Thoughts Inside the "Our Future in Space - Ignatious Forum" in Washington, DC National Cathedral. Nov 10, 2021

 Four significant participants from recognized institutions provided statements that apparently set the stage for others to take the UAP issue (and possible implications) much more seriously. Something of potential importance is afoot. A major taboo is being erased.

First, the Dean of the National Cathedral, Reverend Randolph Marshall Hollerith gave a brief introduction. He didn't think that any space brethren could be here due to vast distances was the chief priest at the National (Anglican) Cathedral, the Very Reverend Randolph Marshall Hollerith. However, he was in favor of facilitating research and – given sufficient evidence - of changing his mind. Moreover, he said that while the discovery of non-human intelligent life in the universe would challenge anthropocentrism, that in itself would not necessarily harm a religious perspective if we consider that the crucial thing is that God loves us. I agreed and found that he was preparing his church beyond quandary that humanity must be absolutely unique. However, I also ended up hoping that he didn't mean that God loved us because the Jesus event was exclusive to humanity.

After this introduction, the Honorable Avril Haines, Director of National Security for the United States was interviewed by Mr. David Ignatious. She did not rule out or conclusively affirmed anything but stuttering a bit with the word “extraterrestrial,” she actually ventured out pronounce it in terms of another possibility. She also said that she could not speak about the most interesting research because it was classified.

Following this, there was a pre-recorded video of Mr. Bill Nelson, former astronaut and senator, and NASA’s current Administrator. Both NASA's refreshingly plain-spoken Bill Nelson and ODNI's Avril Haines did not rule out that perhaps we are being visited by other intelligent beings. However, both Mr. Nelson and Mrs. Haines kept playing the tune that they didn't know what UAPs were. Hasn’t Mrs. Haines been apprised of research trying to ascertain that before the Nimitz 2004 incident?

 

Subsequently, Mr. Adi Ignatious interviewied Mr. Jeff Bezos (Amazon’s founder and founder of the aerospace company Blue Origin).

Then, Reverend Randolph Marshall Hollerith moderated a conversation between Harvard University astronomer Avi Loeb and theologian, astrophysicist, and Professor at Durham University, David Wilkinson.

I found Mr. Bezo’s message to be a continuation of the current capitalist, standard economic theory. He predictably said that technology will allow further – necessary - growth outside the planet and that it would provide the most important solutions to humanity's problems. For this, he recommended extending space law considering the upcoming role of private space-faring companies, mining the Solar System and establishing a base on Mars. Anyway, regarding an extraterrestrial presence, Mr. Bezos also opined that it was unlikely for other beings from the universe to be here because of the vast distances. Thus, he showed that - in spite of being the richest man in the world - he wasn’t well informed about ufology and, possibly, alternative propulsion. On the positive side, he makes more people think about space in an achievable way. During his intervention I asked myself, when will there be a serious, civilian ufological voice as influential in terms of future policy as Mr. Bezos himself?

The forum felt like part of a plan to make UAP issues formally acceptable amidst important “movers and shakers.” Listening to well-recognized institutions (religious, military, business, and scientific) speaking more candidly about UAPs.

But, is it too early or should they already include other balanced, comprehensive, non-fear mongering, well-informed, civilian sources at this stage of what seems to be a scheduled dissemination, something that the "powers that be" are rolling out as former G-15, CIA analyst Mr. John Ramirez suggests? In such a step-by-step process, before more advanced notions are officialized, the more conservative ones will be unfurled first.

Another interesting observation is that the Forum presented a range of tolerable positions suitable for people with different degrees of exposure and/or openness to the worldview changing realization that “the others” are already here. For example, Midway between Fr. Hollerith- and Mr. Bezos (who thought that other intelligences weren’t operating on Earth due to space’s vast distances and Mr. Nelson and Mrs. Haines (who intimated that that possibility could not be discarded) was sociable true scientist Dr. Avi Loeb who considered that the difficulty that vast distances could pose to biological organisms could be solved if advanced civilizations used artificial intelligence probes. This made me suspect that he’s been tipped that that might be the case, especially in relation to the Tic tac varieties of UAP.

 

 

Thus, the conference was likely meant for the general thinking public waking up to UFO/UAP realities and for its more influential movers and shakers, but not for a typically partialized, or even studious participant of the “UFO community.” For some, they would have been trailblazers, saying a lot and, for others, a disappointing “almost nothing.” 

For some analysist within the UFO community, it is a plan from the DoD wants to control the narrative, perhaps to promote its own expansion into space. A few others may understand that it is necessary to do it as it is being done (with opposing views about the actual presence of UAP intelligences combined with a happy medium view) in order not to augment chaos and national insecurity issues in society. For those with a more conspiratorial bent, this controlled disclosure/confirmation is done for nefarious reasons.

For humanity at large, the lack of civilian experiencer researchers, balanced ufology information may not be good in this initial, seed planting, stage because to truly understand and to collectively organize ourselves worldwide we would need a careful balance between a non-fanatical/non-extremist but still, truly comprehensive approach! 

The good and benevolent side of interaction with UAP intelligences would be as equally necessary for a truly national security assessment as the current emphasis on a possible threat and on the deleterious health effects of some close-encounter interactions. We need to also consider the benefits, healings, positive ethical and cultural changes also associated with these interactions! And for this to be included in the social conversation in a serious way, thus far we rely on the civilian community of experiencers and researchers for the most part reporting differently than the military. 

How are we going to collectively grow up without balance in the information? The current, almost one-sided, official approach may have been decided after long deliberations between pro-disclosure sides and pro-control of the information sides in the Pentagon. Politicians and people in general tend to consider something more credible if it may be dangerous. But is the positive, benevolent side of interactions with UAP intelligences perhaps being underplayed in part to avoid an entanglement with unprovable, fantastic positions pullulating in the UFO community?  But, an emphasis on negativity during this foundational period may not be in the best interest of humanity in the long run. It may have to be reconsidered!