The reading of these texts raises a whole series of questions and few answers on the authors of these letters. As we said in the introduction, only irrefutable evidence will answer this question one way or the other.

There are two assumptions hypotheses, in my view.

The first; The authors, truly from Ummo, are trying to explain a part of their knowledge they are permitted to reveal, using words and a language which are not their own (and everybody knows that it is sometimes difficult to express precise ideas, especially when they are of a technical, scientific or philosophical nature, in a language which is not the mother tongue) to readers of the Middle Ages (us!)

The second; In the years between 62/65, a group of students of various disciplines (I find it difficult to believe that these letters, the vocabulary invented, the work of preparation beforehand, and the verification and fact-checking of the concepts and vocabulary over the course of 25 years, can be the work of one person), the students having a good level of education, pieced together this enormous hoax and they kept it up, meeting each other from time to time and writing new letters so as not to lose it... They should now be around 60 years old and it is astonishing that not one has come forward to say "We really had you going!"

Well then, let us wait a few years, but watch out for a " misinformation " campaign if these writings begin to interest too many people. But whoever the authors may be, they have distinguished themselves by re-examining many ontological concepts with such a " revolutionary " point of view.

What have these three booklets taught us? Have they brought us an answer (undoubtedly partial and not necessarily the right one) to the fundamental questions we and all our philosophers have been asking for over 2000 years, namely: who are we, what is the finality of our existence?

Either these texts have not changed your previously-held ideas in any way; might one say that you are lucky? I envy your certainty.

Or else these texts have been " agitators of neurons ", as I acknowledge is the case for me.

May I offer my interpretation of what I have understood in them (you are not in any way obligated to read me!)? But remember, this is only my point of view, and it would be a shame if for your part you did not make the effort of adaptation to integrate the ideas in these texts if they allured you.

I read four principal " messages " here.

The clearest message is, " be careful, do not believe only what you see, feel, think and take in, that is to say reality. No, it is only a construct of our brain, which, being limited in its capacities (for example, we cannot visualize or conceive of images in more than three dimensions. Plato's famous metaphor of the cave illustrates this perfectly), cannot conceptualize the universe and all it contains in any other way than in does now ". There is no lack of examples.

The IBOZOO UU that I try to imagine (but my brain is so limited!) as the smallest possible and directed crumpling of space, whose three dimensions are known to us but probably 6 or 7 others (of angle vectors?) cannot be seen.

The universes are perhaps a little easier to understand: ours, the one we see, the twin universe which encloses it (in "shifted dimensions "? and thus invisible) and the two others, also invisible (in "perpendicular dimensions " ?), like " imaginary numbers " in mathematics.

On these two points, very recent particle physics and cosmological theories seem to converge with Ummite thought.

The second message is much more " religious ", although personally I do not like this term very much. " We are only the sensory organs of an entity much more important and interesting than we are, but as senses, we have the possibility (and it is our free will) to evolve this entity in one direction or another (good or bad) ". By Woa, what a responsibility! Personal responsibility and collective responsibility... but isn't this the message religions conveyed before becoming almost official state structures?
 

The third message is that we have still a good way to go on the path of knowledge, even if our pride makes us think (as it made people of the Middle Ages think, and those before and those after!) that " we have found it ", systematically forgetting that the truths of today will be (or will not even be) very small pieces of the truths of tomorrow.
 

The fourth message is that we really have no luck. Too bad for us that we are the inhabitants of a planet that we are actively destroying. Too bad for us that we humans are equipped with a brain so aggressive that the ultimate goal of any society is to crush its neighbors. Too bad for us that we are one of the rare (percentage-wise) planets having undergone continental drift, causing so many different races, beliefs, and languages blocking the way for true communication. Nevertheless, it is fortunate that in this ocean of entropy small islands of neguentropy exist which will perhaps one day expand.

But if we have had no luck up until now, we should work to turn this situation around. Perhaps part of that task might be the acceptance and integration of an Ummite-type philosophy (adapted to our knowledge and our beliefs).

What do they want for us?

Technological evolution in which the knowledge gained would not immediately be used to crush, kill or vitrify that which does not think like us.

An evolution in our general knowledge, acquired by us, allowing us to better understand the universe in which we live (evolution life on Earth and the biotopes, for instance) and to understand the universes (let us call them " parallel ") which are of primordial and transcendent importance for explaining of the finality of our existence, and thus the way to conduct ourselves during the few years we spend down here.

What they claim to have found; the wisdom of living for the society, the group and humanity and not for oneself, the collection of material goods often acquired to the detriment of those who already do not have much.

It is easy to moralize and " criticism is easy, art is difficult ". Forgive me. My fingers on the keyboard have taken me beyond the questions I put forth at the beginning of these pages. So, who are we, what is the finality of our existence?

We are, as Hubert Reeves said, children of the stars, but there are so many stars that our brothers and sisters are no doubt immensely numerous. Some will be born, some are very young or our elders, others might be close to death. We do not know them yet, and we will be able to meet them only when we know ourselves a little better, when we become adults.

We are an integral " part " of several communities; the planetary community of our biosphere and the living beings, all the planets where life exists, our planetary community of souls (spirits - consciousnesses) and the planetary community of the "universes of the collective spirits and forms" with which our "spirit -mind - consciousness " perhaps connects after death.

Couldn't our body and our mind (thinking in this moment) be the dull chrysalis of a multicolored butterfly which transforms itself at the time of what we call " death "? How to know if the memory of a caterpillar is transmitted to the butterfly?

Our finality is to be, for our " universe of the collective spirits and forms ", the best possible senses. Only it is not enough to see well, hear well, feel well... but also to think well, to do well, to learn well, to evolve well, for this universe is what we make it. It is at this price (you have undoubtedly noticed a certain tendency on my part to believe what is said in these letters), that we will one day be able to taste the joys of a total connection to knowledge. For all eternity?

 
A-J. H ., Aix-en-Provence (FRANCE) 10/26/97