ALAN ROEBUCK, and two other readers, have interesting responses to the entry from Roger G., the Thinking Housewife flying saucer correspondent.

Mr Roebuck writes:

I wanted to give my two cents about the flying saucer thing.

The best take on the subject that I’ve ever heard comes from Hugh Ross, former professor of astrophysics and head of the Protestant “science apologetics” organization Reasons to Believe.

In summary, Ross’s take is this:

Although most reported “OFU” activity (around 95 percent) is either charlatanism or honest misunderstandings, there is a significant amount of unexplainable, real UFO activity. This activity often leaves behind physical evidence, but the craft themselves have never been handled. They are only seen in the sky.

For a wide variety of scientific and technological reasons, the explanation cannot possibly be visitors from other planets.

UFOs frequently violate the laws of physics, such as the “90 degree turns at extreme speed” mentioned by Roger G. As Ross points out, even a solid sphere of hardened steel would be vaporized by a sudden right turn while traveling at 15,000 miles per hour, which has been observed.

Therefore, the UFO’s are spiritual, not physical. UFOnauts must therefore be either demons or holy angels.

UFOnauts show hostility to mankind, frequently attack Christianity and often encourage us to believe in all sorts of new-age nonsense. Therefore they must be demons, not holy angels. At the very least, they are hostile beings from another dimension.

Although this is not a pressing issue for me, Ross’s position makes the most sense to me of any of the major explanations of UFO phenomena.

JOE A. writes:

Angels = Aliens.

Chariots of Fire = UFOs

As Christians, WE KNOW there are non-human forms of life in the heavens. We even pray to their Supreme Leader and his official delegate to Planet Earth, whom we know in the person of Jesus Christ. Why would we, why should we scoff at UFO reports? We are not to know all there is to know before the Second Coming.

Now … as to whether or not they are little green men, little gray men, or little lizard men, well that’s quite a different question, n’est-ce pas?

THOMAS BERTONNEAU writes:

On the existence of flying saucers, my position is Hamlet’s:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
“Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ”
[1.5.166-7]

Incidentally, the notion of a “plurality of worlds” and of extraterrestrial “humanities” is an old one. In the nineteenth century, the natural philosopher and theologian William Whewhell (1794 – 1866) argued that the assumption concerning the habitation of other worlds by intelligent beings was consistent with Christian doctrine. God would not build a great mansion, Whewhell argued, and not tenant all those rooms.

—— End of Initial Entry —-

Terry Morris writes:

I’ve read two of Hugh Ross’s books. His theories are very interesting.

Regarding the subject of alien beings who allegedly visit people on earth, and in some cases perform certain kinds of painful medical procedures on their human victims, have you ever noticed that the drawings of these creatures, based on the accounts of their victims, very often look like under-developed human fetuses with their large eyes, tiny barely developed nose, small mouth and thin lips, pronounced triangular face and pointy chin? This has always seemed to me more than a coincidence.

Laura writes:

That’s an interesting insight. Of course, you’re right about the resemblance. I never thought of it that way before.

Andy writes:

Fr. Seraphim Rose in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future also posited that UFO’s/Aliens were actually demonic beings, and he linked this to theology about the Aerial Toll Houses, and the journey of the soul through Satan’s realm in the ethereal heaven.

As far as the notion of there being other worlds with other beings with eternal souls, this has been condemned by the Church in the Middle Ages as contrary to the faith. Which should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it. Christ became incarnate as a man, permanantly uniting his divine person to a human body and soul. How could he then save space aliens seeing as he already died once for humanity?

The belief in other worlds full of space aliens is part of the denigration by atheists of the earth as being in and existing as a special place in the center of the universe, having been created there by God. However, as an alternative to some of the goofy scientific theories about invisible dark matter and dark energy, this concept is making a comeback.

Sally writes:

Have you been deluged with letters regarding UFO’s, Little Green Men, and other mysterious phenomena? I imagine you have had some interesting mail the past few days. I have never seen an UFO and I hope I never do. I have listened to several lectures by Hugh Ross. He comes across as rational and educated. He mentioned in his lecture that as far as he can tell most individuals who report either a sighting or some other experience with an UFO have had previous contact with the occult. His theory is that if these entities are demonic in nature then dabbling with the occult opens the doors so to speak. This made sense to me. It does not explain all such sighting but it is an intriguing idea. He also thinks this theory could explain many of the Bigfoot sightings as well. Oh dear….. I just opened another can of worms :) Have a good weekend.

Laura writes:

He mentioned in his lecture that as far as he can tell most individuals who report either a sighting or some other experience with an UFO have had previous contact with the occult.

That’s interesting, and makes a lot of sense.

No, I haven’t been besieged with mail about this. In fact, every single comment I have gotten has been interesting and provocative. I was hesitant to bring up this subject despite the enthusiasm of my flying saucer correspondent, but I’m glad I did.

Roger G. writes:

Alan Roebuck cites physicist and UFO expert Dr. Ross for the proposition that these craft have never been handled, and are only seen in the sky.

Wrong on both counts. And even if extraterrestrial vehicles indeed have never been handled and are seen only in the sky, nevertheless they’re extraterrestrial vehicles. [Laura writes: Are you saying that human beings have handled these craft and seen them on earth?]

Still relying on Dr. Ross, Alan Roebuck also writes:

“For a wide variety of scientific and technological reasons, the explanation cannot possibly be visitors from other planets.”

We’ve all read scads of that sort of reasoning, and from the highest authorities. Here are just a few examples:

“Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia”

Dr. Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London, 1823.

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”

Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

“There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.”

Robert Millikan, American physicist and Nobel Prize winner, 1923.

Gravity technology would resolve inertia, the light speed limitation, and other difficulties. There has been much and sophisticated speculation on the details of gravity technology by those I’m about to mention, and by many others; you can go read up on it and them. The very Hermann Oberth himself thought that flying saucers employ gravity technology (yes honestly, the great Oberth, the astronautics pioneer, Von Braun’s mentor). And so did Paul Hill (WWii P-47 designer; Associate Chief, Applied Materials and Physics Division, NASA Langley Research Centre; author, Unconventional Flying Objects: a Scientific Analysis). So do Michio Kaku (string field theory) and Peter Sturrock (Stanford emeritus); Dr. Ross should talk to them. We don’t know how many years/centuries/eons we are away from it, but apparently someone does have it.

Continuing with Dr. Ross, Alan Roebuck yet additionally writes:

“UFOnauts show hostility to mankind, frequently attack Christianity and often encourage us to believe in all sorts of new-age nonsense. Therefore they must be demons, not holy angels. At the very least, they are hostile beings from another dimension.”

Oh yeah? Well I was abducted by a beautiful blonde Nordic, transported with her to the mothership, and appointed Earth’s ambassador to the Galactic Federation. And I’m providing the same support for these claims that Alan Roebuck is citing for his. Now go compare this latest Alan Roebuck/Roger G. evidence with what Jim P.and I discussed in the first thread.

Sally, also referring to Dr. Ross, writes:

“He mentioned in his lecture that as far as he can tell most individuals who report either a sighting or some other experience with an UFO have had previous contact with the occult.”

Laura replies:

“That’s interesting, and makes a lot of sense.”

WHY??? Did you or Sally read anything Jim P. and I wrote or linked to? [Laura writes: But neither you or Jim P. spoke of having these experiences.] Dr. Ross demonstrates no knowledge of anything we’ve mentioned, but you two still consider him a credible authority? Did Cmdr. Stafford’s pilots sell their souls to Satan, or Major Slayton read Tarot cards? Were General Curtis LeMay and Admiral Lord Hill-Norton in league with the forces of darkness? Was the whole #!**!$% Belgian Air Force playing with their ouijah boards? (Though Cmdr. Stafford actually did see Hell on Earth; go read Little Ship, Big War.)

Add in Terry Morris, and there are three readers here who have done what I didn’t think possible – mention a UFO authority that I’ve never heard of. And the little they cite him on speaks for itself. If you’re going to rely on a UFO expert, pick one who knows something about UFOs, and isn’t prejudiced by his agenda.

For instance, consider J. Allen Hynek, a physicist who was hired by the U.S. Air Force to debunk UFOs, and initially did just that. But during his years of investigation, Dr. Hynek kept an open mind. And so indeed it happened that he came to scoff, but remained to pray.

I don’t deny the angelic or demonic; I do deny that what I have referred to is angelic or demonic. Those sources that I cited – come on, grab the mouse, hit that cursor, take a look, and be objective. Does this stuff read like heavenly/hellish manifestations? Or, rather, technology?

We should go where the evidence leads us. If it looks like a machine and flies like a machine, why argue it into a devil or an angel?

The Greys/foetuses thing that Terry Morris and Laura discuss is very old hat UFO psychoanalysis. It’s been around forever – purported abductees reliving birth trauma, or some such. Valid or specious, what do I care? I have never once mentioned Greys, or abductees, or Reptilians, or Roswell, or Betty and Barney Hill, or Billy Meier, or George Adamski, or the Unarius Society. I have referred to pilot visuals, radar returns, officers and scientists of accomplishment and reputation. [Laura writes: No one implied that you were reliving birth trauma. It was merely an interesting observation that depictions of space aliens often resemble fetuses.] Darn it, I am the authorized and credentialed flying saucer correspondent for The Thinking Housewife,  appointed personally by Laura Wood, her very own self, and my protective cosmic ray hat is of the finest aluminum foil.

Please follow and like us: