The Christmas Season and The Magic Window

Christmas is my favorite holiday season, but every year, it seems hard to recapture that magic feeling I had as a child.  I try to decorate more, listen to more Christmas music, and soak up the seasonal changes and decor around town.  But that magic feeling seems so hard to recapture.

Last year I realized it isn't the Christmas season that changes and seemingly makes it hard to grasp that magic feeling, but us.  I came across something written by a guy called "Papa Ted" that he called "The Magic Window."

There is but a very brief window in early childhood for us all, a period of time that lasts from birth until we are cast from the nest and into school. A time when all about the world is new and good. A time when we are open. A time when we take things in so deeply that they will form us ever after. So we imprint upon the Christmas of that time, and what that was is what it will be for us always. That is what collecting is about. The power that an object unseen in decades can have to transport us in mind and spirit back to a specific period or moment of our lives - to unlock long-closed doors in the mansion of our memory - is the true value that it has. We can hold such an object in our hands and know those times were real and welcome back whole parts of who we were into who we are - and let the inner child in each of us out once again to play - to live as part of us and and help us see again through our own "Magic Window." -T.H. Althof

You can see a longer, more descriptive version on this page here (You have to scroll to the bottom of the page to get the Magic Window part, but the other stuff is interesting too if you have time to read it).

What he said about "The Magic Window" really made sense to me.  Ultimately, the modern Christmas season hasn't really changed all that much over time, but the Christmases of our childhood that our parents made for us are the Christmases that are really imprinted into our minds.  I don't have any children of my own yet, so I can't relive my childhood Christmases through children vicariously like some of my friends already do.  But I still hold out hope to recapture that magic feeling of a childhood Christmas every year!

See my past Christmas posts below.

The Christmas Story

The Star of Bethlehem

The Christmas Truce

Music of the Christmas Season

Sometimes the only proof is belief

I was thinking about an article I read I while back, and I don't remember who wrote it or where I read it, but the point the writer wanted to get across was that he thought UFOlogists should stop putting so much emphasis on the Roswell incident. He thought that by putting so much emphasis on the Roswell incident - by way of books, lectures, and the internet - UFOlogists were running the risk of losing any credibility they may have if the Roswell incident was ever proven to not have been an ET UFO crash. But after I thought about it, the question that came to my mind is how would anyone ever prove that the Roswell incident wasn't an ET UFO crash? The official story says that it wasn't a crash, but many people believe the official story is a lie, therefore, it doesn't constitute proof that an ET UFO didn't crash in Roswell, New Mexico back in 1947. Back in the 1990's, the government declassified documents relating to Project Mogul, a top secret project that existed from 1947-1949 that was tasked with operating high altitude spy balloons to spy on Soviet atomic bomb tests. With the declassifying of Project Mogul documents, the government essentially issued a new official story about Roswell, saying the original official story wasn't quite the whole truth. It was a balloon that crashed, according to official sources, but it wasn't a weather balloon - it was a spy balloon that they were testing. They claimed they had to keep the 'truth' about the spy balloon a secret because they didn't want the Soviets to know they were using balloons to spy on them. The Project Mogul story sounds plausible considering the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union was going on. But a lot of people still don't believe that story. Some people think that story is still just a cover up. So if some people are not going to believe whatever the official story is, how is it ever going to be proven to not be true? What could they ever do or say that would convince everyone that it wasn't an ET UFO that crashed in Roswell? Personally, I'm not convinced that the Roswell incident was an ET UFO crash, but I'm not conviced the official story is true either. But I really don't know how anyone is going to prove that it wasn't an ET UFO that crashed in Roswell as long as people still believe they are hiding the truth.

So what about the flipside of this, what if the government admitted that it was an ET UFO that crashed in Roswell and that they retrieved the wreckage and bodies and reverse engineered the technology? If that were to occur, I imagine there would be many UFOlogists that would laud that disclosure as proof the Roswell incident was an ET UFO crash and proof of ET life. But would it be proof? If the current official story doesn't constitute proof now, why should it constitute proof then? It seems to me the proof is in the belief. Currently, many UFOlogists believe the official story is bogus. If the government were to tell them something that sounds more like what they already believe to be true, then I think they would most likely accept that official story as proof.

But would it be enough proof? If an official story only constitutes proof sometimes, can it ever be considered solid proof by itself?

So now we've come to a new question. How could they prove that it actually was an ET spaceship that crashed in Roswell? If the official story doesn't count as proof that it wasn't an ET UFO now, why should the official story suddenly count as proof that it was an ET UFO if the story was changed to admitting it was an ET UFO?

At this point, someone might say something like, "Well, hopefully they'd have pictures of the wreckage being recovered, or better yet, video footage."

That's the famous picture of Jesse Marcel holding what is allegedly the 'balloon' that crashed at Roswell. Many people think the picture was staged though. But if that picture isn't proof that it was a balloon, why would a picture (or video) of a spaceship being recovered be considered proof? Who's to say that a picture of a spaceship wasn't staged (or photoshopped)?

Now, at this point, someone might say something like, "Well, hopefully they could put some of the wreckage or one of the bodies on display."

But what if the wreckage was faked? What if the body was created in some geneticists lab to look like an alien? How would you really know for sure that it was real?

Now, at this point, someone might ask something like, "Well, why would they go to all that trouble to fake that?"

Well, what if they admitted to finding a crashed spaceship, but they didn't tell the whole story. What if the official story stated that a spaceship crashed, they recovered the wreckage, reversed engineered what they found, claimed they used that technology to build the SR-71, and they are not sure why the spaceship crashed and had no further contact with the aliens. Some people might accept that. Maybe it sounds like what they already thought might have happened. But what if that isn't exactly how it went down. What if what really happened was that they shot down the spacehship, arrested the aliens, brutally tortured them for information, and succeeded in pissing off the rest of the alien species who then proceeded to start abducting people for DNA samples to conduct experiments on creating human-alien hybrid super soldiers with appetites as big as a cow's for a future invasion of the planet earth (and this is just a 'what if' scenario, I'm not actually throwing that out there as a legitimate suggestion of what might have happened). What if the aliens succeeded in invading earth because no one was prepared for the invasion because no one bothered to keep pressuring the government for a full disclosure because they already believed they had been given a full disclosure? So that might be a reason they would fake having an alien spaceship - telling people something they will believe so they will shut up and quit asking about it. I mean, if they lied about it for decades, how would you ever really know for sure when they were telling the truth?

But I'm only using the Roswell incident as an example. This post isn't about whether or not the Roswell incident was a balloon, a spacehship, or something else. The point of this post is that proof oftentimes consists of something that confirms what someone already believes to be true. Have you ever dismissed something you heard simply because it contradicted something you already believed to be true? Have you ever known or known of someone who dismissed something they were told because it didn't fit with what they already believed to be true?

And if you have never actually experienced something or investigated it for yourself, then how can you personally say that you know for sure it is true? Is it because 'most' people think its true? Is it because someone with a PhD said so? Is it because CNN or FOX reported it?

As Marcus Aurelius said, "The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if they know nothing about the subject." We should be careful to assume that something is true because 'most' people think it is true. We also shouldn't forget that someone who is well educated and has credentials can still be wrong about something. What if they are merely repeating something their college professor taught them? What if their professor was merely repeating something that they were taught? What if what they were taught was never true in the first place? What if it was just assumed to be true because it had been 'known for a long time'? And what if the news reports were reporting information that was inaccurate? What if the were just reporting something outlandish in attempt to boost ratings so they could charge more money for ads?

Not all proof is necessarily based on belief though. If you went to a pool and someone told you the water was cold, if you didn't believe them, you could just get in and see for yourself if it's cold. Once you've stepped in, you have solid proof as to whether or not the water is cold because you've experienced it. Prior to that, all you had was word of mouth. You could have just chosen to believe what you were told and not bothered to get in the water at all.

Maybe this is why parents sometimes get frustrated when their children get in trouble because they did something they were told not to do. Perhaps the children didn't believe their parents when they were told that they could get in trouble. Sometimes children may just have to experience something for themselves to get the proof they need to avoid getting into the same kind of trouble again.

But proof doesn't always come from your own personal experiences (and sometimes even certain experiences can be misleading). Sometimes the only proof available to you is something that confirms (or fits with) what you already believe to be true.

I guess 'proof' can be a personal preference.

Hopefully I've proven my point here. I'd like to believe that I have. J

A Case for an Open Mind

I think some people are closed minded out of fear.  They fear being 'led astray' by conflicting viewpoints.  With others, it's an arrogance.  They think they are right, and that is that.  A lot of closed minded people are probably a combination of both.

However, I don't think people should fear being 'led astray'.  Having an open mind and listening to different perspectives isn't necessarily going to lead you astray.  You can still choose to believe what you always believed.  But the value in hearing different perspectives is it gives you a bigger knowledge base to go off of, even if you don't agree with all of it.  It makes you more informed, and better able to explain why you believe what you believe, and why you don't believe what you don't believe.

And consider this, by learning new information, you may ultimately come across information that supports what you believe anyways.  You may find out that you were right all along...but now you'll know why you were right!  Alternatively, you might find out why what you thought was wrong is wrong.  Learning new things won't necessarily lead you astray at all.

But perhaps the best reason for an open mind is it gives you the opportunity to connect dots that you may not have even known were there.  I can think of several things I've learned over the years, where taken as individual statements, they may be difficult to believe.  However, if you connect the dots, you begin to see a bigger picture you didn't even know was there.  I could probably mention a few things out of context here, and people reading this would probably think they were far-fetched.  However, if you connect them together, suddenly they seem less far-fetched.  It starts to make sense.  This is why an open mind can be a good thing, even if you dismiss something you hear initially.  At first, you might hear something that sounds far-fetched and not give it much more thought.  Later down the road, you might hear something else that sounds kind of crazy, but it stays in the back of your mind.  After a while, you hear something else that makes you think, "Hmm...that sounds similar to something I heard a while back.  Perhaps the two things are connected.  If so, that may mean that [insert topic here] I heard someone mention before may be connected too."  Sometimes, seemingly unrelated topics may be connected without you even knowing it.  But if you've had an open mind and learned a lot of perspectives about different topics, you may find yourself making connections between things you didn't even know were connected.

Ultimately, having an open mind won't necessarily lead you astray.  If it did, it's possible you wouldn't even realize you were led astray because you may feel more enlightened because of it.  A willingness to consider other perspectives makes you less arrogant (or at least seem less arrogant).  Ultimately, I think you find yourself feeling more informed and more enlightened.  Having an open mind doesn't prevent you from thinking on your own and drawing your own conclusions.  It's possible that you could be led astray by having an open mind, because there are a lot of deceivers and false information out there.  But if truth seeking is your goal and you analyze things first with an open mind and without jumping to conclusions, you have a good chance of finding the truth eventually.  Of course, it's good to continue to have an open mind once you've found the 'truth', you know...just in case that 'truth' turns out to not be true afterall. J

Hey, at the very least, you'll being able to converse with a lot of different kinds of people at dinner parties.

Just some quotes

I keep a list of good quotes I come across that relate to various subjects.  I thought I'd post some of them here today.  There's no single topic covered here, these are just random, 'good' quotes.

[Note: Some of these quotes may be paraphrased.]

-If the Bible is true, the time is coming when men shall travel at 50 miles an hour. -Sir Isaac Newton

-You do not understand even life. How can you understand death? -Confucius

-Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car. - Laurence J. Peter

-In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man, hated and scorned. When the cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -Mark Twain

-Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. -a Knights Hospitaller, from the movie Kingdom of Heaven

-Tolerance And Apathy Are The Last Virtues Of A Dying Society -Aristotle

-So little trouble do men take in the search after truth, so readily do they accept whatever comes first to hand. - Thucydides

-God is not the author of confusion. - Paul of Tarsus (1 Corinthians 14:33)

-If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. -Jesus Christ (John 15:18)

-The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. – George Orwell

-Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good. - Ecclesiates 9:12

-There is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

-The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. -Marcus Aurelius

-A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult. -Proverbs 12:16

-Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Walk beside me that we may be as one. -Ute

-Human knowledge must be understood to be believed. Divine knowledge must be believed to be understood. -attributed to Blaise Pascal (I'm not sure if Pascal really said this, but I thought it sounded good regardless of who said it.)