Monday, May 30, 2011

Christopher Knowles on the Elusive Companion Hypothesis

The Dawn of Man.

Christopher Knowles has coined a new term, The ELUSIVE COMPANION HYPOTHESIS as a way to better articulate the elusive meta-weirdness that surrounds the UFO phenomenon.
One-click audio download HERE.
1 hour and 46 minutes long

This term Elusive Companion Hypothesis (ECH) emerged during a series of five excellent posts on THE SECRET SUN. I strongly urge you to read each one of these essays. Trust me on this.

These posts are:
My Favorite Nightmares
AstroGnostic: Reality Is as Reality Does
AstroGnostic: Stanley Kubrick and the Reality Stargate
AstroGnostic: Moon-Machines and Mindbombs
Ockham, the Occult and the Ultraterrestrials

Stanley Kubrick and Jack Kirby both attempt to redefine the scope of their respective crafts. Each use overtly mythic imagery to bypass the normal pathways, and ends up rewiring a hidden part of our psyche. The stories brought back by alien abductees have the same sweeping power.

From left to right: The Reptilian, the Human and the Nordic. In his blog postings Mr. Knowles expounds on the overt imagery of Jack Kirby's epic comic book THE ETERNALS.

This set of farsighted essays paints a swirling entanglement of UFOs, Jack Kirby, Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, ancient astronauts, synchronicities, The Watchers, science fiction, nightmares, human evolution - and - alien abductees.

I also ask him about a very creepy glowing figure that Chris saw last summer at night with his dog, and this experience is downright (sorry to use the word, but) paranormal!

What does Buzz know that he’s not telling us?

Mr. Knowles speculates that if there's a signal out there, it’s being filtered out. Shamans, occultists, sick children and other thought-criminals seem to pick up on the signal when the stars are all aligned. It's a fleeting state, but it's driven forward our evolution in ways we don't quite understand.

And sometimes, even humble “Joe Normal” gets zapped by this signal on his very own road to Damascus. And even Haywood Floyd got zapped in a 40 foot pit on the moon.

What the?


Raj said...

Great stuff as always, Mike. Keep up the good work!

Mike Clelland! said...

Neil A. sees alien.

(a palindrome)

Red Pill Junkie said...

It's funny how I strongly disagree with Chris' assertion that Floyd is "the bad guy" in the 2001 movie, even though it's a perfectly logical conclusion.

I guess that my viewpoint is colored by the sequels (movie & books) to 2001 —specially the movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact; obviously not on par with Kubrick's masterpiece visually and narratively, but in my mind I'll always remember fondly of Floyd, because he was brilliantly personified by the late Roy Scheider... who, oddly enough, looked *a lot* like Ufologist (and contactee) Ray Stanford.

PS: Hey Mike, ever tried to do some "channeling" doodles of your own? ;)

Mike Clelland! said...

No sympathy for men wearing suits that tow the party line. Haywood Floyd was toady for THE MAN. He's a villain, albeit a charming one - but a villain none the less.

I wonder if he ever got his daughter a bush baby?

Red Pill Junkie said...

OK, he *was* the villain in 2001. But in 2010 he seeks atonement by risking his life and flying to Jupiter in search for Bowman and the Discovery.

I'm just a sucker for redemption stories, you know --probably the reason why I kept watching Dragon Ball Z as a kid :P

The Secret Sun said...

But here's the deal on Floyd if we continue in this Apollo vein- Floyd's daughter is played by Kubrick's daughter. Floyd takes the team to the Monolith to have it what?-- photographed. Floyd keeps his mouth shut under very intense scrutiny.

Some projection on Kubrick's part?

Mike Clelland! said...

The New Jersey meteor story.

Chris and I talk about this. The day he coined the ECH.

Brizdaz (Darren) said...

You have to remember that Stanley was mainly responsible for interpreting 2001 for the screen
(don't forget,the Monolith was a translucent crystal in the book,while in the film it is the same dimensions as a cinema screen and is black,hence when the movie starts,you're supposed to be looking at the Monolith),while Arthur C. Clarke was mainly responsible for where the books went with the story.
"The Shining" is a good example of how director and author can take the same story and interpret it differently,to each others disgust.
Stephen King has been quoted as saying that although Kubrick made a film with memorable imagery, it was not a good adaptation of his novel,and is the only adaptation of his novels that he could "remember hating"

Brizdaz (Darren) said...

I've got to say that as much as I liked reading
"The Cryptoterrestrials" by Mac Tonnies,something inside my head just couldn't except the word Cryptoterrestrials.I kept thinking of mummies coming out of their tombs,when I read the word Cryptoterrestrials.
I like Elusive Companions a bit better,but then again Cryptoterrestrials don't have to be your companions,either.
So maybe the
Elusive Entities Hypothesis might be a better term.
Instead of ETs we could have EnTs .-)

Red Pill Junkie said...

@ Brizdaz:

Yeah, I'm aware of Kubrick's subliminal message of showing the cinema screen as the monolith —brilliant idea, of course :)

And re. The Shining, it doesn't surprise me King would say that, considering how much Kubrick changed the story —like the part in the book where the hedges are 'animated' by the boy, and all that— but the movie's plot needed to be 'tighter'.