggested in the report that these features serve as evidence that the investigation at least took place in the same locale others had studied in the past-in particular the MUFOM “dig.”

Post-field analyses of artifacts and soils samples from the site remain largely unpublished and incomplete to this day, however, largely because funding ran out.  The SCI FI Channel funded X-Ray diffraction analysis of soil samples from key locations on the site, ICPMS analysis (inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry) of soil samples from on- and off-site, as well as preliminary laboratory identification of six of the apparently non-natural artifacts recovered during the excavation project.  These artifacts were part of some 20 excavated items collected by the volunteer excavators under the rubric HMUO, an acronym for “historic materials of uncertain origin.” The HMUO designation was intended to offer excavators an unbiased way to identify anything that might be a non-natural product of the events of 1947.

My preliminary identification of the HMUOs in the original report divided them into three categories:  (a) definitely of natural origin (including five mineral specimens and one bone), (b) unidentified but of probable organic (i.e., biological) origin, and (c) of apparent manufactured origin.  The probable organic items were identified as such by biology faculty at UNM, while four of the apparently manufactured items were submitted to Assagai Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM for further identification (Roark and Biava, 2003).

A summary of the results of these analyses as well recommendations for further analysis was submitted to the SCI FI Channel and the project’s technical advisors-Donald Schmitt and Thomas Carey-in September, 2003, but did not lead to further funding.  The table below is drawn from my report and presents the results of my preliminary identifications for the non-natural artifacts and two apparently burned rocks of non-local origin, together with my recommendations for further analysis.  The Assagai Lab identifications have been added in blue for the four items submitted for analysis.

The Assagai report (memo to me dated August 2003) concluded thus: “In summary, all samples were found to be synthetic/plastic or cellulose, nothing that was felt to be extraterrestrial.”

Refractive index analysis of the FS 31 “orange blobs (and possibly the FS 57 item-note mention of “optical properties”) was the only laboratory testing technique mentioned, however suggesting that all the other identifications were made the same way mine were-that is “by eye.”

Apparently man-made items that were not submitted to Assagai Labs for analysis are the tentatively identified rubber and leather shoe parts from Study Unit 6, the white fibers from Study Unit 9, and the possible cotton thread from Study Unit 10.  Also not submitted were the two non-limestone rock fragments from Study Unit 15, which are of continuing interest for three reasons: (a) they are of non-local origin, (b) they appear possibly burned, and (c) there are clumps of unidentified short, straight white fibers clinging to one surface of each of the specimens.

So, yes, with the exception of the two non-local rocks, the artifacts recovered from the site appear to be of human, 20^th century manufacture, but this conclusion has not been confirmed by thorough physical and chemical analysis.  Ever since 2003, I have asserted that further forensic analyses of the HMUOs should be conducted for two purposes. The first is to comprehensively confirm, if possible, that the items are in fact of terrestrial and identifiable origin. Owing to the site’s tremendous significance in the on-going controversy over UFOs, as well as its cultural importance to not only the state of New Mexico, but the world at large, identification beyond “eye-ball” evaluation is needed to confirm the items’ terrestrial origin and preclude a non- terrestrial origin.

Secondly, any manufactured items that date to the 1947 era may shed light on the events that took place at Foster Ranch at that time.  If, as has been claimed, the military conducted a cleanup of the site, it is possible that some artifactual evidence of that activity, or others that took place in the crucial post-event period, may be is present at the site.  For those that are determined to be manufactured, attempts should be made to both determine their specific origin and use, as well as to date them, if possible, by identifying diagnostic period-of-manufacture characteristics, or-if appropriate-radiocarbon dating.

In fact, the site is located essentially “in the middle of nowhere,” and hence, the presence of 20^th century artifacts is somewhat surprising.  Possible scenarios that might account for the presence of these artifacts fall into three categories:

1.  Activities related to the event itself and the immediate post-event time frame and human activities (the crash, eyewitness visits (e.g., Brazel), military visits)

2.  Activities related to UFO research conducted at the site subsequent to the Summer of 1947

3.  Activities related to on-going ranching and livestock grazing

In addition to the postulated military cleanup, a distinct possibility is that some or all of the apparently man-made items were left there by visitors to the site, including the MUFON-sponsored testing that reportedly occurred in the 1980s.

Depending on how many times the location has been visited by researchers such as MUFON, Mr. Schmitt and his colleagues, or others, modern artifacts could have been introduced to the site at other times as well.  Only positive identification through forensic laboratory analysis can provide knowledge concerning the age and origin of these artifacts. Given these considerations, any information concerning past visits to the site by Mr. Schmitt and others would be of great aid in better understanding the origin of 20^th century artifacts recovered from the site surface excavated contexts.  In particular, any information concerning the nature of the MUFON excavations, their duration, the number of individuals present, the activities conducted, and whatever items that might have been lost or discarded would be invaluable.

I have used the term “forensic” because it refers to the use of scientific methods in legal issues and courts of law-i.e., in matter where the validity of the conclusions must be as close to 100% certainty as possible.  That’s also the kind of certainty needed if proof of the Roswell event (or any such claim), as well as public acceptance is to be achieved. Forensic material analyses fall into two general categories. The first might be called specialist-based analyses in which a scientist who specializes in a particular kind of material identifies specimens, often consulting a library of representative examples. The second category might be called chemistry/physics-based.  This approach involves the use of a variety of analytical technologies to determine the chemical (or elemental) composition and/or physical properties of unknown materials, and uses the resulting information to identify them. As such, chemistry/physics-based methods (of which exists a vast array) are often used in service of the overall forensic analysis.

I am suggesting that professional forensic scientists-preferably those at a reputable forensic laboratory-be consulted for guidance in identifying the Foster Ranch site HMUOS and in the choice of appropriate instrument analyses.  The major purpose of our press conference was to publicize the need for the analyses in hopes that a forensic laboratory or funder or both would step forward.  It should be noted here that attempts were made to have the HMUOs studied by both the FBI (request made through the Roswell Field Office of the BLM), and New Mexico State crime Lab (request made through the governor’s office), but that neither request was granted.  Here are some thoughts relating to analysis of some of the artifacts.

As any fan of the many forensic crime dramas popular on television today is aware, shoes-particularly their soles-are often identifiable as to manufacturer and date.  Perhaps the SU 6 shoe parts, which include apparent sole fragments, may be identifiable as to origin and time frame.  Also, given its possible similarity to the “metallic debris” originally reported in 1947 by eyewitnesses, the “gray film” material from SU 17 (FS No. 58) is of particular interest, despite its apparent similarity to duct tape or trash bag material.  Equally interesting is the SU 17 thread (FS 32), which appears to be dark green, a color common in US Army fatigues of the post-war era. Need I say more about the implications of finding military fatigue thread at this site?

At present, the white fibers from SU 9 remain a mystery.  The material was not shown to UNM biology faculty, and it does not look much like fur of any sort.  Similarly, the SU 15 rock fragments, their burned appearance, and the short white fibers remain unexplained, but of interest because of the possibility that a strong impact could have produced burning.

Dating the HMUOs is also a crucial analytical goal.  In addition to forensic identification and analysis, radiocarbon (C-14) dating of certain artifacts may be possible.  Hence, the SU 10 thread, the SU 9 white fibers, and the SU 6 “shoe leather”-if they are in fact biological in origin-may be datable.

In summary, artifacts from five different excavated study units on the Foster Ranch “debris site” warrant further study by the appropriate scientists using appropriate analytical techniques.  Better identification-and dating where possible-is necessary to conclusively determine is any of the items could be of non-terrestrial origin.  Alternatively, if the artifacts are of modern origin, knowledge of their age and origin might increase knowledge of the events of 1947 and offer invaluable insight into the site’s history.

Table. HMUOs (historic materials of uncertain origin) from the Foster Ranch skip site and debris field

Notes: Study Unit (SU) is the unique identifying number assigned to each excavation unit (e.g., test pit); Level indicates depth, with 1 indicating 0-5 cm, 2=5-10 cm, etc.; FS number is the unique number assigned to each SU and Level combination, Item Numbers are assigned to separate items from the same FS.

Technorati Tags: archaeology, debris, Doleman, Roswell, U.S. military, ufology, UFOs