Exopolitical activist Mr. Stephen Bassett has come up with a worthy revision of key terms and concepts inherited from “Ufology,” the media and allegedly from some government tactics. However, they are inaccurate but are still used in “Exopolitics.” I find the revision of terms and concepts necessary. Remaining focused upon a limiting and inaccurate set of terms we probably contribute to keeping these fields limited to non-serious, popular accounts. We reassert a poor treatment of a most crucial event in human history: Recognizing the extraterrestrial presence and its implications. Thus, to enhance acceptance and respectability we need to think more clearly and to use more exact terms. Here are some points shared by Mr. Bassett at a conference called “Experiencers Speak.”
“Disclosure” = Formal acknowledgement by governments of an intelligent extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race. Some candidate governments for this would be France, Russia, China and the U.S. It should be distinguished from small “d” disclosure or the gradual release of information (often with a “spin”) gradually suggesting that an intelligent extraterrestrial presence is a valid proposition.
“Cover-up” = While it represents hiding the truth of an ET presence it also connoted an illegal action. However, according to Bassett it was a legal action. Therefore, “Truth Embargo” would be more accurate and is the term created and preferred by Bassett. I think that the legality and constitutionality of the secrecy can be debated either way even if it was initiated by an Executive Command from the President: How far can something so important extend without adequate checks and balances?
What is clear for Mr. Bassett (and I concur) is that unending secrecy and lies over things that matter to us all are a “toxic poison” to the social contract.
According to Mr. Bassett the word “Alien” should go. I agree because it implies disconnection, extreme difference and a distance not conducive to the possibility of improving mutually agreeable relations. On the other hand, he prefers the term “extraterrestrial” which – although lengthy – is more appropriate. However, I think that a new term may have to be invented to take into consideration the possibility that in many cases we may be dealing with beings coming from alternative physical universes including other physical densities connected with ours.
Mr. Bassett proposed that the acronym “UFO” would also have to go as it always refers to an unknown or unidentified object while in some cases we can be sure that some UFOs are vehicles. He prefers (I suppose when applicable to some cases only) “ET vehicle” or “ET craft.” The word “flying saucer” would also have to go and for accuracy’s sake I agree. Definitely these vehicles are not “saucers” and such terms decrease the chances of others taking them seriously. If we drop the limiting tern “UFO” Mr. Bassett also logically suggested we should replace the term “Ufologist” suggesting “Extraterrestrial Phenomenon Researcher.” It makes sense to me.
In the same vein, Mr. Basset suggested that “Believer” should be dropped because it is an epithet and also a classical government prop to make people interested in the reality or possibility of extraterrestrial presence sound too deficient or weak of mind. “Truther” would be alike. Instead of speaking about us as “believers” we should say that we are “convinced by the evidence” as that opens the stage for speaking about evidence thus showing that such conviction can be substantiated by reasonable individuals.
Also Mr. Bassett said that the word “paranormal” should be eliminated because – as Mr. Bassett asserts – there is nothing in this universe which is not NORMAL. “Paranormal” is only that which has not been explained yet by current science (or rather scientists) and this current understanding doesn’t have to be the last word.
This reminds me of a common mistake which many regular individuals and even committed skeptics make. I think that when they can’t understand what may be causing a phenomenon quite habitually they erroneously say that they “can’t find a logical explanation.” They should in fact be saying that they “cannot find a conventional explanation” because in some cases the presence of extraterrestrials capable of producing advanced space-time manipulation effects can be a perfectly logical possibility. Saying that we can’t find a “logical” explanation commits us to treating the phenomenon forever outside of the realm of reason and understanding.
Regarding the geometric formations appearing every year on cereal fields Mr. Bassett mentioned that “Crop Circles” was basically harmless even if inappropriate. However he preferred the more precise term “agriglyphs” which I also prefer (along with “agroglyphs”)from a more technical standpoint.
Finally, Mr. Bassett mentioned the words “contactee,” “abductee” and “experiencer.” As a practical person Mr. Bassett preferred the word “contactee” as a unifying term. But since there are different kinds of contact experiences, shouldn’t we distinguish “abduction contactees,” “voluntary contactees” “mental contactees” and so forth or lump these and other variations together under the term “experiencer” as Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Mack used? I don’t know which term or classification system would be best but I also think we need to distinguish among types of experiences.
In “Experiencers Speak” Mr. Bassett also suggested that the varieties of beings interacting with us (at least those most commonly seen) may be our “near peers.” That is an interesting observation with which I tend to concur. Given the long time other civilizations may have had to evolve in the Universe, the ones interacting with us may not be so advanced. However, he also proposes that the odds of “them” being physically similar to us or to some Earth-based species must be low so that the types of being observed may be enhancements of beings previously taken from Earth. I’m not so clear about this; it could be that certain forms are adaptable and reappear in similar environments.
However, the issue of how far our species already exists in some form or another beyond Earth has to be considered. If we are a combined product of a divine blueprint inhabiting local anthropoid-hominid biological vessels enhanced by various ET groups we may already be a universal species. Aspects of our humanity may exist as other beings in the Cosmos. Also, who qualifies as a “Human” with all the rights to be treated as such? Are there Earth humans and otherworldly humans some of which are closer to the way we are as mammals and some which may not be? According to a theological perspective being created in “God’s image” refers to having a self-conscious intelligence, being able to recognize other beings with those qualities and being capable of making conscious free will choices. In that case whether we have a torso, head, two arms and two legs or eight slippery tentacles and three eyes would not be the essential fact that matters. What do they sense and feel? How refined their feelings and emotions can be and how self-reflective and free they are to make choices above and beyond their evolutionary bio-psychological tendencies may be more important to keep in mind to come up with new definitions.
Please visit Paradigm Research Group at http://www.paradigmresearchgroup.org/Update7-8-14.htm