Proof

Written by Alexander Espinoza

I.

    The object in the sky looked as almost as we expected it to. Unlike the pill-shaped sightings reported by navy pilots and civilians in recent times, this object looked like the stereotypical saucer photos you may have seen in a 1950's alien invasion TV show. The only difference this time was that it was not a shaky and grainy clip of footage which always seemed to be the case whenever UFO's, UAP's or whatever acronym the US government gives them, made an appearance. The object was recorded on a clear day from the peaks of the Organ Mountains. It was an event that you would expect to change the modern world, but to this day the video evidence is still classified as a taboo subject that astronomers and other disciplines of science seem to avoid. Experts and Military Commander's shuffle their feet and are always so quick to change the subject in a way that suggests they are not a part of a cover-up, but rather that they themselves are unable to explain their own understanding of the event. The world was certainly stunned, many people remember the exact moment and place when they first witnessed the footage. But the human reaction to interpret the unexplainable overwhelmed the event with emotion that threatened the foundations of what they understood as truth. The eruption of emotion and opinion put humanity at a disadvantage. Despite a greater frequency of sightings, at one point Van Horn, Texas produced an average of seven videos a day (Though not as clear as the "Proof" video), government and media set such a negative narrative that people strayed away from stories and reports that involved the unidentified objects. Our societal framework essentially set up an ultimatum between belief and acknowledging the "Proof" event. What unfolded as an event of the natural world spiraled very quickly into a debate on morality. Scientific inquiry never had the chance to analyze the data in a meaningful way due to the threat it poses to the structure of modern society. The purpose of this paper is to make apparent the features of our societal framework that posit this event as humanity's inherent tension between belief and objectivity.

    The initial report is recognized as a primary source as are my interviews with Alexander Saul and Heather Spark. Even though I will include the congressional redactions and changes in testimony from military commanders, I will note my disagreement so readers discern argument from account. This paper is a work of nonfiction and any material in quotes can be sourced from interviews and official documents. My commentary and impression of events will be clear for readers so as not to confuse them further from understanding this event. I do not aim to refute any personal belief. Aside from my aim as stated in my thesis, my subjective motivation only seeks to bring the "Proof" event out of the taboo realm and into a space where it can be observed and scrutinized as a historical event. Rational thought can no longer be applied to the hierarchical structure that belief has established in regard to this specific event. Rather than charge for a change in belief I focus on bringing understanding to the cultural patterns and symbols in our society that restrict our thinking in regard to this event. Since Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States I refer to it more frequently than any other religion. Organized religion across the board behaved very similar regarding the Proof event. I focus mainly on Christianity since several of my peers who specialize in Islam, Judaism and various other religions are publishing their findings at around the same time this work will be published. I refer to the event as the Proof event, which is standard across the little academic discussion that is taking place on this historical moment. The Proof event received its name because of the headline "PROOF" published in the New York Times and several other large media corporations. With careful study I hope that this event can be considered by serious research and scientific methodology. Before I defend my thesis, a description of the event is necessary. The "Proof" event is described as follows: