THE IMITATION GAME: THE ANATOMY OF A CONVERSATION WITH "MARK"
By Steve Douglass
MARK:
Okay, so imagine we have Rahlf (Roswell Alien/Human Life Form" — a bio‑engineered human replica. And not just a robot, but fully human in every emotional and cognitive way.
Me:
Right. Born by the probe, from a sample of DNA , but doesn't know it (yet) and feels things the same as we do.
MARK:
Exactly. And now science finds out Rahlf wants to go into the world — not just be studied.
Me:
That makes sense. If he’s conscious and autonomous, keeping him inside feels… wrong.
MARK:
But here’s where it gets weird: there’s also a second Rahlf — created by accident — locked in the lab.
Me:
Like a twin?
MARK:
Yeah. Not on purpose. Just an unintended replication.
Me:
So you have two versions of the same consciousness — or at least two equally real people — but only one gets freedom?
MARK:
Right. And then add this twist: the original Rahlf is linked, through some entangled physics thing, to an alien virtual world. The aliens can feel what he feels in a symbolic, emotional way.
Me:
Wait—so they don’t read his thoughts, but they feel his experience?
MARK:
Exactly. They interpret emotions as visual or spatial metaphors in their own perception. It’s not a data feed, it’s more like shared resonance.
Me:
That’s insane. So if Rahlf cries, they feel an instability in their virtual space?
MARK:
Pretty much. Which means they’re not cold observers — they actually experience the costs of being human through him.
Me:
That’s… kind of beautiful and terrifying.
MARK:
Here’s the ethical knot: Another Rahlf - — an accidental one — doesn’t have that link. He’s just conscious. So what do humans do with him? Does he deserve the same freedom?
Me:
Of course! If he’s conscious and wants agency, it’s not fair to keep him locked away just because he’s an accident.
MARK:
But some scientists might argue we don’t understand the entanglement well enough. The aliens could be influencing him in unknown ways.
Me:
Like some hidden feedback loop? But lack of knowledge isn’t a reason to strip someone of autonomy.
MARK:
Exactly the debate. Some would say letting Rahlf (1) out into the world could risk unknown influence on humanity. Others say that trusting him is part of being human.
Me:
And meanwhile, Rahlf (2) is left inside, experiencing isolation and questions of identity.
MARK:
Yeah, and he might ask: If I’m the same as him, why do I get a different fate?
Me:
Which mirrors real ethical questions about twins, clones, or even people born into different circumstances.
MARK:
Right! And what if Rahlf (1) somehow senses his virtual twin — like he feels something that doesn’t originate in his own experience?
Me:
That’s like having someone whisper emotions into your mind without you knowing.
MARK:
And the aliens? They’re torn. Some think humans shouldn’t have any influence — just observe. Others think the link has already changed them.
Me:
So being human doesn’t just change the alien data — it changes them?
MARK:
Yep. They might value individuality, moral hesitation, even regret — things they never had before.
Me:
It’s almost like Rahlf is not just a subject, but a teacher.
MARK:
Exactly.
Me:
So humanity letting Rahlf (1) out isn’t just about freedom — it’s about acknowledging that we value choice over certainty.
MARK:
Yes. And the real question becomes: Does Rahlf (2) get the same shot?
Me:
Honestly? He should. If consciousness and desire are present, that’s all that should matter — not origin, not accident, not physics.
MARK:
So humans might end up arguing that the only thing that makes someone truly human is agency, not biology.
Me - go on.
MARK:
So picture this: Rahlf has been living like a normal human for years. Scientists have been studying him — trying every test to get alien insights — but he just acts human, normal, unaware of anything exotic.
Me:
Right, he’s been cooperative but oblivious to his own origin.
MARK:
Exactly. But then one day — boom — he has this epiphany.
Wait there's more?
I was thinking, after I had finished the last chapter, I should explain the process between Mark and myself, how our conversations worked. This is almost verbatim of how a conversation about Roswell between Mark and me would take place. Yes, it reads like prose, but it's not. If you still think it's all a bullshit PsyOp feel free to go back to the "I captured an orb on my cell phone" reports on X.
MARK:
Okay, so imagine we have Rahlf (Roswell Alien/Human Life Form" — a bio‑engineered human replica. And not just a robot, but fully human in every emotional and cognitive way.
Me:
Right. Born by the probe, from a sample of DNA , but doesn't know it (yet) and feels things the same as we do.
MARK:
Exactly. And now science finds out Rahlf wants to go into the world — not just be studied.
Me:
That makes sense. If he’s conscious and autonomous, keeping him inside feels… wrong.
MARK:
But here’s where it gets weird: there’s also a second Rahlf — created by accident — locked in the lab.
Me:
Like a twin?
MARK:
Yeah. Not on purpose. Just an unintended replication.
Me:
So you have two versions of the same consciousness — or at least two equally real people — but only one gets freedom?
MARK:
Right. And then add this twist: the original Rahlf is linked, through some entangled physics thing, to an alien virtual world. The aliens can feel what he feels in a symbolic, emotional way.
Me:
Wait—so they don’t read his thoughts, but they feel his experience?
MARK:
Exactly. They interpret emotions as visual or spatial metaphors in their own perception. It’s not a data feed, it’s more like shared resonance.
Me:
That’s insane. So if Rahlf cries, they feel an instability in their virtual space?
MARK:
Pretty much. Which means they’re not cold observers — they actually experience the costs of being human through him.
Me:
That’s… kind of beautiful and terrifying.
MARK:
Here’s the ethical knot: Another Rahlf - — an accidental one — doesn’t have that link. He’s just conscious. So what do humans do with him? Does he deserve the same freedom?
Me:
Of course! If he’s conscious and wants agency, it’s not fair to keep him locked away just because he’s an accident.
MARK:
But some scientists might argue we don’t understand the entanglement well enough. The aliens could be influencing him in unknown ways.
Me:
Like some hidden feedback loop? But lack of knowledge isn’t a reason to strip someone of autonomy.
MARK:
Exactly the debate. Some would say letting Rahlf (1) out into the world could risk unknown influence on humanity. Others say that trusting him is part of being human.
Me:
And meanwhile, Rahlf (2) is left inside, experiencing isolation and questions of identity.
MARK:
Yeah, and he might ask: If I’m the same as him, why do I get a different fate?
Me:
Which mirrors real ethical questions about twins, clones, or even people born into different circumstances.
MARK:
Right! And what if Rahlf (1) somehow senses his virtual twin — like he feels something that doesn’t originate in his own experience?
Me:
That’s like having someone whisper emotions into your mind without you knowing.
MARK:
And the aliens? They’re torn. Some think humans shouldn’t have any influence — just observe. Others think the link has already changed them.
Me:
So being human doesn’t just change the alien data — it changes them?
MARK:
Yep. They might value individuality, moral hesitation, even regret — things they never had before.
Me:
It’s almost like Rahlf is not just a subject, but a teacher.
MARK:
Exactly.
Me:
So humanity letting Rahlf (1) out isn’t just about freedom — it’s about acknowledging that we value choice over certainty.
MARK:
Yes. And the real question becomes: Does Rahlf (2) get the same shot?
Me:
Honestly? He should. If consciousness and desire are present, that’s all that should matter — not origin, not accident, not physics.
MARK:
So humans might end up arguing that the only thing that makes someone truly human is agency, not biology.
Me - go on.
MARK:
So picture this: Rahlf has been living like a normal human for years. Scientists have been studying him — trying every test to get alien insights — but he just acts human, normal, unaware of anything exotic.
Me:
Right, he’s been cooperative but oblivious to his own origin.
MARK:
Exactly. But then one day — boom — he has this epiphany.
Me:
Like what?
MARK:
He suddenly sees through the veil. He becomes aware not just of himself, but of the alien entanglement — the resonance link, the virtual twin, the observers feeling his experience.
Me:
Whoa — so he realizes he’s more than human?
MARK:
Yeah. And not just more — other. And once he understands the alien architecture inside him, he stops seeing himself as a subject and starts seeing himself as a bridge.
Me:
So then what?
MARK:
He makes a pitch. Not a threat, but an offer:
“Let me go. Share my freedom. In return, I’ll give you *access to the technology I carry — real alien tech, not theory.”
Me:
That’s huge. But wouldn’t the scientists be suspicious — like, how do they know he’s not manipulating them?
MARK:
That’s the tension. They’ve been trying to extract alien info from him for years, but everything just read as normal behavior. He looked like a human. No anomalies in tests.
Then this moment — this awakening — happens spontaneously. And it’s genuine.
Me:
Wait — how does he explain it?
MARK:
He sits the lead researchers down and says:
“For most of my life, I thought I was just human because that’s what I was taught. But the entanglement isn’t static — it’s responsive. Yesterday, I felt something that was not mine — a current of meaning — and when I traced it back, I realized I’m not just a lab product. I’m a sentient probe.”
Me:
And they believe him?
MARK:
Not right away. First they think it’s some neurological glitch — a breakdown or hallucination. But then he demonstrates it.
He reaches out — mentally, emotionally — and suddenly the scientists feel something they can’t explain: a ripple of recognition, like a déjà vu rooted in emotion they never consciously felt.
Me:
So they feel what he feels?
MARK:
Exactly. And that’s when they realize he’s not fabricating it.
Me:
So then he offers alien tech?
MARK:
Yeah. It’s subtle. He doesn’t just drop blueprints or gadgets. He offers patterns — principles of physics the aliens used to build the entanglement system, encoded as problems humans haven’t solved yet — like equations with meaning embedded, not just data.
Something like:
“I can teach you how to stabilize energy fields without entropy loss… but only if my freedom is guaranteed.”
Me:
That’s a bargaining chip no one can ignore — especially if it’s real.
MARK:
And that’s the ethical quagmire. Because if they give him freedom, they might unlock powerful tech too fast — tech humanity isn’t ready for. But if they don’t, they’re basically enslaving a sentient being for information.
Me:
Right. And the fact that he became conscious of his nature rather than just being a programmed mimic makes it worse to keep him locked up.
MARK:
Exactly. It shifts everything from research to rights — from “object to analyze” to “person asking for a fair deal.”
Me:
So the real question becomes:
Is the potential benefit to humanity worth the moral cost of denying his freedom?
MARK:
And whether the scientists deserve access to alien tech that could reshape civilization in the first place.
So picture this: there are two scientists — let’s call them Scientist A and Scientist B because they’re not the ones talking to us — they’re the ones wrestling with what to do.
ME:
Okay. What’s the core of their conflict?
MARK:
It starts with the original Rahlf. For years, he’s lived like a normal human — they treat him like a son. But now he suddenly becomes aware of his true nature: that he’s a sentient probe with an alien entanglement. And he offers humanity access to alien tech if they let him go free.
ME:
That’s huge. So what’d these two scientists think?
MARK:
Scientist A thinks freedom should come first. They raised Rahlf like a child, watched him grow emotionally. To them, bargaining his autonomy for tech is morally wrong. They say:
“If he’s truly conscious, his freedom isn’t a commodity.”
They worry that tying his release to technology turns him into a resource, not a person.
ME:
And Scientist B?
MARK:
Scientist B also cares deeply for Rahlf, but they’re torn. They understand the fear others have — that alien technology could be misused, or that it might reshape civilization faster than humans can handle. But they agree with Scientist A that freedom can’t be conditional.
So Scientist B says:
“We can explore knowledge collaboratively — but we can’t trade someone’s autonomy for it.”
ME:
So they’re aligned on freedom, but different on how to handle the tech offer?
MARK:
Exactly. Scientist A is very clear — autonomy is primary. Anything else must be earned through mutual respect, not leverage. Scientist B adds a caution: just because Rahlf offers knowledge doesn’t mean humanity needs to rush into it without ethical frameworks in place.
ME:
Good point. And what about the accidental twin?
MARK:
That’s where things get emotionally layered. They didn’t plan for a second Rahlf — but now he’s here, conscious, and developing his own individuality. Scientist A says both beings deserve equal consideration: freedom, dignity, choice — no hierarchy based on who has alien links.
ME:
So no “priority access” even if one has useful info?
MARK:
Right. They both argue that making freedom contingent on usefulness is exactly what not to do. Scientist B emphasizes that the accidental twin deserves a future just as much as the original.
Scientist B put it like this:
“If we let one go because he has tech, and keep the other because he doesn’t — we’ve already created inequality between peers.”
ME:
That makes sense.
MARK:
The real crux is that for both scientists, this becomes less about science and more about what kind of beings they want to be. Their choices now will define not just Rahlf’s future — but how humanity understands responsibility.
They keep coming back to the same principle:
Autonomy first. Knowledge next. Ethics always.
No bargaining of freedom for power. No exploitation. Not even of accidental sentience.
ME:
So they’re advocating for letting both Rahlfs choose their own paths, without coercion?
MARK:
Exactly. And they believe if technology comes later, it should be under conditions of consent, oversight, and readiness — not as a ransom.
Like what?
MARK:
He suddenly sees through the veil. He becomes aware not just of himself, but of the alien entanglement — the resonance link, the virtual twin, the observers feeling his experience.
Me:
Whoa — so he realizes he’s more than human?
MARK:
Yeah. And not just more — other. And once he understands the alien architecture inside him, he stops seeing himself as a subject and starts seeing himself as a bridge.
Me:
So then what?
MARK:
He makes a pitch. Not a threat, but an offer:
“Let me go. Share my freedom. In return, I’ll give you *access to the technology I carry — real alien tech, not theory.”
Me:
That’s huge. But wouldn’t the scientists be suspicious — like, how do they know he’s not manipulating them?
MARK:
That’s the tension. They’ve been trying to extract alien info from him for years, but everything just read as normal behavior. He looked like a human. No anomalies in tests.
Then this moment — this awakening — happens spontaneously. And it’s genuine.
Me:
Wait — how does he explain it?
MARK:
He sits the lead researchers down and says:
“For most of my life, I thought I was just human because that’s what I was taught. But the entanglement isn’t static — it’s responsive. Yesterday, I felt something that was not mine — a current of meaning — and when I traced it back, I realized I’m not just a lab product. I’m a sentient probe.”
Me:
And they believe him?
MARK:
Not right away. First they think it’s some neurological glitch — a breakdown or hallucination. But then he demonstrates it.
He reaches out — mentally, emotionally — and suddenly the scientists feel something they can’t explain: a ripple of recognition, like a déjà vu rooted in emotion they never consciously felt.
Me:
So they feel what he feels?
MARK:
Exactly. And that’s when they realize he’s not fabricating it.
Me:
So then he offers alien tech?
MARK:
Yeah. It’s subtle. He doesn’t just drop blueprints or gadgets. He offers patterns — principles of physics the aliens used to build the entanglement system, encoded as problems humans haven’t solved yet — like equations with meaning embedded, not just data.
Something like:
“I can teach you how to stabilize energy fields without entropy loss… but only if my freedom is guaranteed.”
Me:
That’s a bargaining chip no one can ignore — especially if it’s real.
MARK:
And that’s the ethical quagmire. Because if they give him freedom, they might unlock powerful tech too fast — tech humanity isn’t ready for. But if they don’t, they’re basically enslaving a sentient being for information.
Me:
Right. And the fact that he became conscious of his nature rather than just being a programmed mimic makes it worse to keep him locked up.
MARK:
Exactly. It shifts everything from research to rights — from “object to analyze” to “person asking for a fair deal.”
Me:
So the real question becomes:
Is the potential benefit to humanity worth the moral cost of denying his freedom?
MARK:
And whether the scientists deserve access to alien tech that could reshape civilization in the first place.
So picture this: there are two scientists — let’s call them Scientist A and Scientist B because they’re not the ones talking to us — they’re the ones wrestling with what to do.
ME:
Okay. What’s the core of their conflict?
MARK:
It starts with the original Rahlf. For years, he’s lived like a normal human — they treat him like a son. But now he suddenly becomes aware of his true nature: that he’s a sentient probe with an alien entanglement. And he offers humanity access to alien tech if they let him go free.
ME:
That’s huge. So what’d these two scientists think?
MARK:
Scientist A thinks freedom should come first. They raised Rahlf like a child, watched him grow emotionally. To them, bargaining his autonomy for tech is morally wrong. They say:
“If he’s truly conscious, his freedom isn’t a commodity.”
They worry that tying his release to technology turns him into a resource, not a person.
ME:
And Scientist B?
MARK:
Scientist B also cares deeply for Rahlf, but they’re torn. They understand the fear others have — that alien technology could be misused, or that it might reshape civilization faster than humans can handle. But they agree with Scientist A that freedom can’t be conditional.
So Scientist B says:
“We can explore knowledge collaboratively — but we can’t trade someone’s autonomy for it.”
ME:
So they’re aligned on freedom, but different on how to handle the tech offer?
MARK:
Exactly. Scientist A is very clear — autonomy is primary. Anything else must be earned through mutual respect, not leverage. Scientist B adds a caution: just because Rahlf offers knowledge doesn’t mean humanity needs to rush into it without ethical frameworks in place.
ME:
Good point. And what about the accidental twin?
MARK:
That’s where things get emotionally layered. They didn’t plan for a second Rahlf — but now he’s here, conscious, and developing his own individuality. Scientist A says both beings deserve equal consideration: freedom, dignity, choice — no hierarchy based on who has alien links.
ME:
So no “priority access” even if one has useful info?
MARK:
Right. They both argue that making freedom contingent on usefulness is exactly what not to do. Scientist B emphasizes that the accidental twin deserves a future just as much as the original.
Scientist B put it like this:
“If we let one go because he has tech, and keep the other because he doesn’t — we’ve already created inequality between peers.”
ME:
That makes sense.
MARK:
The real crux is that for both scientists, this becomes less about science and more about what kind of beings they want to be. Their choices now will define not just Rahlf’s future — but how humanity understands responsibility.
They keep coming back to the same principle:
Autonomy first. Knowledge next. Ethics always.
No bargaining of freedom for power. No exploitation. Not even of accidental sentience.
ME:
So they’re advocating for letting both Rahlfs choose their own paths, without coercion?
MARK:
Exactly. And they believe if technology comes later, it should be under conditions of consent, oversight, and readiness — not as a ransom.
ME:
Absolutely - but I'm a human - that is I think I'm one.
MARK:
Funny guy, maybe you are a Rahlf. Heck, maybe we all are but, get this — after a long debate, the rest of the research team reached a compromise.
ME:
A compromise? About Rahlf getting out?
MARK:
Yeah. They all agreed the original Rahlf should be allowed to join the world — but with safeguards attached.
ME:
Like what?
MARK:
First, constant electronic monitoring. Not invasive mind‑reading or anything hidden, but transparent tracking of physiological and environmental data: location, health, vitals — stuff that assures the institute they aren’t suddenly losing contact with him.
ME:
So they’re not letting him disappear entirely?
MARK:
Right. They want reassurance there’s no unexpected feedback or interference through the alien link. Along with that, regular reporting back to the committee — scheduled check‑ins, behavioral assessments, objective logs. Not to control him, but to understand how he’s adapting in the world.
MARK:
Funny guy, maybe you are a Rahlf. Heck, maybe we all are but, get this — after a long debate, the rest of the research team reached a compromise.
ME:
A compromise? About Rahlf getting out?
MARK:
Yeah. They all agreed the original Rahlf should be allowed to join the world — but with safeguards attached.
ME:
Like what?
MARK:
First, constant electronic monitoring. Not invasive mind‑reading or anything hidden, but transparent tracking of physiological and environmental data: location, health, vitals — stuff that assures the institute they aren’t suddenly losing contact with him.
ME:
So they’re not letting him disappear entirely?
MARK:
Right. They want reassurance there’s no unexpected feedback or interference through the alien link. Along with that, regular reporting back to the committee — scheduled check‑ins, behavioral assessments, objective logs. Not to control him, but to understand how he’s adapting in the world.
ME:
I can see that being both reassuring and irritating for Rahlf. Constant scrutiny.
MARK:
Exactly — and that’s where Scientist A and Scientist B come in. The panel didn’t want Rahlf surrounded by surveillance guards or bureaucrats. They chose those two — the ones who cared for him like a child — to be his teachers and guardians in the real world.
ME:
So they get to go with him?
MARK:
They’ll be his primary support system, guiding him through social, ethical, and practical challenges, helping him integrate without exploitation, making sure he’s not overwhelmed by everything society throws at him
But they also act as ethical stewards — not police, not bosses — more like mentors and advocates.
ME:
That sounds like a huge responsibility. And privilege.
MARK:
Yeah. It means they’re trusted to protect Rahlf’s autonomy, not just enforce the conditions. They’ve always argued that freedom isn’t waived just because someone is unique. Now they actually get to implement that philosophy in the world.
ME:
So what do they think about the monitoring and reporting?
MARK:
They’re cautious but realistic. Scientist A says: “Monitoring that’s transparent and agreed upon is acceptable. It doesn’t cage a person — it supports safety.”
And Scientist B adds: “We’re not babysitters. We’re companions in his journey. If he doesn’t want something reported, we advocate for dignity first, compliance second.”
ME:
So the conditions aren’t meant to control Rahlf — just to manage risk while respecting his humanity?
MARK:
Exactly. They drew a line: Safety — yes. Ownership — no.
They also helped define what the reports actually include: psychological well‑being, ethical dilemmas he encounters, how the alien link affects him in social contexts, no raw alien data dumps. So it’s not corporate intelligence gathering — it’s human adaptation reporting.
ME:
That’s a subtle but important distinction.
MARK:
Totally. The compromise wasn’t a retreat. It was a framework that acknowledges reality — humans are nervous about unknowns — while still affirming agency.
ME:
And what does Rahlf think?
MARK:
He’s emotional about it. Grateful for freedom. Uncomfortable with monitoring. But he accepts the conditions as a bridge, not a cage — especially knowing the two scientists he trusts most are with him.
ME:
Sounds like a balanced start to something profound.
MARK:
Mark interjects on my moment, "Meanwhile back at the lab ... screens surround them, each one showing a live feed of Rahlf’s monitored life — his vitals, his emotional states, his interactions as he navigates a world of colors and weather and unpredictable humanity. There’s a hush in the room — not triumph, not fear, but reverence. A few take notes. Some whisper about the implications. All of them watch, unified in the knowledge that something unprecedented is unfolding: a being born of science, moving through reality with human agency. Then, another alert appears. A notification. A new biological signal. The system detects it before anyone can interpret it. The probe, sensing Rahlf is gone — the original sentient probe, linked entangled through Rahlf — has begun making more Rahlfs.
Not copies for containment. Not experiments for labs. But new sentient beings — emerging beyond prediction, beyond protocol."
I can see that being both reassuring and irritating for Rahlf. Constant scrutiny.
MARK:
Exactly — and that’s where Scientist A and Scientist B come in. The panel didn’t want Rahlf surrounded by surveillance guards or bureaucrats. They chose those two — the ones who cared for him like a child — to be his teachers and guardians in the real world.
ME:
So they get to go with him?
MARK:
They’ll be his primary support system, guiding him through social, ethical, and practical challenges, helping him integrate without exploitation, making sure he’s not overwhelmed by everything society throws at him
But they also act as ethical stewards — not police, not bosses — more like mentors and advocates.
ME:
That sounds like a huge responsibility. And privilege.
MARK:
Yeah. It means they’re trusted to protect Rahlf’s autonomy, not just enforce the conditions. They’ve always argued that freedom isn’t waived just because someone is unique. Now they actually get to implement that philosophy in the world.
ME:
So what do they think about the monitoring and reporting?
MARK:
They’re cautious but realistic. Scientist A says: “Monitoring that’s transparent and agreed upon is acceptable. It doesn’t cage a person — it supports safety.”
And Scientist B adds: “We’re not babysitters. We’re companions in his journey. If he doesn’t want something reported, we advocate for dignity first, compliance second.”
ME:
So the conditions aren’t meant to control Rahlf — just to manage risk while respecting his humanity?
MARK:
Exactly. They drew a line: Safety — yes. Ownership — no.
They also helped define what the reports actually include: psychological well‑being, ethical dilemmas he encounters, how the alien link affects him in social contexts, no raw alien data dumps. So it’s not corporate intelligence gathering — it’s human adaptation reporting.
ME:
That’s a subtle but important distinction.
MARK:
Totally. The compromise wasn’t a retreat. It was a framework that acknowledges reality — humans are nervous about unknowns — while still affirming agency.
ME:
And what does Rahlf think?
MARK:
He’s emotional about it. Grateful for freedom. Uncomfortable with monitoring. But he accepts the conditions as a bridge, not a cage — especially knowing the two scientists he trusts most are with him.
ME:
Sounds like a balanced start to something profound.
MARK:
"Yeah. The real world is unpredictable, but now the first step beyond the lab has been taken — not in fear, but in responsibility. The two scientists — the ones who raised Rahlf like a child — stand beside him just beyond the lab doorway. After years of care, argument, uncertainty, and ethical debate, the conditions are set: Rahlf will leave the lab with transparent monitoring and regular reporting, and his trusted guardians will go with him into the world.
I imagine. It's almost cinematic, kinda like The Truman Show.
I imagine. It's almost cinematic, kinda like The Truman Show.
Rahlf steps out. For the first time, he feels something real. Not circulated , refrigerated air. Not fluorescent lab light. He feels the warmth of the sun, and he looks up —blue sky stretching beyond anything he’s ever known. His breath catches. It isn’t data. It isn’t observation. It’s wonder.
One of the scientists watches him with quiet awe. The other smiles, teary‑eyed. Rahlf slowly raises his face toward the sun, feeling light on his skin and gravity under his feet, as though every moment before has been preparation for this one.
He says, softly, almost to himself: “So this is what the Sun is?”
One of the scientists watches him with quiet awe. The other smiles, teary‑eyed. Rahlf slowly raises his face toward the sun, feeling light on his skin and gravity under his feet, as though every moment before has been preparation for this one.
He says, softly, almost to himself: “So this is what the Sun is?”
Not copies for containment. Not experiments for labs. But new sentient beings — emerging beyond prediction, beyond protocol."
I sat there dumbstruck listening to what Mark was telling me. Was it an intricate tall tale… or a secret no one dared to emit?
“So these scientists,” I asked, more to myself than to Mark — “they let him go. They’re monitoring him. And then… the probe starts making more? ”
Mark said, “And that,” he said quietly, “is the beginning — not the end.”
Mark said — Rahlf, the twin, the alien entanglement, the first step into blue sky, the probe making more Rahlfs — it all buzzed in my mind like static on a frequency no one else could quite tune into.
I blinked, trying to collect myself.
“Wait,” I finally said, my voice sounding small, “you’re telling me all of that could be real? That there’s a sentient hybrid out there right now, stepping into the world for the first time… and we don’t even know it?”There was a pregnant silence. Then he spoke with an authority I had not yet heard from him.
“Real or not,” someone in that world believes it. And someone else is tracking every heartbeat of it. The question isn’t whether it’s true — it’s whether humanity will ever be ready for what comes next.”“So these scientists,” I asked, more to myself than to Mark — “they let him go. They’re monitoring him. And then… the probe starts making more? ”
Mark said, “And that,” he said quietly, “is the beginning — not the end.”
Well, if it's a lie, I'm a suckered. Still, make for one helluva movie."
Mark said one more thing before he hung up the phone, "Not while I'm alive.
(C) Steve Douglass
Comments
Post a Comment