Statement Regarding the Authenticity of the MAJESTIC 12 Documents

Joseph Firmage

original source |  fair use notice

Summary: Now that the new MAJESTIC 12 documents are in broad circulation, it is appropriate for me to make a few comments regarding their authenticity and their role in support of the hypothesis contained in The Truth.

Joseph Firmage author’s bio

Now that the new MAJESTIC 12 documents are in broad circulation, it is appropriate for me to make a few comments regarding their authenticity and their role in support of the hypothesis contained in The Truth.

Let me first state for the record five key philosophical points that frame my sponsorship of this initiative:

I have no economic motive in advancing this hypothesis or these materials. I have every conceivable career disincentive for pursuing this research. However, this line of discovery in my opinion is more important than any individual’s career, and I am putting my money where my mouth is to do this.

Only those who have taken the time to read extensively in the domain are qualified to assess the historicity of the UFO phenomenon. Outright rejection of the evidence without comprehensive review of the research in print across hundreds of books is close-minded, unscientific, and indeed irresponsible in the extreme. It is also quite understandable given decades of government disinformation which, right or wrong in its genesis, was specifically designed to create a “giggle factor” surrounding the subject.

I will not selectively listen only to the evidence that simply agrees with my own previously stated views, nor will I reject evidence because it is contrary to conventional presumptions of scientists. The case “for” the reality of the UFO phenomenon is rather comprehensively summarized in The Truth, and as credible and rigorous new evidence materializes, it will be added to the site. As I discover rigorous skeptical examinations of individual documentary or historical evidence, I will include them also as part of the appropriate sections of The Truth, and/or use them to modify my own position as reflected in the narrative. Everyone will have the ability to read such perspectives and decide for themselves what is true.

The UFO phenomenon can no longer be dismissed because of an apparent incompatibility with the laws of physics, such as the speed of light limitation on interstellar travel. There are now numerous well-grounded physics papers and books in circulation that clearly point towards the ability to engineer spacetime itself, which effectively provide clear plausibility to the concept of gravitational propulsion. Take the Drake equation and combine it with technology capable of engineering gravity, and you will be left not only with the plausibility of something like the observed UFO phenomenon, but the overwhelming likelihood of it.

I am unwaveringly committed to a rigorous pursuit of the truth, wherever that may lead. This site will contain my best effort to uncover the complete and true story spanning the subjects touched upon within it. With those points as a foundation for the evolution of my book, I would like to state my own views on the question of how the authenticity of the MJ-12 materials bears on the historicity of the events they describe.

After years of analysis of previously-published MJ-12 documents (such as the work conducted by Stanton Friedman) and particularly in light of the newly released MJ-12 documents, one thing is clear to virtually all serious researchers regardless of whether they believe in the pristine authenticity of the new materials: the documents simply must have been authored by or within the military-intelligence community of a superpower. This fact alone speaks volumes when considered next to the mountain of other UFO evidence. If the documents are pristine and true, they were written by the individuals therein mentioned or their assistants. If the documents are partial or complete forgeries, then they were written by an intelligence agency of the government of either the United States or the Soviet Union. In this sense, even the serious-minded skeptics are hard pressed not to agree that they are “authentic” in terms of military-intelligence authorship. The question is, could they be authentic in military-intelligence authorship and not authentic in detail? And if so, what does that say about the most important authentication question of all: the basic history they describe?

It is almost certain that the security infrastructures created to contain the history of the crash of an extraterrestrial vehicle would ultimately wind up creating forgeries for whatever purpose. Three ulterior purposes immediately spring to mind:

(1) documents seeded with small but critical flaws, destined to one day leak and discredit their entire chains of custody and all of the surrounding research, thereby helping to seal the cover on the program,

(2) documents fabricated to mis-inform Cold War enemies or proxies thereof about the details of the events, and

(3) documents fabricated to disinform internal constituencies: competing branches of government, particularly nosy investigators, diligent reporters, or the public at large. But whether every single MJ-12 document is completely accurate in history, genuine in authorship, or pristine in generation is not the issue. It is obviously possible that an intelligence agency of either superpower fabricated one or more of the documents for one of the purposes described above, or some other purpose. However, I believe that it is exceedingly improbable that such documents were created in a vacuum – created as complete fiction, in the complete absence of an authentic phenomenon and original historical events. The mere existence of such documents as these, containing the verifiable details that they do, are powerful evidence for the reality of the basic storyline in the history they recount.

Indeed, I have personally sat across the table from top leaders of the military and of science who have confirmed the basic truth of the UFO phenomenon. Those who know me know that I would never have bet my reputation and my career without such explicit confirmation. I have nothing – nothing – to gain by lying.

For those involved in UFO research, I strongly suggest that you focus your energies on tying together the historical events and people described in the documents, rather than exclusively concentrating on the history of the pages themselves. As far as “proving” the pristine authenticity of the MJ-12 documents and their history is concerned, it is really only critical to validate any one of the principal documents. If only a single major document is validated, then MJ-12 was factual, and its confirmed existence and basic mission is to added to the already overwhelming and far more powerful testimonial evidence in favor of the reality of the UFO phenomenon. Focusing too much time on the pages themselves is a mistake, because the most compelling proof that their storyline is basically true – short of new materials or events unfolding – is bound to come in the form of corroborating historical research and witness testimony.

In the final analysis, the skeptic is charged with doing far, far more than discrediting these newly released documents through speculative criticisms based upon typographical errors or one or two seemingly anachronistic details, because the historicity of the documents is not the most important question. The most important question is the historicity of the phenomenon they describe. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that the UFO phenomenon is real. Therefore, ANY such well-crafted documents – pristine in every detail or not – argue in behalf of the reality of the UFO phenomenon. It is astronomically unlikely that the massive and generally self-consistent evidence of extraterrestrial activity over the past five decades is simply a large coincidence or the product of a several good hoaxes.

I ask the skeptic to step forward and comprehensively refute all the evidence: the millions of sightings, the thousands of reported landings, the thousands of abduction experiences, and the countless highly strange accompanying phenomena for which no one yet has a clear explanation: crop circles, cattle mutilations, etc. The refutation must take into account the following facts:

(1) compelling UFO evidence spans all nations, modern or not, regardless of whether their populations have been exposed to science fiction,

(2) the evidence spans far more than 50 years – rather it goes back thousands of years, peppered throughout the ancient books and scriptures of our ancestors, and

(3) the evidence is exactly as it should be when describing a phenomenon advanced far beyond humanity: it borders on the incomprehensible. How is a family of monkeys to interpret a Palm Pilot III? Or a Boeing 777? Or a football game? Or a scientist shooting at them with a dart to tranquilize, abduct, examine, and release them? Such a comparison is entirely fair and completely literal.

I am not aware of the existence of sufficient contrary data to refute the massive accumulation of evidence supporting the reality of the UFO phenomenon. Indeed, let me restate perhaps the only truly powerful scientific argument against its plausibility: gravitational propulsion is not possible, therefore we have not been and are not being visited by beings from other worlds. This argument is ultimately the only basis upon which the UFO phenomenon can be rejected as a whole.

Well what if it is possible to engineer gravity? 100% of the scientific presumptions against interstellar travel – and by implication extraterrestrial visitation – must immediately be extinguished if there is a single credible demonstration of practical gravity engineering. There is good evidence to believe that open science is approaching such a demonstration, and it is reported in my book.

If the hypothesis of The Truth is correct, then it is not only important, but vital at this time to step beyond our preexisting world view and expand the boundaries of our imagination. If humanity is indeed the subject of a multimillennium process of education, if not genesis itself, it is of fundamental importance that we demonstrate our ability to think, study and teach on a new level.

Read more articles on this topic: THE MAJESTIC DOCUMENTS

Face it; it’s a Face – (The Sequel)

Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA

By Mike Bara
(Special to the Enterprise Mission)

Note: This article was originally intended for inclusion in our current book “Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA” but had to be removed due to space considerations. It appears here in a modified version to accommodate Internet publication

Gee, what a surprise.

Finally, after more than 20 years of waiting, we’ve been given the first legitimate color images of Cydonia. On September 21^st, 2006 the European Space Agency released the latest HRSC (High Resolution Stereo Camera) color imagery of the Cydonia region of Mars. Unlike their earlier release, which was taken in December 2004 under less than ideal conditions, this one came captioned and with a politicized article that emphasized the usual non-arguments against the Face on Mars.

Taken on July 22^nd 2006 under much better lighting conditions and from straight overhead, these 13.7 meter per pixel images (designated 305-230906-3253-6-co1 and co2) provide the best overview yet of the area that has come to be known as the “Cydonia complex.” What they reveal is a stunning landscape that is strongly confirmative of almost all of this investigation’s previous predictions. In many ways, because they are color, these two stereo images are far better than supposedly higher resolution images generated by MGS.

In fact, what’s quite clear from examining these new images is that the previous Mars Global Surveyor images of the Face (and Cydonia) leave a lot – quite a lot – to be desired.

Let’s start with a brief review of the concept of spatial resolution in remote sensing data. Most of us assume that an image with a stated resolution of 1.2 meters per pixel is automatically “better” than an image of 13.7 mpp, such as these new Mars Express images. Most of the time, that’s true. But there is a lot more to it than that. If the 1.2 mpp image is grayscale, meaning 8-bit data, it by definition carries less information than a 16 or 32-bit color image. Further, all kinds of conditions — atmospheric haze, lighting (sun) angles,, camera settings, the optical properties of the camera, the filters being used, the incidence angle of a nadir-pointing camera — can all dramatically affect the quality of the resulting image. A good case in point would be the infamous “Catbox” image of the Face on Mars.

The example above is the so-called “TJP enhancement” of the “Catbox” image of the Face, taken in 1998. While it is unquestionably the best enhancement of this image to date, it is of very poor quality. According to the Malin Space Science Systems website, the image has a spatial resolution of 4.3 mpp, making it by far the best image of the Face to that point. However, this stated resolution only takes into account the maximum possible resolution, based on the camera optics and the altitude above the target. The image was in fact taken after the spacecraft had already passed over the Face, from a 45 degree angle to the west, and with the sun at a fairly low morning sun angle of 25 degrees above the horizon, lighting the Face from below. In addition, MSSS had stripped out at least 50% of the data by using an exceptionally large image swath (see “Honey, I shrunk the Face” 1998), and haze and cloud cover made for very poor lighting conditions. The result was an extremely dark, low contrast image which didn’t come close to the imaging capabilities of the MGS camera. Vince Dipetro, an early pioneer of Face research, concluded that with all the factors included, the effective spatial resolution of the image was 14 mpp, as opposed to the stated 4.3 or the optimum 1.2 mpp capability of the camera under ideal conditions and altitude.

By contrast, the new ESA images were taken from directly overhead, at close to minimum altitude, under full daylight conditions with virtually no cloud cover, and in 24-bit color. Beyond that, unlike any of the previous missions, the HRSC is able to take images almost side-by-side, one after the other. The results were impressive.

The two stereo images, taken just moments apart, provide the best overview of the Face and City we have received from any mission so far. Both frames capture the Face, Fort, D&M and the City in high resolution color. The first image (305-230906-3253-6-co1) provides the added bonus of capturing the Cliff in the lower portion of the frame, and a substantial amount of the anomalous “mesas” north of the Face first noted by Hoagland in Monuments. What this all amounts to is that these images are without a doubt the best wide-angle view we have ever gotten of Cydonia. So, that said, what do they tell us?

For starters, it’s immediately obvious that Cydonia is a very weird place, at least as far as any natural explanations for its formation go. Most of the familiar named objects that we have come to know look just we would expect them to. The Fort can be clearly seen to rest on a triangular platform, with a collapsed peak that must be triangular in nature, since in the Viking data it left a distinctly triangular shadow, which gave the illusion of an “inner wall” at a 60 degree angle. The Mars Express color image is by far the most detailed view of this object yet, despite the fact that the grayscale MGS image has a higher theoretical spatial resolution.

The D&M Pyramid, just a few miles south of the Face, is yet another example of this color phenomenon. While the composite MGS view shows more close-up detail, the Mars Express image shows the object in much better context, emphasizing the strange circular platform from which it rises some 2500 feet above the plain below. The Mars Express image is also dramatically better than the Mars Odyssey 2001 visual camera image, showing more detail than can be discerned in that grayscale image while losing none of the critical context.

But perhaps no member of the existing “Cydonia complex” is revealed as more alien than the curiously straight edged “Cliff.”

First noted by Hoagland back in the early days of the Cydonia investigation, the Cliff is an anomalously straight ridge seemingly perched atop the ejecta blanket of a nearby crater. It formed, along with the apex of the tetrahedral “Tholus” and the rim pyramid of the nearby crater, one of the key 19.5 alignments in Cydonia Geometric Relationship Model. The argument for its possible artificiality has always centered around the fact that it has not only a completely bizarre geomorphology (a near-perfectly straight ridge running for miles) but that it rested on a raised platform of sorts which seemed to post-date the crater impact. Later high resolution images from Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey 2001 and now Mars Express seem to support this. There is no evidence that the ejecta has spattered on top of the Cliff, and the entire mesa just seems to have been stamped on top of the ejecta flow. After more than a generation, the conclusion that this anomalously straight ridge somehow posted-dated the cratering event (which is a geological impossibility) is more than solid.

Yet another object which has been more recently revealed by this investigation is also re-imaged here. Described in the ESA article accompanying the new Cydonia images as a “skull shaped mesa,” this object just south of Face has fascinated us since it was first noted on the original “Catbox” image strip. This image showed that what appeared in the Viking data to be simply a natural mesa among the ruins of Cydonia was in fact an intriguingly symmetrical mesa.

The odd ESA description of it as “skull shaped” is attributed to the claim (by ESA) that some people have referred to it as such. In fact, we have never encountered this description in any anomaly related web article or public posting. The “mesa” in question has caught our fancy for several reasons; its significant symmetry, its proximity to a massive tetrahedral ruin noted by Hoagland in 1998, and the existence of a tunnel or channel terminating at the exact lateral center of the “mesa” in the Mars Odyssey infrared data. Our own conclusion is that the skull reference is a designed distraction, to keep readers from viewing it from a perspective that makes the symmetry obvious.

This symmetrical mesa and a series of anomalous objects north of the Face and City are excellent examples of “Fractal Erosion.” Essentially, the concept of a fractal is that a given object resembles itself at different levels of magnification. For instance, the Face on Mars still looks like a Face at both lower resolution (Viking) and higher resolution (MGS). With fractal erosion, the concept is taken a step further to predict that a given object generally erodes along the lines of its original shape. So we can reconstruct the original shape of a given object by studying how it appears today. Using this method, architect Robert Fiertek did a study of the original shape of the City at Cydonia in the early 1990’s.

We can do a similar reconstruction with various objects around Cydonia. Doing so, the “skull shaped mesa” becomes more overtly symmetrical, and the original shape of a number of objects in the north become highly geometric. This area, dubbed “Super Bowl City” by researcher Robert Harrison of the Cydonia Quest web site, was first noted by Hoagland in Monuments. It contains a wealth of geometric ruins that are nearly inexplicable by natural erosive processes. In fact, all of the “mesas” in this particular area are very unusual, but the four we have selected seem to be the most non-natural and the most consistent with the other anomalies at Cydonia.

Four especially anomalous objects north of the Face – The West Mound, and “H” shaped structure, a Rounded Mound, and a Triangular Mesa

The far left object, dubbed the “West Mound” by Harrison, is remarkably similar to other objects at Cydonia like the D&M and Main Pyramid in the City. It appears to have a degree of symmetry about a central axis that is highly unusual for any natural erosion process. Close up MGS views reveal blocky, room sized geometric patterns on its more eroded flanks, where it appears the original exterior structure has collapsed inward. Were this object part of the original “City” it would certainly have been included as a candidate for artificiality, and would certainly have passed the test upon closer inspection.

Three views of the West Mound (Harrison\Bara)

Just a short distance from the West Mound are two more objects that really defy conventional explanation. One is a bizarre “H” shaped formation.

Once again we see the unaccountable symmetry of a “mesa” in Cydonia, this time in the shape of an “H.” The Fractal reconstruction shows it was once a wedge shaped structure, probably a hollow arcology which has collapsed inward around an “H” shaped frame. The superstructure is clearly sagging and caving inward, but just as obviously it was once a far more robust and majestic building. Directly adjacent is what looks to be a bulging “bunker” with a vertical face and what could be judged as entrances. Assuming the reconstruction is valid (and it would seem to be obvious), then these two adjacent structures would easily be deemed artificial. If they appeared on images anywhere on Earth, it is doubtful that their artificiality would be at all questionable.

Just south of this complex is another object nicknamed the “Superbowl” by Bob Harrison. Rather than a bowl, the object in question is actually a rounded mound about the size of some of the pyramids in the City. In the color images, a distinct “moat” can be seem around the circumference of the mound, indicating it has sunk at least partially into the surrounding terrain.

Close-ups done by Harrison show that there are large pits or sinkholes around the base of the structure, implying that it is settling into a hollow or collapsing inward from the base into a hollowed out interior. Obviously, neither of the characteristics is consistent with a naturally eroding object, unless it is some bizarre example if volcanism which forms with air pockets inside. This notion is pretty quickly dispelled by looking at the exposed upper surfaces of the mound, which display the all-too familiar rectangular “room sized cells” where the casing structure appears to have been worn away. This is consistent with observations from the D&M and the so-called “main pyramid” in the City.

The best, however, is saved for last. Just a little further east of this collection of objects is a very strange triangular shaped “mesa” which seems to have three matching geometric nodes at each of the triangles’ three vortices. It is eroded, to be sure, but what kind of natural process erodes a simple hill into a base equilateral triangle with such overtly geometric nodes at each corner? This “mesa” is as anomalous as it gets, and for Cydonia, that’s saying something.

As we get into the details of the Triangle Mesa, there is even more strangeness. Just to the left of the northernmost node is a very odd dark feature which appears in both the December 2005 and July 2006 datasets – a distinct “T.”

This very dark marking on the structure is not only aligned perfectly north\south – as is the triangle mesa itself – but its two dark lines intersect at precisely 90 degrees. A pretty cool trick for a “naturally eroding” mesa. The more recent image suggests that this series of dark interconnected lines may demark the edges of the eroding upper node, perhaps where the base of the node has slumped inward, albeit in a very precise and geometric fashion. With its strange markings, triangular base and geometric nodes, this Triangular Arcology is more than anomalous enough to be added to the candidates list for artificiality at Cydonia.

This brings us, at last, to the Face itself.

You would think, after all the images now taken of this enigmatic object, that there would be little — if anything– new we could learn about the Face. However, despite the fact that there are now some 14 partial or complete views of the Face from 5 different missions and cameras, the mystery of the Face endures. Not only do these new HRSC color images tell us new details about the Face itself, they serve to point out the problems and issues with earlier images of the Face, even at the supposedly higher resolutions we discussed earlier.

The first thing we can note is that while the East and West sides of the Face (or “City and “Cliff” sides, as they have come to be known) are made of two distinct materials (see Keith Laney’s Cydonia IR images), their surface color is predominantly uniform. This indicates that whatever is covering most of the Cydonia region is most likely a layer of reddish dust. This also completely refutes Dr. Phillip Christensen’s assertion in July of 2003 that the Cliff side was covered with a dense snow pack, thus accounting for the dramatically anomalous reflection seen in the pre-dawn THEMIS color image from 2003 (see “The Light Finally Dawns at Cydonia” – 2003). If this dense layer of snow existed, we’d see it in the color image as a bright white casing around the base of the Face. Since this does not appear, we can safely judge that whatever caused the anomalous brightening in the THEMIS image was due to another (most likely artificial) cause, as we outlined in that article.

Another thing these images provide is confirmation of earlier observations. Secondary facial characteristics – which flatly cannot exist if the arguments for natural origin of the Face are valid – are reconfirmed in these new color images. We can plainly see the two “nostrils” in the nose, which first appeared on the infamous “Catbox” image in 1998, then seemed to disappear in the low-contrast MGS images taken from above the “forehead” of the Face in images in 2001 and later. Their reappearance is due to a simple function of spacecraft geometry; these are the first images taken from almost directly overhead, as opposed to the MGS images which were substantially uptrack from the Face’s actual latitude.

In addition, we can see the sharply defined brow ridges on both sides of the Face as well as the overall symmetry of the base platform. Indeed, the most compelling observation that Mars Express provides is that the two eye sockets precisely align straight across the Face. This is in sharp contrast to the MGS images over the last couple of years, which have shown the eye sockets to be substantially out of alignment and the Face platform to be substantially wider than it actually is.

This dramatic difference is due to two factors. First, as mentioned above, is the more directly overhead image angle taken by the Mars Express instrument. Second, the improper orthographic rectification of the Mars Global Surveyor images contributed substantially to this distortion and the overall illusion of asymmetry. In fact, the Malin ortho-rectification is so bad that it widens the base, twists the nose and pulls the Cliff side eye socket significantly below that on the City side. We can see with a side-by-side comparison just how far off the Malin version is.

However, if the Malin\NASA version is bad, then the ortho-rectification produced by SPSR’s Dr. Marc Carlotto from the 2001 MGS image is positively abysmal. It is even more stretched, distorted and un-face-like than Malins’, and it clouds the situation even further than the poor job NASA did.

No wonder nobody at NASA seems to “see” the Face the way we do.

What all this illustrates is that orthographic rectification is something of a black art, and even those who would claim to have it mastered can be exposed in the light (and color) of the day. It would seem the question of the position of the two eye sockets is forever settled, and once again the independent researchers have won the day.

None of this, however, would seem to have moved the powers that be within the mainstream astrophysics community. Case in point; the ESA.

The European Space Agency’s release of the Cydonia data was accompanied with a typically shallow and half-hearted “nay saying” article, claiming once again that there was nothing at all unusual about the Face, and that gee; it wasn’t a Face after all.

We’ve come to be used to these silly political documents accompanying new image releases from NASA, although they usually resort to far more ruthless and dishonest propaganda techniques than did the ESA (see “How to Make a Mountain Out of a MOL(a) Hill” and “Face it, it’s a Face” – 2001). The ESA article was pretty mild, obviously intended for novices and the Space.com crowd, who can be counted on to never ask a hard question of their authority figures.

Regardless, the fact remains that after thirty years of back and forth debate and discussion of the entirety of the Cydonia artificiality hypothesis between the independent researchers and the NASA\ESA establishment, the mainstream argument still comes down to the same thing it did in 1976:

“It’s not a Face.”

Or, more accurately: “It’s not a Face, in spite of the fact it rests on a bi-laterally symmetrical platform, it has two aligned eye sockets, the tip of the nose is the tallest point on the structure, there are two clearly defined nostrils in the nose, the West eye socket is shaped like a human eye including a tear duct, there is a spherical pupil in the eye, there are rectangular, cell-like structures around the eye, the two halves of the Face make up two distinct visages when mirrored, one human, one feline, it is placed nearby a series of pyramidal mountains which have rectilinear cells visible in the interiors at high-resolution, it is in close proximity to a pentagonal “mountain” which is bi-laterally symmetrical about two different axes, it has anomalous reflective properties under pre-dawn conditions, it sits atop a sheet of ice covering a vast network of underground lines and blocks that closely resemble a large city, it is surrounded by a series of tetrahedral mounds which are placed according to tetrahedral geometry, it is within shouting distance of a series of newly observed objects which include a triangular “mesa” with geometric nodes at each vertex, it…. Well, I could literally go on and on. But you get the point.

Their argument is really weak.

Perhaps that’s why, with each of these releases, they take such care to talk about the Face as if it is an isolated anomaly. It’s weird enough by itself, as we have seen. But when you start to add all the other objects into the equation, the City, the Cliff, the Tholus, the D&M, the mainstream argument – weak as it is – completely collapses.

Maybe that’s why this time, ESA, or at least HRSC principal investigator Gehard Neukeum, wasn’t quite up to the disinformational task. Maybe that’s why they needed a little help from their friends at NASA. There were issues with the images we just couldn’t ignore.

Even though they were very high quality, both of the new HRSC images were displayed in a rather bizarre manner. In almost every other case, the convention for such image releases is to display the images with North being the “up” direction, South “down,” and West and East being left and right respectively. Instead, the ESA images are displayed with North to the right, effectively altering the scientific convention and forcing anyone seeking to study the images to rotate them 90 degrees counter-clockwise to see the Face and Cydonia in their normal orientation.

305-230906-3253-6-co1

305-230906-3253-6-co2

This had the effect of disorienting casual readers, who either had to rotate the images in an image editor or turn their heads to “see” the Face right side up. Again, the only purpose such an annoying change in convention serves is to suppress the interest of the casual reader.

Given that, one has to question the integrity of the people putting the article together. If the mainstream argument is so strong, if the Face and other objects at Cydonia are products of “simple erosion” as Agustin Chicarro, ESA’s chief scientist for Mars Express argues, then why resort to the confusion tactics? Why force the reader to download and rotate the image just to look at it from the same perspective it has traditionally been seen in?

Really, if the process was honest, there is no reason to do so. But the inherent weakness of their arguments, and the lengths they will go to in order to preserve them, could not be more dramatically represented than in the stunning 3D perspective views generated from the new data.

The 3D views are an intended benefit of the stereo capabilities of the HRSC. Created pretty much automatically from the existence of two nearly identical datasets (images co1 and co2) these perspective views offer us the ability to “fly over” Cydonia at a resolution never imagined before. These new views have provided an invaluable look at several controversial features. The “massive tetrahedral ruin” for instance, generally dismissed by the anomalist community at large, is shown here in fine detail for really the first time. The two perspective views allow us to look inside the object and clearly discern that Hoagland’s original thesis about the object – that it used to be a full tetrahedral pyramid – is not only a valid speculation but highly probable reality.

The one surviving face of the former tetrahedron is indisputably triangular, or once was. Quite a neat trick for a product of “simple erosion.” Not only that, but the facing appears to overhang the interior support structures, as if the casing was once exactly that. There are several clearly visible structural members (girders?) in the interior of the ruin. It’s fairly easy to follow the lines and the remaining partially buried walls and reconstruct the original shape from them. Hopefully, these new perspectives will put to rest the absurd “pictograph” speculations of the SPSR crowd concerning this object.

The tetrahedral ruin close-up. Note bright structural “girders” on left side, just forward of remaining casing wall.

Two 3D perspective views of Cydonia (ESA)

These new views also offer perspectives on the many strange and wonderful features of the Cydonia plain. Truthfully, there are so many strange objects on the ground at Cydonia that it would take years for us to fully go through and analyze them each to the level they deserve.

An often overlooked (but very weird) “crater” in Cydonia

But for each new insight and discovery that this 3D process can provide, there is a countermanding dark side to it. Just as we have seen NASA do before them, the ESA has used (or rather, misused) the 3D process to misdirect its readers. Once again, the fraud has to do with the Face itself.

The authors of the ESA article realize that while there are dozens of anomalous objects at Cydonia, they have no hope of discounting all of them to readers with any common sense. As a result, they resort to the time honored canard of reducing the entire Cydonia artificiality model to a single question – that of the Face on Mars. They realize that as the first anomaly to be noted at Cydonia, the Face is the cornerstone from which the rest of hypothesis has sprung. Their thinking is that if they attack the Face relentlessly and without regard for the truth, it won’t matter how much evidence there is supporting the other objects in question.

Apparently, it is this reductionist strategy which drives them to fabricate data.

The “Elephant Man” version of the Face on Mars.

Somehow, the Face on Mars has managed to acquire a distinct lump between the eyes. Like some interplanetary Elephant Man, the Face has miraculously morphed into a grossly distorted version of itself in the new 3D perspective views. We knew immediately that the lump was a fraud, just like the Catbox, MOLA or Middle Butte Mesa NASA scams, because the Face had been imaged numerous times at sun angles and resolutions that would have revealed any such lump if it was a real feature. They had not.

At first, we were perplexed by this, because to this point in the political article ESA and Dr. Neukum had at least shown us what appeared to be honest data. But now, with this newly acquired protuberance, Neukum and ESA had gone from a fairly neutral stance to jump into the camp of the worst kind of scientific charlatanism (think Phil Plait or Richard Lies). What had suddenly happened to convince Dr. Neukum to stoop to such an obvious fabrication?

Then we saw the 3D image credits: “ESA\DLR\FU Berlin (G. Neukum), MOC (Malin Space Science Systems).”

So we had our answer. Once again “Malin happened.”

The images with the distorted hump had been generated with “help” from the boys at MSSS, the heart of darkness when it comes to Cydonia. So it then all made sense. Using Malin’s (probably deliberately) bad data as a constraint, the ESA had generated the Elephant Man version of the Face on Mars.

To his credit, on his own website, Dr. Neukum had not used the MSSS generated version but instead generated his own 3D perspective views of the Face. Not too surprisingly, they did not include the infamous “hump.”

But what (to us) is even more intriguing, is what they did include…

In Nuekum’s 3D images of the Face, certain details can be seen where none has been seen before. In all previous close-ups of the Face taken by Malin Space Science Systems, the area around the lower left (Western) “chin” and the lower left section of the base slope are mysteriously absent of any significant detail (see the “hump” image, above). This results in odd blurry areas on this part of the Face, similar to other strange blurry areas we have noted on some other images of Cydonia over the years. Histogram comparisons show that these areas contain far less detail than other portions of the images. Curiously, these blank-blurry areas seem to be quite rare in the MOC images of other parts of Mars, but appear to be quite common in the Cydonia images.

In short, I’ve never trusted them.

What Neukum’s new color images — both 2D and 3D – now convince me of is that I have been right to be suspicious all along. A side-by-side comparison of Neukum’s 2D color image and the latest “high resolution view” of the Face from JPL’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter show the that there is a significant discrepancy in the details of these areas of the  Face.

The Face from Mars Express (color, scaled up, right), and from MRO (scaled down left). Note that the blurry areas in the supposedly higher resolution
MRO image are less detailed than the comparable areas of the Mars Express image. (Laney Space Imaging\Bara\ESA\NASA\JPL).

In the MRO image – as with all of the NASA\JPL\MSSS images of the Face, we see these odd, cloud-like blurry areas around the South-Western portions of the Face. In the color Mars Express images (which are the only images of the Face from cameras not controlled by NASA) these areas appear much like the rest of the Face, showing fine structure and hinting at the possibility of structural details which might be seen at higher resolutions. In fact, the 3D image of this part of the Face from Nuekum’s own website shows these areas specifically, and the “cloudy bits” are nowhere to be seen…

In fact, what you do see are structural rebar, tubes, girders and the like, reaching up from the Cydonia plain to attach themselves to the base platform of the Face. The area around the chin is less distinct, but you can plainly see it is not the drab, featureless blur as it is always depicted in the NASA data.

Now, I would not begin to compare the resolution of the MRO camera to that of HRSC on the Mars Express. But isn’t it interesting that the only dataset which is not under the control of Michael Malin and his NASA\JPL buddies is so discrepant from the NASA dataset in this area? And considering that the Western half of the Face is bound to be more eroded (due to the predominantly Western winds of the region), wouldn’t this side logically be the area where the underpinnings of the Face’s internal artificial structure, if it had  them, would be most obviously exposed?

You bet it would.

So, is that why they had to produce the “Elephant Man” version of the Face, and blank out the other areas in the MRO data? Will we be forever dependent on outside sources for “real” data on Cydonia, or will NASA and JPL ever give us the clean, straight up ground truth on Cydonia? And how subject to pressure will NASA’s partners, like the ESA (who felt compelled to accompany this new image release with the usual political tripe about the Face) be?

It’s sad to have to paraphrase former Secretary of State George Shultz again, but… the “Elephant Man” doesn’t change my opinion of NASA’s integrity; it only confirms it.

–MB

The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.

UFOs and Aliens in Space

Feature

David Morrison

Popular UFO claims include alien bases on the Moon and Mars. It is widely (but falsely) reported that Buzz Aldrin saw a UFO on the Apollo 11 flight and that NASA spacecraft discovered a humanoid face and other artifacts on Mars.

Much of the public believes that UFOs are alien spacecraft. This represents a conceptual leap from unidentified lights in the sky or radar bogies that were the UFO stories when I was growing up. Today, “believers” are talking about actual alien contact, with alien bases on the Moon and Mars, and their concerns receive reinforcement from radio, TV, and Internet blogs.

On one level UFOs are real, of course; many people occasionally see objects in the sky that are not immediately identifiable as planes, balloons, planets, stars, or unusual atmospheric phenomena. But the questions I receive from the public (submitted to a NASA Web site) suggest a belief system linking UFOs with alien visitations and abductions spiced up by “conspiracy theories” to hide this information from the public.

If UFOs are alien spacecraft visiting Earth, then it seems reasonable that evidence of alien civilizations might be seen by astronomers or the radio signals from alien spacecraft might be picked up by the sensitive receivers we use to communicate with our own spacecraft. Perhaps astronauts who venture into space would be among the first to make reliable observations of alien spacecraft or artifacts. Perhaps we should look for alien bases on other worlds. Indeed, the Internet carries many stories of such encounters. I will examine some of the evidence cited for alien presence in the solar system.

Astronaut Encounters with Aliens

One allegedly well-documented report stems from an interview in which astronaut Buzz Aldrin describes seeing a UFO during the Apollo 11 mission. In an interview on the Science Channel (left, top), Aldrin stated that he, Neil Armstrong, and Mike Collins saw unidentified objects that appeared to follow their Apollo spacecraft.

To get the story straight, I called Buzz Aldrin, who was happy to explain what happened. He said that his remarks were taken out of context to reverse his meaning. It is true that the Apollo 11 crew spotted an unidentified object moving with the spacecraft as they approached the Moon. After they verified that this mystery object was not Apollo 11’s large rocket upper stage, which was about 6,000 miles away by then, they concluded that they were seeing one of the small panels that had linked the spacecraft to the upper stage (any part of the spacecraft’s rocket upper stage will continue to move alongside the spacecraft, as both are floating in free-fall). These panels were too small to track from Earth and were relatively close to the Apollo spacecraft. Aldrin told me that they chose not to discuss this on the open communications channel since they were concerned that their comments might be misinterpreted. His entire explanation about identifying the panels was cut from the broadcast interview, giving the impression that the Apollo 11 crew had seen a UFO. Aldrin told me that he was angry about the deceptive editing and asked the Science Channel to correct the intentional twisting of his remarks, but they refused. Later, Aldrin explained what happened on CNN’s Larry King Live (left, bottom) but was nearly cut off by the host before he could finish.

With the popularity of YouTube, this same question is addressed to me repeatedly, as in: “Check out this video on YouTube with Buzz Aldrin saying he saw a UFO on Apollo 11. Who is fibbing? NASA or the great American hero, Buzz Aldrin?” My answer was that the fibbing was being done by the producers of the video, who omitted the second half of the interview.

It is instructive to watch this interview to see the ways the story is embellished and ultimately manipulated. Most of the talking is done by the interviewer and not Aldrin, but their comments have been edited to create the illusion of a seamless narrative. Throughout the interview we see a montage of short scenes from Apollo and other missions, including a blurry image through the window taken during a later flight. Only a critical viewer will distinguish what Aldrin said from the narrative by the interviewer or realize that the video clips are unrelated. The end product is clever disinformation, strongly suggesting—without explicitly lying—that Aldrin and his crewmates saw an alien spacecraft.

Many Internet claims of encounters between NASA astronauts and alien spacecraft are based on quotes from “secret communications” between flight crews and Houston. It is true that there are such private conversations, concerning crew health for example. But the Internet stories of overheard conversations are never documented and often attributed to leaks from unnamed NASA workers whose jobs (or even lives) would allegedly be at risk if they were identified. Many of these stories involve the Apollo 11 flight, and they include claims that alien spaceships accompanied the NASA craft during its Moon landing and that a row of alien spacecraft along a crater rim monitored the astronauts’ spacewalk on the lunar surface. (Incidentally, Apollo 11 landed on a flat plain where there were no hills or crater rims to provide such a viewpoint.)

To my knowledge, no NASA astronaut has ever reported seeing a UFO in space, let alone having a confrontation with aliens. However, this is not to say that no astronaut believes that alien visitations to Earth might be happening. Recently there were news reports that Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell believes in the reality of some reports of UFOs. He has attended a number of meetings of UFO believers, and he asserts that some of these reports are true, and that the U.S. government and military are aware of these alien visits. However, Mitchell does not claim to have seen aliens himself. His astronaut colleagues tell me that he has always had an interest in the occult, and he even tried to conduct a parapsychology experiment on the way to and from the Moon. It is easy for a journalist to ignore Mitchell’s caveats about most UFO reports being untrue, or about not encountering an alien himself, to give the impression that he and other astronauts have had frequent encounters with beings from other worlds.

One argument presented to me by several correspondents is that aliens must have warned humans to stay away from their bases on the Moon. Otherwise, why was the Apollo program suddenly terminated with three more missions scheduled and almost ready for launch? (The huge Apollo/Saturn-5 rockets that enthrall visitors to the NASA space parks at Canaveral, Houston, and Huntsville are not mock-ups; they are real hardware built for Apollo 18, 19, and 20.) The conspiracy story attributes our failure to follow up on the Apollo flights to this same interplanetary quarantine and suggests that NASA’s current program to return astronauts to the Moon will be cancelled for the same reason. I admit being baffled by the sudden termination of the Apollo program at the peak of its success, but I accept the official explanation that it was due to the changing political priorities of the Nixon administration, where many looked upon Apollo as a Kennedy-Johnson program.

Mars: The Viking Era

Mars plays a unique role in public consciousness. Just a century ago, this planet was widely thought to be inhabited by intelligent creatures, largely due to astronomical studies and the popular writing of Percival Lowell. The classic science-fiction novel War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells reinforced public curiosity about the possibility of aliens on Mars. But early space missions that showed decisively that Mars was not really very Earth-like—with no canals and an atmosphere only 1 percent the size of ours—damped much of the public’s fascination. Scientific interest has steadily increased, however, and Mars is the planet most visited by spacecraft. The first stage of scientific exploration climaxed in 1976 with two identical Mars landers and orbiters as part of the Viking program. All four Viking spacecraft were fabulously successful, providing a comprehensive survey of the planet together with detailed analysis at two landing sites, including clever experiments to search for evidence of microbial life.

After two decades of post-Viking neglect, NASA initiated a new series of Mars missions with the 1996 Mars Pathfinder, which included a rover about the size of a microwave oven. After two mission failures in 1998, several remarkably successful orbiters and the two famous Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, followed. In addition to high-resolution orbiting cameras, there is also a digital, global topographic map based on laser ranging between the orbiter and the surface. As a result, we have more detailed and quantitative data on martian topography than we do for much of the Earth’s surface.

Naturally, the tens of thousands of high-resolution photos from orbit and on the ground (all publicly available) have been studied for evidence of life and any potential artifacts of a possible ancient civilization. In this respect, the most famous discovery was made by Viking Orbiter 1 in 1977, in a low-resolution (about 40 meters) photo of the ancient Cydonia region of Mars. In the midst of a heavily eroded plain with irregular low mountains or mesas is the Face on Mars, one of the iconic images of the space program.

The Face on Mars, seen under oblique lighting, seems to be an oval humanoid face with eyes, nose, and a mouth. It is about one kilometer across and surrounded by a sort of halo that reminds some of the cloth headpiece worn by Egyptian pharaohs. It was spotted by Viking scientist Toby Owen and released to the press as a joke to show how even on Mars we (humans) could find features that looked vaguely like ourselves. Unfortunately, Viking project scientist Jerry Soffen made an offhand remark to the press that this “face” showed up only under this particular lighting and not in other photos of the same site. The problem was that Viking had not taken other photos of this spot at equal or higher resolution, and the mission ended before this area could be mapped again. Thus began another conspiracy theory: NASA was suppressing confirming photos of the face. When the next NASA mission to photograph Mars (Mars Observer) failed in 1992 shortly before its arrival at the Red Planet, the story began to circulate that this failure was faked and the spacecraft was really in orbit and sending back secret high-resolution images of the face.

The Face on Mars has been vigorously promoted by one energetic entrepreneur: Richard C. Hoagland. A young freelance journalist and one-time museum guide, Hoagland was a part of the large corps of journalists who encamped at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for the Viking landings. Hoagland not only accepted the artificial origin of the face, he went on to develop a detailed “theory” that linked this feature with a number of others in Cydonia that he also interpreted as artificial. These included a set of intersecting low ridges that he called the “city” and several mountains of roughly pyramid shape. (Pyramid-shaped peaks with three or four sides are a rather common product of both ice and wind erosion on Earth.)

Hoagland set out to study the geometry of this layout, finding coincidences in the angles between the features that further demonstrated (to him) their artificial origin. He published the results from his “research” in a 350-page book called The Monuments of Mars (now in its fifth edition). He also undertook a lecture circuit that climaxed when a naïve public affairs officer at NASA Glenn (then Lewis) Research Center in Cleveland invited him to present a director’s seminar and then offered to put a videotape of this talk on the NASA TV channel. Hoagland also began making regular appearances on Art Bell’s late-night talk show Coast to Coast AM, where he still happily holds forth on the conspiracies of NASA and the U.S. government to keep the truth from the public.

Hoagland’s elaborate interpretation of the “monuments” on Mars represents an amazing flight of imagination. Since the features are in a state of ruin, he concludes that the aliens who built them are no longer present and dates the construction of these huge projects to about half a million years ago. Since the face is (in his opinion) clearly human and directed upward (best seen from above), he concludes that it was built as a message for Homo sapiens, a species that was just emerging on Earth at the time. The story then bifurcates: either these aliens were also visiting Earth at the time and knew about the future rise of humans (analogous to the opening sequences in the book and film 2001, A Space Odyssey), or the monuments themselves were built by an earlier race of humans that had moved from Earth to Mars and left no traces of their tenure on our planet. Yet another option is that Homo sapiens had a martian origin, migrating to Earth when their own planet became uninhabitable (a conclusion that flies in the face of all modern genetic analysis of humans and their primate cousins).

Hoagland’s analysis of the geometric patterns of the alleged monuments convinced him that the entire layout in Cydonia was a technical message to humans, one that included the key to a limitless source of energy. Apparently he has deciphered the message but is not revealing it just yet, other than to say that this energy could be tapped only at latitude 19.5 degrees (north or south) on the Sun as well as Earth and Mars. More recently, Hoagland linked the monuments on Mars with the crop circles appearing on Earth, which also allegedly held the key to unlimited energy, implying that the creators of the city on Mars were also active today on Earth. The fact that Hoagland was able to peddle this bizarre fairy tale for two decades and make a living selling books and videotapes is a testament to his ability as a salesman, if not to his unscientific acumen.

The two-decade post-Viking hiatus from Mars provided plenty of time for Hoagland to market his fantasy. The 1992 failure of Mars Observer, far from ending this story, was twisted by Hoagland into an additional conspiracy theory. The day the failure was announced, a group of his followers demonstrated outside the JPL gates to protest the blanket of secrecy they claimed had been thrown over this mission whose real purpose was to allegedly study the face. In the late 1990s, one of the two most frequently asked questions in letters and emails received by NASA concerned the Face on Mars (the other topic was asteroid impacts).

New Results from Mars

In 1998, a much-improved camera arrived at Mars on the Mars Global Surveyor orbiter. A vocal segment of the public demanded that NASA give high priority to re-photographing the face. NASA wisely argued that this was not a high-priority target but quietly obtained a high-resolution image of the face as soon as the spacecraft orbit permitted it. On April 5, 1998, when the Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos, revealing a natural landform. However, the new lighting was very different from that of the original Viking photo, and some face proponents refused to believe that this was really the same feature. On April 8, 2001, the MOC captured a photo using the camera’s maximum resolution, better than two meters, which was twenty times higher than the Viking original. This spacecraft also carried another instrument, a laser ranging device, which gradually built up an extremely detailed quantitative topographic map of Mars that did not depend on lighting angles. With these data, it was possible to reconstruct exactly how the mesa would look from any direction. Many details of this story are recounted in the article “Unmasking the Face on Mars”.

Additional images with even higher resolution were obtained in 2007 by the University of Arizona HiRISE camera on the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. With a resolution of 25 cm, these photos showed features as small as a briefcase. Such data eventually convinced almost everyone that the face was simply a mesa surrounded by an apron of eroded debris. NASA’s chief Mars scientist, Jim Garvin, even jokingly plotted a hiking trail that ascended the rugged hill. However, as the true nature of this eroded mesa became undeniable, the suggestion was made that the face had been intentionally destroyed by NASA: the clandestine mission of Mars Observer had been to first photograph the feature in detail, then deface it with a well-aimed nuclear missile.

Meanwhile, Richard Hoagland was moving on and generating new claims, some even more bizarre than those associated with the face. The Wikipedia article on Hoagland mentions his assertions that “Rocks on Mars containing biological fossils were purposely destroyed by NASA’s rover Opportunity. Numerous objects surrounding the landing sites of the Mars Exploration Rovers are in fact pieces of martian machinery. There are large semitransparent structures constructed of glass on the lunar surface, visible in some Apollo photography. There is a clandestine space program, using antigravity technology reverse-engineered from lunar artifacts and communicated by secret societies. Federal agencies such as FEMA and NASA are linked to Freemasonry.”

Hoagland held a press conference at the National Press Club on October 30, 2007, to “review NASA’s 50 years of cover-ups and hidden solar system data.” His accusations against NASA appeared in more detail in his book with Mike Bara, Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA. He was also by then in his crop circle phase, promoting new sources of energy revealed to him in the crop circles. And he is still a regular guest on Coast to Coast AM, where he has the title of science advisor.

Humans have a natural tendency to see anthropomorphic features in natural shapes such as clouds and mountains. As thousands of new photos of the martian surface were streaming back from the rovers, some of these tendencies were bound to pop up. One of the funniest is an image of a tiny eroded rock only a few centimeters long that looks rather like the famous “little mermaid” statue in Copenhagen Harbor. This too has been hailed as a real photo of a Martian. The continuing torrent of spacecraft images from current missions to Saturn and Mercury as well as Mars will probably generate new advocates for aliens in space. Fortunately, the vast majority of people are happy to accept these images as wonderful products of our space age exploration of the solar system and not as a new episode in the great alien cover-up.

David Morrison

Dr. David Morrison is the Senior Scientist at the NASA Astrobiology Institute. His primary interests are the new multidisciplinary science of astrobiology, the protection of Earth from asteroid impacts, and science outreach and education. Dr. David Morrison is the Director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute and Senior Scientist for Astrobiology at the NASA Ames Research Center. He is also the Director of the Carl Sagan Center for Study of Life in the Universe at the SETI Institute, in Mountain View CA. Dr. Morrison is internationally known for his research on small bodies in the solar system, and has more than 155 technical papers and has published a dozen books, including five university-level textbooks and several popular trade books on space science topics. In 2005 he received the Carl Sagan medal of the American Astronomical Society for communicating science to the public. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the California Academy of Sciences, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Asteroid 2410 Morrison is named in his honor.

Some UFO Logical Fallacies

Published by Steven Novella under Uncategorized

Reader “Gimble” left a comment on an old post of mine that was full of typical anti-skeptical logical fallacies so I thought I would have some fun taking it apart. The entry is on UFOs and the Argument from Ignorance. He begins:

It’s difficult to take your article seriously when it is chock full of unoriginal and regurgitated errors.

1. “There isn’t one unambiguous photograph or video that holds up to scientific scrutiny”.

What is your source on this? There are many photographs and videos that show no sign of tampering or fraud. What sort of “scientific scrutiny” would you require for a photo to be genuine? If it wasn’t proven to be digitally altered, you would claim it was a model or an item thrown into the air. In short, there is no photo in the world that cannot be debunked, but your statement that no unambiguous photo or video holds up to scientific scrutiny is blatantly false (what you are really saying is “if it is a photo of a flying saucer, then by definition it is a fraud”).

No, that is not what I am saying at all. Gimble here is trying to shift the burden of proof – make it my job to prove a negative, the absence of compelling evidence. Rather, if Gimble wishes to claim that there is an unambiguous photograph or other piece of evidence that has survived careful scrutiny – name it.  He didn’t, he just vaguely claims that they exist.

He is also trying the circular reasoning gambit – claiming that I and skeptics declare a-priori that any photo of a flying saucer must by definition be fake, therefore there are no legitimate photos. This is a straw man, we do no such thing.

I will happily expand upon my criteria for an unambiguous and genuine photo. Regarding the genuine criterion, Gimble only mentions ruling out digital manipulation.  This is necessary, but insufficient. The raw files if digital, or the original negatives if traditional photography was used, are also necessary. A second hand photo is not sufficient. Further, to be compelling a series of photos is helpful, since it is more difficult to fake a series than one photo. For video, the original film in its entirely is needed. Selected clips can cherry pick and eliminate any “gotchas” or obvious signs of fakery.

For either photos or video, I also want to know the history – who took the pictures, where, and when. Anonymous material immediately loses credibility.

But also the photos must be unambiguous as to their content.  This means that a blob of light or a fuzzy disc or metal glint is not compelling. I want to see a spaceship – a picture of something that can be nothing else. If the picture can be explained by a model that someone tossed into the air, then there is no reason to reject that as a possible explanation. A piece of something demonstrably alien would also be compelling.

To clarify what I meant by the claim that there are no such pieces of evidence – I have never seen any, despite being interested in UFOs for my entire life and looking deeply at the claims. Also for the last 13 years I have been an activist skeptic and I have challenged many many UFO believers to show me their best evidence, or point me in the direction of the compelling piece of evidence – and no one ever has. These days with the internet and Youtube, if there were truly compelling evidence I would think that I would have seen it hundreds of times online.

I think it is self evident that there is no piece of verified and unambiguous evidence for visiting alien spacecraft known to the public. There tons of poor quality or ambiguous evidence, but nothing compelling. If anyone thinks there is – show me and I will happily revise my opinion.

He continues:

2. “not one piece of physical evidence. No smoking saucer.”

Aliens do not hand out trinkets, that’s true, and neither do they sit in for book signings. Some phenomenon are not given to tangible “in my hands” evidence (although there is loads of trace evidence). Show me your physcial evidence for a supernova and I’ll show you mine for a flying saucer. I’ve got multiple and independent eyewitness testimony (in the millions) spanning several decades across the globe with trace evidence and excellent photos to boot. No evidence? I think not.

How ironic that Gimble accuses me of being unoriginal. Here he is using the “ten foot stack” gambit. He thinks that if he piles up cowdung high enough it will turn into gold – but large amounts of poor quality evidence do not equal high quality evidence.

Notice here also that he is employing a bit of the kettle defense – simultaneously using mutually incompatible arguments. Above he says that there is high quality evidence. Now he is saying that even if there isn’t, there is tons of low quality evidence. If he is being honest in point number 2, he should have conceded point number 1.

He combines this, as usual, with the “aliens don’t hand out trinkets” gambit. In other words – “it is the nature of my mysterious phenomenon that it defies traditional scientific evidence, therefore I am relieved of the responsibility for supplying traditional scientific evidence – but here is a ton of low quality unscientific evidence.” File this under special pleading (the logical fallacies are piling up).

It may be true that a real phenomenon defies scientific evidence – but then we cannot conclude that it is true, only unknown. Of course, we can invent an infinite number of special cases of things that can be real but unverifiable.

Oh – and evidence for supernova? Please. There are multiple independent lines of verifiable and reproducible evidence for supernova. Just type “supernova” and “evidence” into Google and see what you get.  We can see the light and the gamma rays from supernova. Our models of supernova make predictions we can test with further observations. The light from supernova reflect off of distant gas clouds, and we can see those reflections. There’s no comparison.

3. “In 1947, pilot Kenneth Arnold started the modern flying saucer craze when he reported seeing several UFOs. He described them as boomerang-shaped, but also noted that they were hopping, like a saucer skipping on the water”

Wrong. Kenneth Arnold described only ONE of the craft as crescent-shaped with a hole in the middle. Listen to his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zossm96Jb0

But it’s immaterial to your (lifted) argument anyway. The sightings of “saucers” and “disks” after Arnold’s sightings came in a variety of forms, and even the popular “flying saucer” that comes to mind cannot adequately be described as a “plate” – it looks more like a tophat or a football. I’ve yet to read about a flying “plate”, which is what people would have reported if they took the term “saucer” literally as you claim and were simply lying about their reports.

This is the strategy of raising trivial and unimportant objections that do not address the actual point. Whether or not Arnold described one or all the object as boomerang shaped is not important. It is important that his sightings did not comport with the later traditional image of a “flying saucer” and that the term “flying saucer” was coined by a reporter who keyed in on one word Arnold used – to describe how the objects moved, not their shape.

Gimble’s next point is just silly – if people took the “flying saucer” description literally they would have described plate – shaped ships? What? These are ships, so apparently they have to have an interior. There is also a bias toward aerodynamic shapes when thinking of ships. Further, I never argued that the shape was taken literally from the description.

My point, actually, is that the notion of a flying saucer and the accompanying shape that the term evokes is a cultural construct.  It was certainly inspired by the term “flying saucer” but also had other cultural influences. It is also not surprising that at the beginning the modern UFO craze there were many types of reports, but that eventually they settled upon the standard type. The same exact thing is true of aliens themselves. Initially there were dozens of varying descriptions, but the little gray aliens emerged as the standard type, then that became what everyone was reporting. That is culture at work – which was my point.

Also, Gimble makes the very common strawman argument that I am claiming all eyewitnesses are lying about their reports. I was very specific in saying that it was suggestibility that led to the commonality of reports. Deliberate hoaxing is probably a small component of the UFO phenomenon. Most of it is wishful thinking, perceptual illusion, and sloppy thinking.

His next claim is priceless.

4. “Venus may also sport a halo, giving it an even more unusual appearance. (This is likely the source of President Jimmy Carter’s UFO sighting.)”

Wrong. Venus was the bogus debunking nonsense of Robert Sheaffer from Humanist magazine, but Carter described the UFO as at times being as “big as the moon” in his official report. (When is Venus ever as large as the moon?)http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=297

When is Venus ever as large as the moon? When it is sporting a halo. Gimble obviously did not read the very sentence he quotes.  Nor does he have the patience or Google chops, apparently, to punch “Venus halo” into the search window. The third hit is this: a picture of Venus with a halo and the moon in the same shot. Gee – venus with a halo is just about the same size as the moon. Go figure.

5. “Proponents of the “extra-terrestrial hypothesis” (ETH) often point out that there is a residue of unexplained sightings, occurrences that can only be due to real flying saucers.”

They CAN only be flying saucers when that is what is observed ha. And they have been seen up-close many many times. Check out this National Press Club transcript for credible sightings from an ex-governor, pilots, military officers, a division chief for the FAA, and other highly credible witnesses of close encounters of the second kind: http://www.ufo-blog.com/pdf/npc_witness_testimony.pdf

The first sentence is a tautology – he is assuming his conclusion. The whole point is that we do not know what eyewitnesses saw, and neither do they. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable – there are numerous visual illusions at play. Separate objects may be perceived as one large object. Objects in the sky, without clear reference, can appear to be far away and large when they are in fact close up and small. People are suggestible, and will also happily fill in missing details according to their assumptions. And – people lie.

I know there are witnesses who claim to have seen flying saucers. My point is that such reports are compatible with the “psychocultural hypothesis” – we would have them even if UFOs were purely a cultural and psychological phenomenon. Without corroborating evidence, there is no more reason to believe in aliens than ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, fairies, or any of the other myriad things people seen.

Gimble also makes an argument from authority – saying that pilots and politicians have also been eyewitnesses. But pilots are subject to the same illusions and biases as everyone else. Noone is immune to the foibles of human neurology.

And, I might point out, that Gimble did not address my actual point – unexplained is unexplained, not alien spacecraft.

6. “Sometimes people do report details, like windows or fins. They also report objects moving at fantastic speeds or carrying out seemingly impossible maneuvers. However, when viewing an object against the sky, without a clear background for reference, it is impossible to estimate size, distance, and speed, and we are subject to optical illusions. Such details are therefore not reliable, and there are numerous cases when they are demonstrably wrong.”

This makes no sense. If a person says “I saw a metallic object fly away at impossible speeds”, then that is what they saw. If they say, “I’m not sure what it was, but it flashed and bobbed in the air and seemed to move oddly”, then THAT is what they saw. The former is a definite sighting of a UFO, the latter is just an “unknown”. People report sighting UFOs all the time in unequivocal terms and they are not “unknowns” as if ambiguous or uncertain as to observation just because they are listed under the category of “unknown” on paper. People see flying saucers, not optical illusions.

Here’s a free tip – if you want to have a shred of credibility, you should acknowledge legitimate points on the other side. Gimble and other UFO apologists should just admit that eyewitnesses are unreliable. Afterall, there is a mountain of psychology research to support this conclusion. It is profoundly naive to claim that if someone says they saw a spaceship, we can confidently conclude that they saw a spaceship.

People are suggestible. Memory is malleable. Perception is highly flawed. And people are emotional, not rational, creatures.

If someone claims they saw a metallic object fly away at incredible speeds – they may have been looking at a shiny (not metallic) small object moving away at slow speeds, but their brain contructed the ambiguous visual simuli incorrectly – that is the definition of an optical illusion. This is a known and common phenomenon. Alien spacecraft are not. See – Occam’s Razor.

7. “Air Force pilots mistake common objects for UFOs all the time.”

Bologna. What is your source on this? Pilots may from time to time wonder if some distant object is a UFO, but they are not certain of it unless they are close enough to observe it (and often they are and do).

Project Blue Book was able to identify 95% of reported UFO sightings as mundane objects or events.  Many of those reports came from pilots. There are also many case reports of pilots reporting UFOs that were later identified as definitely or probably an astronomical phenomenon. Here is a good report of many such cases.

8. “But curiosity must be coupled with intellectual discipline.”

You are under the false impression that most witnesses jump to the conclusion that an unknown object in the sky is a flying saucer. This is not true. J. Allen Hynek coined a term for how witnesses behave when they see a UFO – “escalation of hypotheses”. The first thing they do is try to rationalize their experience – “maybe it’s a bird? no can’t be that… maybe a plane? a meteorite?” and so on. Despite the claims of snobbery debunkers, most people do not in fact “try” to see UFOs – they do the opposite! and only reach that conclusion when other explanations have failed.

I don’t think we can easily generalize to what “most people” do. It’s likely that there is a range of reactions to an unusual sighting. But even if I grant that most people will consider likely explanations first, that is not in contradiction to what I am saying. I never claimed that they fail to consider any alternatives – but rather they they settle prematurely onto flying saucers as a likely explanation. In most cases the only logically justified conclusion is unknown, not flying saucer. That was, in fact, the central theme of my original post.

I have personally had many encounters with eyewitnesses who, excited by the possibility of something cool or mysterious, will reject a few token mundane explanations, and then (very prematurely) conclude that the object must have either been alien or something equally fantastical.

9. “We should be aware of the limitations of our own observations and memory, the human tendency toward suggestibility and wishful thinking, and the dictates of logic.”

Then why are you not doing so? Wishful thinking is putting your fingers in your ears and saying “the world must make sense to me; there cannot be flying saucers; aliens must behave the way I think they should; the world must make sense to me”. By discounting the volumes of evidence over 6 decades, debunkers do indeed show a high proclivity for suggestibility – namely that they will pull arguments from a common pool of tossed-about non-facts instead of actually doing some independent reading on their own. For REAL skeptics, I suggest reading one of these books from researchers who have actually talked to witnesses, rather than some doofus who has no idea what he’s talking about:

That is the typical UFO believer (even generalizable to paranormal believer) straw man about skeptics – that we are deniers who do not want to confront evidence that will shake our fragile world view. Strawman argument are worthless – if you want to understand and confront the position of skeptics you have to read what they actually write and address their actual points.

I never said that aliens are impossible. Nor have I ever said that aliens must be completely comprehensible. Ironically, it is the skeptics who are arguing, as I was in my original piece, that sometimes we just don’t have enough evidence to know what a sighting was.

I think it is likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe and that some of that life is intelligent and even technological. I have no idea how common or uncommon technological civilizations are – no one does.  I also don’t know if advanced technology will ever render interstellar travel practical, or if there are fundamental limitations in the laws of physics that will make it forever impractical.

If a benign advanced alien race visited the earth that would be incredibly awesome. It would answer many burning questions. I would love just to see what an alien intelligence might be like.

My position, as I have made clear, is that taken as a whole the evidence is far more compatible with the psychocultural hypothesis than the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and there is no single piece of evidence that demands the ETH. But I am happy to be proven wrong – just show me the evidence.

Gimble, although I am picking on him because he decided to leave a comment on my blog, presents views that are typical of the core UFO community. I have heard them all many times before. UFO believers attack straw men, completely mischaracterize the position of UFO skeptics, fail to address the skeptical position, and find many ways to argue that their low quality evidence should be taken more seriously.

What they never ever do, however, is refute my claims that compelling evidence does not exist by simply providing such evidence.

I am still waiting.

examiner.com

June 7, 4:34 PMSeattle Exopolitics ExaminerAlfred Lambremont Webre

Did a Cape Canaveral rocket, HAARP or ET/UFOs cause the June 5, 2010 Australian spiral light?

DavidWilcock: Australian spiral light June 5, 2010 5:50 am

A UFO that was “a perfect spiral of light” according to eyewitnesses over Eastern Australia at 5:50 AM on June 5, 2010 has given rise to the same speculation as the December 9, 2009 spiral seen over Oslo, Norway the night before U.S. President Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize speech.

As with the December 9, 2009 Norway spiral, conventional scientists proposed a conventional explanation of a missile of space junk for the June 5, 2010 UFO spiral. One Australian report stated “An astronomer says a bright spiraling light spotted in the sky by people across eastern Australia was probably a satellite, space junk or a rocket.”  Another report stated “It is not clear what the light was although there is speculation it may have been the Falcon 9 rocket which launched into space yesterday.”  In fact a Falcon 9 missile was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida about an hour before the spiral lit up over three states in eastern Australia.

As was the case with the December 9, 2009 Norway spiral, HAARP or some similar human electromagnetic technology is another plausible explanation for the June 5, 2010 Australian UFO spiral, which was large enough to be seen over three Australian states.  Researcher Colin Andrews has proposed HAARP as the cause of a series of anomalous weather effects over southeastern Australia in January 2010.  Australia itself is rumoured to have its own HAARP facility.

If the Falcon 9 rocket was not the cause of the spiral, then perhaps HAARP was, as the path of the UFO spiral light tracks the path of January 2010 anomalous weather patterns over Eastern Australia that were attributed to HAARP.

There is a third possibility, that the June 5, 2010 Australia spiral was a genuine interdimensional “wormhole,” caused by a hyperdimensional or multi-dimensional intelligence.  Some researchers speculated that the Norway spiral was caused by a hyperdimensional intelligence.

Researcher David Wilcock writes, “The Norway Spiral is back — but this time it’s jumping all over the place in the skies of Australia. This is a manmade phenomenon that shows Disclosure is getting closer and closer all the time!  The longer the oil spill goes on unchecked, the faster we can expect to see Disclosure really happen. There are plenty of technologies capable of plugging the spill, and those who are in a position to disclose, and ready to disclose, made a fantastic leap forward with this latest phenomenon.”

Mr. Wilcock continues, “As the oil disaster has mushroomed in scope, I found something I had forgotten about: namely the year 2010 is directly flagged in the Pyramid Timeline as the year where ‘the bottom will fall out of the world.’ If you look at a diagram of the internal passages of the Pyramid, and look at the Subterranean Chamber, there is an area that dips lower than the others that is called the ‘Pit.’ The lowest depth of the Pit begins in the year 2010. This was openly predicted in Lemesurier’s 1977 book as the year where the materialistic world would reach the full extent of its visible collapse — to help usher in a mass awakening.”

This Examiner.com article reviews data surrounding the Australia spiral and its possible causes.  A follow-on Examiner.com article will explore the acceleration of disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence and of sequestered quantum access and anti-gravitic new energy technologies that a prolongation of the BP oil spill operation may result in.

The June 5 Australia spiral was the result of the Falcon missile – Australian TV

Examiner.com readers can view a video from Australian TV that correlates the spiral light phenomenon to a Falcon 9 missile that had launched from Cape Canaveral about an hour prior to the 5:50 AM light on June 5, 2010.

News reports also appear to confirm that the spiral light was more probably than not the result of the Falcon 9 missile.

US rocket launch sparks Australia UFO frenzy (AFP)

SYDNEY — A bright spiralling light, believed by astronomers to be a rocket launched from Cape Canaveral, was spotted in skies across Australia’s east coast just before dawn Saturday, sparking a UFO frenzy.

Described by some witnesses as a “lollipop-type swirl”, the cloud of light was seen over the country’s three easternmost provinces — New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory — shortly before sunrise.

“It had a distinct bright centre, much like a bright star … (with) trails spiralling and fattening out from it,” Canberra resident James Butcher told broadcaster ABC of the spectacle, which he said lasted two or three minutes.

Other witnesses likened the spectacular phenomenon, footage of which was quick to hit the Internet, to a “huge revolving moon” with a swirl in the middle, or an illuminated cloud moving high and fast above the horizon.

“It certainly had that lollipop-type swirl … but it was travelling low and fairly fast, and as it went past me and I looked up, it looked like a row of lights, maybe four lights,” one Brisbane resident said.

Astronomer Andrew Jacob, acting curator of the Sydney Observatory, said it was most likely SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, launched Friday from Cape Canaveral shortly before dawn broke over Australia.

“It fits best, a rocket travelling overhead with something venting out of it, fuel venting out of the motor,” Jacob told AFP.

“The rocket’s probably tumbling or spinning a little which creates a spiral effect, a little like water coming out of a hose when you spin it. That’s the best explanation I have so far, probably the most likely one.”

The light was travelling the wrong way for it to be an astronomical phenomenon, and Jacob said he had ruled out other possibilities such as comets, a spotlight on cloud or reflection of the moon, or a meteor shower.

He said the timing was right for the SpaceX rocket to have travelled over the Atlantic Ocean, Africa and the Indian Ocean and be in skies over Australia at the time the spiralling light was seen.

The fact that it could be seen over such a broad area meant whatever caused the flare had to be very high in the atmosphere or in orbit above the Earth, Jacob added.

“All the information points to this SpaceX rocket,” he said.

The launch of the privately owned Falcon 9 test rocket marked a milestone for the space industry in the race to develop commercial carriers capable of ferrying cargo and astronauts to the orbiting International Space Station.

The case for the Australian spiral as a HAARP creation

Although the case for the Australian spiral being the product of the Falcon 9 test rocket (or some other rocket) is a strong one, a plausible case can be made for the Australian spiral as a man-made creation of HAARP, or some other electromagnetic technology.

In Mystery deepens around Norway spiral light: pyramid UFO over Kremlin, and Russia and China lights, this reporter wrote that:

“The scientific mystery of the ultimate source of the Dec. 9, 2009 Norway spiral light deepened with the revelation of a Dec. 9 pyramid UFO over the Kremlin in Red Square, Moscow (the same night as the Norway light) and of similar vortex lights to the Norway light over Russia and China. (See videos below).

“No definitive solution has been yet offered for these phenomena, assuming they are related.  Aside from the conventional explanation of Russian missile failure, the major alternative scientifically based alternative explanations offered so far include:

“(1) Extraterrestrial civilizations causing both the giant UFO pyramid over the Kremlin and the failure of the Russian Bulava missile (which led to the Norway light spiral), as a context communication message to the Russian military establishment to cease its development of intercontinental missiles;

“(2) HAARP, the space-based weapon of mass destruction, caused the electromagnetic plasma light effects visible over Norway on Nov. 9, on the eve of Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize speech either as a warning to Barack Obama, or as a possible Project Blue Beam mass psychological conditioner assuming Obama is an agent of a corporate new world order.  The Kremlin pyramid UFO could be a Project Blue Beam artificial electromagnetic or plasma artifact under this hypothesis.

“Other interpretations concluded, “that it could be a wormhole opening up, while others linked the event to the recent high-energy experiments undertaken at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.”

(3) Hyperdimensional wormhole created by an extraterrestrial or hyperdimensional intelligence, perhaps for purposes of signalling a disclosure intent to humankind.

David Wilcock and the spiral light phenomena

Researcher David Wilcock believes that the Australian spiral is man-made, like the December 2009 Norway spiral, which he and other researchers suggest is the product of HAARP or a similar man-made technology.  As to the December 9, 2009 Norway spiral, Mr. Wilcock states, “Survey the incredibly wide-ranging evidence — including video — that certain insider factions are pushing for UFO/ET Disclosure very soon. The Norway Spiral is only the most recent attempt to ‘force’ the issue — after the US failed to deliver [ET disclosure] on November 27th, [2009]‘”

Mr. Wilcock writes of the June 5 Australia spiral, “The Norway Spiral is back — but this time it’s jumping all over the place in the skies of Australia. This is a manmade phenomenon that shows Disclosure is getting closer and closer all the time!  The longer the oil spill goes on unchecked, the faster we can expect to see Disclosure really happen. There are plenty of technologies capable of plugging the spill, and those who are in a position to disclose, and ready to disclose, made a fantastic leap forward with this latest phenomenon.”

Mr. Wilcock speculates that there is a pro ET/UFO disclosure “white hat” military intelligence faction controlling the technology creating the Norway and Australian spirals as positive psychological conditioners for extraterrestrial disclosure.

HAARP and southeastern Australia weather phenomena

There is a recent history of possible HAARP-caused weather events in the southeastern to eastern area of Australia where the spiral light was also see.

On January 27, 2020, researcher Colin Andrews writes “This Dramatic Spiral Burst known to ‘insiders’ as The Ring of Fire Fault was observed on national radar over Melbourne Australia today – but then what?  Is this the HAARP smoking gun?  Its been a very busy twelve days for anybody interested in strange weather effects, possible weather modification experiments or the secret agenda behind the global HAARP project. So lets recap where this started, on this website on January 15th, 2010  (16th in Australia) and which has now exploded into a potentially very important story.”

If the June 5, 2010 Australian spiral light was caused by HAARP or a similar covert human technology, then its purpose may have been as psychological warfare or conditioning to be seen as a “UFO” or extraterrestrial event.

As this reporter wrote regarding the 2009 Norway light, “Both the China and the Russia vortex lights appear susceptible to interpretation as either (1) failures of a missile or similar aerospace hardware; (2) extraterrestrial or interdimensionally induced phenomena or (3) HAARP or other electromagnetically induced plasma light phenomena.

“Researcher David Wilcock has posited that HAARP, a space-based weapon of mass destruction one of whose antenna fields is close to the site of the Norwegian spiral light.  According to David Wilcock, one of his confidential sources stated the Norway spiral light was part of Project Blue Beam.  Mr. Wilcock’s interview appears on the Project Camelot Radio show with Kerry Cassidy.

“Mr. Wilcock’s discussion of the plasma effects of the 18-layered energy field surrounding the Norway light seems to be persuasive that HAARP may indeed be the source of those, as well as the China and Russia lights.  If some case were to be made that the Dec. 9 Kremlin UFO were a human artificial Blue Beam construct as well, Project Blue beam would be the common denominator behind all of these events.

“One of the alleged purposes of Project Blue Beam is the use of advanced electromagnetic imaging such as that produced by HAARP and exhibited in the Norway spiral light as a psychological mass conditioning device in aid of the implementation of a global corporate new world order.

The Australian spiral light as a genuine inter-dimensional “wormhole”

Given the closeness in time to the overflight of the Falcon 9 rocket and the availability of HAARP or a similar man-made technology as a possible cause, the case that the Australian spiral light is a genuine interdimensional wormhole becomes more difficult.

Several researchers maintain that the December 2009 Norway spiral light and related spiral lights in Russia and China are interdimensional wormholes created by an intelligent civilization.

One argument used by certain researchers to support the view that the December 9, 2009 Norway spiral was its association with paranormal events occurring over the Kremlin in Moscow, Russian Federation at the same time.

The context communication theory of extraterrestrial communication posits that extraterrestrial or UFO encounters can be symbolic communications from a higher intelligent civilization to a human civilization.

Jean-Charles Duboc of Exopolitics France and Dr. Michael Salla are the principal proponents of the extraterrestrial communication interpretation of the December 9, 2009 Norway-Kremlin spiral light and UFO events.  Mr. Duboc writes:

“The [Nov. 9, 2009] failure of the [Russian Bulava missile] and the UFO over the Kremlin – the interpretations that I give are these:

“1 / These two demonstrations of technological power are primarily intended for military and political power in Russia.

“2 / The Sixth failure of Bulava missile, if it was caused by an extraterrestrial civilization, is a condemnation of such tests.

“3 / These two events are a destabilization of military power (failure of the missile) and political power (a UFO over the Kremlin).

“4 / These two events are also a warning if not a threat:

- A threat to the military to destroy their nuclear toys.

-A threat to the political power by making them understand that they are not immune to aggressive action, domination, right in Moscow.

“5 / These two events are also a message of change and hope – not the military leaders and political leaders, but for the people:

-Hope – Stopping a final race for weapons of mass destruction if a civilization intervenes.

-Hope to make contact with extraterrestrial civilizations and benefit from technologies to solve energy problems and climate.

“6 / A sign that the aliens have been here for millennia, like the pyramids …

“That’s where we are, and the event of aliens over the Kremlin is certainly the first in a long line [of similar events] above the capitals of the world.

“Moreover, the video of the UFO over Red Square has achieved in Russia a record viewership on Youtube because the information was repeated in the media.

“What happened recently in Russia is absolutely remarkable, and we must prepare for an acceleration of history and an increase in UFO sighting on Earth.

“We are not at the end of surprises to come…”

Jean-Charles Duboc (translated from the French)

Mr. Duboc does not provide analysis as to why the Dec. 9 Norway lights are not HAARP or a similar Project Blue Beam-connected mass conditioning phenomenon.

How to evaluate the Australian spiral and other spiral phenomena

1.  Over-projection – Researchers in the area multi-dimensional phenomena have created a policy literature of over-projection based on different putative causes of the spiral light phenomena, be it the December 9, 2009 Norway spiral or the June 5, 2010 Australian spiral or the Russia and China spirals.  As no definitive causes have been established for the spiral light phenomena in any of these cases, this causes large confusion and cognitive dissonance in the growing reading public.

2.  Cause of the June 5 Australian spiral light – Based on the evidence, this reporter leaves it up to each reader to evaluate what they think is the cause.  Readers are welcome to state their own conclusions in the comments section below.

3.  Relationship of the Australian spiral light to the BP oil spill – Researcher David Wilcock has posited an interpretive framework in which the spiral light phenomena are positive signals being created by a pro-ET/UFO disclosure faction within the global power structure.  Within this interpretive framework, a meaningful relationship can be seen between the June 5, 2010 Australian spiral and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Mr. Wilcock sees both of these as accelerating disclosure of extraterrestrials and of advanced quantum access and anti-gravity technology.

If in fact the Australian spiral light is the product of the Falcon 9 rocket, then there is no apparent relationship of the spiral to ET/UFO disclosure.

4.  The BP oil spill as accelerating ET/UFO disclosure – A future Examiner.com article will address the effects of the BP oil spill as accelerating disclosure of extraterrestrials and of advanced quantum access and anti-gravity technology, and as a catalyst to the end of the petroleum-nuclear age of human civilization.

Features » May 31, 2010

Aliens Like Us

Anthropologist Scott Littleton believes the truth is out there, somewhere.

By George Kenney

Informal UFO/ET disclosure now happening in leaked UFO/ET reports via U.S. Capitol Police

Seattle Exopolitics ExaminerAlfred Lambremont Webre

An officer of the U.S. Capitol Police has leaked reports of UFO and hyperdimensional extraterrestrial spacecraft flyovers over the U.S. Capitol, using her active email account as a U.S. Capitol Police officer on the staff of the U.S. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms.  The U.S. Capitol Police officer, who has requested anonymity, made available the leaked reports, written by a former U.S. Capitol employee, in 2008 and 2009 to researcher and author Robert M. Stanley after Mr. Stanley made research inquiries of the U.S. Capitol Police regarding Wilbur “Will” Allen’s documentation of 2002 UFO/ET flyovers over the U.S. Capitol.

The leaked reports via the U.S. Capitol Police officer, which Mr. Stanley has examined and claims appear to be valid reports, confirm specific UFO/ET flyovers on April 22, 1999 and in spring 1995 in P-51 restricted airspace over the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Stanley has made these leaked reports via the U.S. Capitol Police officer public in an exclusive Exopolitics Radio interview with reporter Alfred Lambremont Webre, and in the Examiner.com article below.

These leaked reports contain prime eyewitness witness evidence of UFO/ET over flights over the U.S. Capitol by the U.S. Capitol Police, trained officers in charge of the physical safety of the U.S. Capitol area.  The U.S. Capitol Police, according to Mr. Stanley, report to the National Security Agency (NSA) on matters relating to incursions into P-51 protected airspace by UFO/ET flyovers or landings on protected buildings, such as the U.S. Capitol, the White House, the reflecting pool, etc.

The leaked reports via the U.S. Capitol Police officer confirm the assertions of Wilbur “Will” Allen, a former White House employee and Air Force One engineer under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, that a U.S. Capitol Police officer had informed him in 2002 when he filed photos of UFO/ET flyover with them that the U.S. Capitol Police were experiencing similar UFO/ET flyovers over the U.S. Capitol to the ones Mr. Allen was photographing, as reported in a May 19, 2010 Examiner.com article, UFODC-Obama adviser says documented UFO/ET landings on U.S. Capitol “could destabilize society.

These reports via the U.S. Capitol Police officer are not a formal announcement or official “disclosure” by the U.S. Capitol Police of a frequent UFO/ET presence in the U.S. Capitol area.  The reports do constitute a significant unofficial UFO/ET disclosure by a former U.S. Capitol employee through the active email account of a current U.S. Capitol Police officer at the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms office of the UFO and hyperdimensional presence in the protected airspace of the U.S. Capitol and the White House.

Listen to ExopoliticsRadio.org interview on informal UFO/ET disclosure how happening via U.S. Capitol Police

To listen to a 55 minute in-depth interview with Robert M. Stanley, please click here.

The first leaked UFO/ET disclosure via the U.S. Capitol Police

The following is a verbatim report as leaked to Robert M. Stanley in 2008 via a U.S. Capitol Police officer in the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms office. In his ExopolticsRadio.org interview, Mr. Stanley speculates that mode of release of the UFO/ET reports in 2008 was designed to preserve anonymity and non-attribution, while preserving evidence of an official connection to the U.S. Capitol Police.

Robert M. Stanley notes that a video of the UFO/ET flyover of the U.S. Capitol was taken at the first event.  According to Mr. Stanley, “the video was never made public and was probably confiscated and classified.”

According to Mr. Stanley, this first report was written by the retired U.S. Capitol employee and is written in the first person “I,” referring to the employee himself.

Former U.S. Capitol employee

DC UFO REPORT #411

Date – April 22, 1999:

“Around 11:00 a.m., myself, a group of tourists and a Capitol police officer

were standing on the west steps of the US Capitol when we noticed something

strange flying at about 15,000 feet. It was moving gradually from

north to south over the US Capitol Dome.

“The object was a bright, silver, disc shaped UFO. It was moving

relatively slow and would stop on occasion. I recall there was a

bright white flash emitting from it about every minute or so, we

couldn’t tell if it was from the object or a reflection from the sun

coming off of it.

“The object was flying in a rather odd pattern. It would stop for

many seconds, then make a sharp left or right movement, then start

moving straight again. At times it looked like it was moving in a

zig zag pattern, then it would make right-angle turns. It’s hard to

explain. We couldn’t figure out what this was because the area it

was flying in was prohibited/restricted air space.

“The Capitol police officer with me notified his superior about the

object, but I don’t know what they did about it. The object was

literally straight up above the Capitol dome and was also seen by

the tourists.

“We watched the object for about 20 minutes until it moved out of

site, toward Virginia.

“I have continued to wonder about it and have tried to find anyone

else that saw the UFO when I did.

“Have you ever heard of a bright flash coming from any of the

sightings you have researched in D.C.? The flash was not like a

beacon light from an airplane, I can only describe it as a huge

camera flash that would flash roughly every 20-30 seconds.

“We were looking directly at the bottom of this thing since it was

right over head. The objects top was a shiny silver sphere with a

shiny silver square style bottom. It was something that I can’t

explain and haven’t seen before.

“I know my time line is vague but it was around spring time, in

April I think around 11:00 a.m. in the morning. I wish I would have

written down the information when we had the sighting. I saw the

police officer the other day that was with me that morning and he

still remembers it like I do.

“I wish I could find an explanation. I don’t work on Capitol Hill

anymore. I am using my wife’s (Capitol Police) e-mail account. I

used to work there, but left in 2000. I still have many friends on

the police that I might be able to get information from.”

“I recall that one of the tourists visiting the Capitol that day had

a video camera and captured the entire event. However, that footage

has not yet been made available to the public. Or, *_perhaps it was

_**_ confiscated_*?

“The Capitol Police officer who experienced the sighting with me is

now a lieutenant. When the sighting occurred he did report it to his

superior because the craft was in prohibited/restricted air space,

but I don’t know what happened with that report or any follow up

investigation.

“I said then when we were watching the UFO that I think its taking

photographs. I’m sure there are a lot more incidents that occur, but

we will never hear about any of them.”

© RMS 2010

This leaked report and the one below are copyrighted 2010 by Robert M. Stanley and will appear in his forthcoming book “Close Encounters in Washington, D.C.“

The second leaked UFO/ET disclosure via U.S. Capitol Police

This is the second leaked UFO/ET disclosure via U.S. Capitol Police.

Former U.S. Capitol employee

DC UFO REPORT #385

Date: Spring 1995

“In 1995, when this sighting occurred, ‘X’ had only been a Capitol Police officer for a couple of  years.

As  of 2009, ‘X’ has been on the police force for many years

and is a well-respected, ranking officer on the Capitol Police force

“Although ‘X’ had never given UFOs a second thought, that all

changed one morning at the Law Library Door. For those who aren’t

familiar, the Law Library Door is located just left of the main

center steps on the East side of the US Capitol.

“The day started as most do with tourist and other people standing

in line to visit the most powerful building in the world. The Law

Library Door is traditionally used as a staff entrance an

occasionally for the visitor unable to conquer the 220 steps leading

into the Rotunda.

“As the morning rush ended and things finally started to slow down

‘X’ walked out of the Law Library Door to get a little fresh air at

the bottom of the main Capitol steps.

“As he gazed across the plaza toward Upper Senate Park, he was

startled by an amazing sight. At that time, he saw 3 glowing

spherical UFOs that were each about 3 feet in diameter. At first,

they hovered about 100 feet above the ground, but then they began

flying silently in and out of the trees in the upper portion of

Senate Park. Baffled, ‘X’ yelled out to the other officer who

accompanied him that morning. He said, ‘Hurry – you have to get a

see this!’

“As the other officer arrived, the UFOs were just exiting the park

and starting to move up Constitution Ave. As they watched the UFOs,

the Capitol Police officers noticed these strange spheres were

flying at about the same height as the Russell, Dirksen and Hart

Senate office buildings.

“The UFOs were soon following each other in unison until they

abruptly made a sharp right turn on First Street NE and continued

south in the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“As the UFOs approached the Supreme Court they made very erratic

left to right movements and would change position in what seemed to

be a game of intergalactic follow-the-leader.

“The UFOs were soon in front of the Library of Congress. That’s when

they made an arching loop north and headed back up First Street

towards their original location. For some reason, the UFOs started

bobbing up and down in the air as they flew back in the direction of

the Hart, Senate office building.

“While quickly approaching the building, they suddenly lifted up and

passed over top and continued north until they were no longer in

sight. ‘X’ has absolutely no explanation for what he saw that

amazing spring morning. However, those 15 minutes forever changed

his outlook on UFOs and life as he knows it.”

During my investigation, I learned from another ranking officer on

the Capitol Police force that many police officers serving at the

Capitol have encountered UFOs and then have had to write a report of

the event.

However, when I requested sanitized versions of these reports, my

request was denied. Apparently, although the Capitol Police would

like to tell their side of this strange story, other government

agencies with higher control over the security of the Capitol and

the Washington, D.C., area are simply not ready willing or able to

disclose this sensitive data to the public at this time.

© RMS 2010

Detroit

Navy officer faces arrest if he doesn’t disavow secret UN talks on UFOs

May 24, 1:22 PMHonolulu Exopolitics ExaminerMichael Salla, Ph.D.

Richard Theilmann, (Lt Commander) at New York Naval Commandery

On May 20, an article was published outing the original source leaking information about secret UFO discussions at the United Nations that began on February 12, 2008. The source in question showed this writer and up to six other researchers credentials revealing his identity as Richard Theilmann, Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy.  The military ID badge he showed me in October 2008 was valid for a three year period and had a bar code for scanning purposes. He also showed a service album showing many photos of his career in different military commands, including his name on a fighter plane on an aircraft carrier. Theilmann (aka Source A) explained that he was on reserve duty and would be activated for different covert missions – including a stint at the United Nations after he was reactivated in 2005 up to 2008. I was also aware of a meeting Theilmann had with Dr Bruce Maccabee at the Naval Warfare Center in April 2008 when he arrived at Maccabee’s laboratory unescorted. He did so by showing his military ID badge which was scanned and he was given the go ahead to bypass normal base security procedures for visitors. This led to Maccabee concluding that Theilman had sufficiently high security clearances and valid credentials in order to visit him unescorted. All this was used to support Theilmann’s claims that he was present at a secret set of UN discussions on UFOs.

In the period immediately after Theilmann’s February 2008 leak, other sources came forward to disclose the existence of secret discussions at the UN. The most important was a French UFO researcher, Gilles Lorant, who claims to have participated in closed door discussions on February 13-14. He described a new openness policy had been adopted by up to 28 nations, and this would begin in 2009 provided two conditions were met. One was that UFOs would continue to appear in large numbers, and that liberal democratic societies would not be destabilized by official openness on the UFO issue. Lorant’s testimony was supported by other sources including well known UFO researcher Dr Stephen Greer who knew of the French interest in disclosing the truth about extraterrestrial life.

A number of sources revealed that Lorant worked closely with French military intelligence. He quickly became the first major casualty of the UN UFO story when it was found that he had overstated his professional credentials. Lorant was quickly discredited in France but his story nevertheless was now in the public realm. For many, this was how plausible deniability worked in the covert world of UFO programs. The discrediting of Lorant was an example of how when the cover of covert operative is blown, they are discredited, disappear and are reassigned. Based on the outing of Source A as Richard Theilmann, the public may soon witness a repeat of the public discrediting of another covert operative who disclosed that the UN began having secret discussions on UFOs in 2008. More disturbingly, Theilmann is being threatened with arrest if he doesn’t disavow his earlier revelations about secret UN UFO discussions.

Today (May 24), I had a telephone conversation with Richard Theilmann about how he would respond to the outing of him by Stephen Broadbent, and the attempt to discredit him as a hoax. Theilmann explained that he was being coerced, and that as we were speaking, his military records were being expunged in case a failsafe contingency was activated to protect more senior Navy officials involved in the sanctioned leaking of the UN UFO discussions. The failsafe, if activated, would lead to him being arrested for impersonating a military officer and his public discrediting by the mainstream media. It had earlier been explained to me that the failsafe would lead to him serving a short stint in prison before being released, and reassigned for another covert mission involving extraterrestrial life. ‘Coincidentally’ a case of an ex-Navy Commander impersonating a military officer appeared on May 2. Was this rare occurrence just a ‘coincidence’, a veiled ‘warning’ to Theilmann, and/or was the public was being conditioned to accept a failsafe contingency in case Theilmann was outed? Another question worth asking is whether Broadbent and his investigatory team was being assisted in their outing of Theilman by opponents of the Navy’s effort to disclose the existence of UFOs?

In another ‘coincidence’ it was announced one day later on May 21 that Dennis Blair, a former four star Navy Admiral, was forced to resign as Director of National Intelligence. Blair was someone with the background experiences on UFOs that would be open to supporting a covert Navy effort to disclose the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrial life, and briefing President Obama.  Among the stated factors that went against Blair was that he wanted to promote closer intelligence ties between the U.S. and France.  That’s another curious ‘coincidence’ given the role of Lorant (and French military intelligence) in disclosing the existence of UN UFO discussions back in February 2008. Theilmann supported my suspicion of a link, and stated in our conversation that Blair’s resignation was part of a ‘pushback’ against the Navy. If a pushback is indeed occurring, it very likely is being orchestrated by the same forces that were earlier involved in silencing UN diplomats from discussing the secret UFO discussions. Along with Theilmann, two other sources confirmed that such coercion was being used against diplomats. One source was a serving European Ambassador who requested anonymity in revealing that such coercion was indeed happening.

In order to avoid the activation of the failsafe mechanism whereby his military records would be expunged, Theilmann explained to me that in a forthcoming telephone conversation he would have with Broadbent, tentatively arranged for May 25, he would discredit himself by saying that the UN UFO story was something he had fabricated based on events that occurred while he was at the United Nations in February 2008. His strategy was that by telling Broadbent that he made most of it up, based on conversations he had overheard, that further investigations by Broadbent et al would end. Theilmann hoped that the UN UFO issue would die away, and the failsafe would not be activated. Basically, I was being told that Theilmann was prepared to backtrack and lie to Broadbent about the reality of the UFO discussions at the UN in order to avert the failsafe mechanism. Theilmann’s intent was to protect his superiors in the covert world, the regular Navy and his own public humiliation if he was arrested for impersonating an officer.

As a researcher, I am committed to finding the truth about extraterrestrial life, and exposing official government/military/corporate policies to cover up its existence. I cannot therefore simply stand by and watch as Theilmann was point blank going to lie about his true role in leaking information about secret UFO discussions at the UN.  Furthermore, I do not accept the coercion that is currently being used against Theilmann to make him contemplate discrediting himself in order to avert an even more severe failsafe mechanism from coming into play. Something similar had already happened with, Gilles Lorant, the other major primary source revealing the existence of the UN UFO talks. The coercion used against covert operatives may be accepted by them as part of the standard MO of life with high security clearances. As a member of the general public, I am not obliged to play along especially when it comes to distorting the truth and preventing the public from learning more about what the UN has been secretly doing on the UFO/extraterrestrial issue.

Based on conversations subsequent to the outing of Richard Theilmann, nothing has deterred me from the conclusion that the secret UN discussions on UFOs occurred as Theilman, Lorant and other sources have described all along. Theilman’s visit to the Naval Warfare Center in April 2008 to meet with Dr Maccabee reveals that he did have a current military ID badge and security clearances, as he showed to me and other researchers. The documents witnessed supported Theilman’s claim that he had been reactivated from reserve status. Theilmann’s advance warning to me that he is about to admit to deceiving the Pickering brothers, who first told me about the UN UFO discussions, is itself a lie where he will directly seek to discredit himself.

I understand Theilmann’s predicament given the failsafe contingency he claims is hanging over his head that entails arrest and publicly discrediting him for impersonating an officer. The existence of such failsafe mechanisms is certainly one of the more inconvenient aspects of working in the covert world. Perhaps this article may prevent such a mechanism from being activated, and even dissuade him from disavowing his earlier stated positions as relayed by a number of intermediaries including this writer. I fervently hope so. His testimony is important and was a key part of an unfolding puzzle of official UN interest in UFOs and extraterrestrial life. Nevertheless, Theilmann has always been one among a number of sources revealing the existence of secret UFO discussions at the UN. The policy implications that such meetings have had at an international level are important to investigate more closely. That is especially so if there is a current pushback against UFO/extraterrestrial disclosure going forward, and primary sources are being silenced and/or threatened with arrest if they don’t disavow their testimonies.

Why is Hawking affirming time travel theory and appearing ignorant of DARPA secret time travel?

May 1, 2:00 PMSeattle Exopolitics ExaminerAlfred Lambremont Webre

FIG. A – Andrew D. Basiago time traveled to Nov. 19, 1863 by DARPA

Fresh from eliciting polarized public responses to public statements urging humanity to avoid any contact with extraterrestrial civilizations on the grounds that all such contact may be dangerous, scientist Stephen Hawking, for over 30 years Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, has now weighed in on the theoretical and operational reality of time travel as part of his Discovery Channel documentary series.

As Examiner.com reported, Hawking’s blanket negative statements about the intentions of extraterrestrial civilizations are reminiscent of U.S. and U.K. military-intelligence propaganda supporting the weaponization of space and a false flag war against extraterrestrials.  Prof. Hawking said, “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”

Prof. Hawking’s statements on time travel can been seen in a segment (Episode 1-5) of the Discovery Channel documentary embedded in the article below.  In the documentary segment, Prof. Hawking first affirms the theoretical reality of time travel.  He then describes (and the documentary depicts) a theoretical time-travel portal in terms that are very similar to secret U.S. government time travel portals described by independent whistle blowers from U.S. time travel projects, Andrew D. Basiago, a Cambridge University graduate and former DARPA Project Pegasus time travel participant, and former U.S. serviceman Michael Relfe.

Although the literature about Mr. Basiago’s and Mr. Relfe’s operational time travel experiences in secret U.S. government programs is readily available and would come up in any scientific due diligence “Google” search by Prof. Hawking, Prof. Hawking goes on to postulate that “time travel wormholes” occur only at the quantum level and are “one billion trillionth trillionth of a centimeter” in diameter.  Science would have to expand these “time travel wormholes” to human size for time travel to be possible, according to Prof. Hawking.

According to Andrew D. Basiago, in the quantum access technology developed by the U.S. government, vortal tunnels are opened in time-space via Tesla-based teleporters.

It is reasonable to ask why Prof. Hawking, who first portrays time travel as possible and describes a realistic time travel portal almost factually would then postulate a situation so drastically at odds with what is now real – that the U.S. government has secretly had an operational time travel capability for more than 40 years.

Are Prof. Hawking’s statements negating the operational reality of quantum access time travel technology due to (1) an oversight, (2) faulty scientific due diligence, (3) a “paradigm” gap on Prof. Hawking’s part, (4) his ignorance of the “whistle blower” phenomenon regarding quantum access technologies (and extraterrestrial civilizations), or (5) an intentional misleading of the world population as to the state of quantum access technologies such as teleportation and time travel?

Stephen Hawking, Discovery Channel and time travel

Examiner.com readers can view the segment from Stephen Hawking’s documentary on time travel in which time travel is deemed theoretically possible, a schematic of an operational time travel portal is shown, and finally time travel is shown to be operationally not possible at present.  Please make certain you are watching Episode 1-5, as Episodes 2-5 to 5-5 also  appear in the video below.

DARPA time travel participant Andrew D. Basiago

Witness and documentary evidence for secret U.S. time travel

As Examiner.com has reported, Project Pegasus was a classified, defense-related research and development program launched by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the late 1960’s.

In the following You Tube interview with Ms. Jessica Schab, Mr. Basiago “relates his experiences in DARPA’s Project Pegasus during the period 1969 to 1972, and describes probes to past and future events that he took via teleportation and chronovision during the early days of time-space exploration by the US government.”

According to Mr. Basiago, the US government already had a fully operational teleportation capability in 1967-68, and by 1969-70, was actively training a cadre of gifted and talented American schoolchildren, including himself, to become America’s first generation of “chrononauts” or time-space explorers.

This training, he said, culminated in 1981, when, as a 19-year-old, he teleported to Mars, first by himself after being prepared for the trip by CIA officer Courtney M. Hunt, and then a second time in the company of Hunt.  Both trips, Mr. Basiago said, were made via a “jump room” located at a CIA facility in El Segundo, CA.  The apparent purpose of the trips to Mars was to familiarize him with Mars because the CIA knew of his destiny pertaining to publicly establishing the fact that Mars is an inhabited planet and deemed it important that he visit Mars and experience its conditions first-hand.

Mr. Basiago’s involvement in advanced US time-space research as a child, as well as Courtney M. Hunt’s identity as a career CIA officer, have been confirmed by Dr. Jean Maria Arrigo, an ethicist who works closely with US military and intelligence agencies, and by US Army Captain Ernest Garcia, whose storied career in US intelligence included both serving as a guard on the Dead Sea Scroll expeditions of Israeli archaeologist Yigal Yadin and as the Army security attaché to Project Pegasus.

Remote sensing in the time-space continuum

Mr. Basiago has revealed that between 1969 and 1972, as a child participant in Project Pegasus, he both viewed past and future events through a device known as a chronovisor and teleported back and forth across the country in vortal tunnels opened in time-space via Tesla-based teleporters located at the Curtiss-Wright Aeronautical Company facility in Wood Ridge, NJ and the Sandia National Laboratory in Sandia, NM.

In one time probe to the future undertaken by Project Pegasus from a chronovisor device located at ITT Defense Communications in Nutley, NJ, Mr. Basiago viewed the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC as it would be in the year 2013.  During this probe, he found that the Supreme Court building was under 100 feet of stagnant water and reported this to the Lieutenant Commander from the Office of Naval Intelligence who debriefed him after the probe to the future was completed.  He hastens to add that because the chronovisors did not identify absolute, deterministic futures but rather alternate futures in the “multi-verse,” this catastrophic vision of Washington, DC might be from an alternative time line that does not materialize on our time line.

In contrast to the chronovisor probes, in which a form of virtual time travel was achieved, the teleporters developed by Project Pegasus allowed for physical teleportation to distant locations, sometimes with an adjustment forward or backward in time of days, weeks, months, or years.  According to Mr. Basiago, by 1972, the US government was using “quantum displacement” of this kind to both send people forward in time several years to store sensitive military secrets in the future and backward in time several years to provide the government current intelligence about future events.

Societal impact of chronovision and teleportation

Andrew D. Basiago’s Pegasus revelations establish that a secret, advanced US time-space program emerged 40 years ago.  For four decades, this program has used esoteric technologies involving chronovision and teleportation to perform “remote sensing in time” of past and future events.  For the past three decades, teleportation has also been used to send individuals from Earth to strategic US bases on Mars.  He is adamant that these technologies be revealed so that their positive and negative aspects can be debated and their positive aspects used to advantage humanity.

Chronovision, he said, could be used to create an international network of virtual museums in which images from the past would be shown to enlighten and educate the public.  Misapplied, such technology could also be used to create a Fascist society based on 24-hour surveillance of individuals by government, which may have been portended by the DARPA project called “Total Information Awareness” that President George W. Bush established and placed under Admiral John Poindexter.

Teleportation is a second quantum access technology developed with public funds that the public is being denied the full benefits of.  Teleportation could be used, Basiago said, to move people and goods more quickly and efficiently around the globe, without the pollution caused by planes, trains, and automobiles or the negative land use effects from airports, railroad tracks, and highways.  Yet, if it is not declassified, teleportation will remain what it has been for 40 years, that is, a weapon for use only by the US military, to have the option to put troops precisely where they are needed on battlefields.

Corroborative documentary (photographic) evidence of Andrew D. Basiago’s secret U.S. government time travel

There exists quantum access documentary (photographic) evidence in the form of a time travel artifact that resulted from Andrew D. Basiago’s childhood participation in DARPA’s secret time travel program in the early 1970’s.

The ALTA reports and Web Bot technology have specifically identified Mr. Basiago, an emerging figure in the disclosure movement, as a “planetary whistle blower” based on the global significance of his revelations. Exploring this time travel artifact will help establish a frame of reference for Examiner.com readers to better evaluate evidence gathered by quantum access technology and time travel participants like Mr. Basiago.

Corroborative documentary evidence of the veracity of Mr. Basiago’s time travel expeditions on behalf of the U.S. government exists.  This documentary evidence consists of a photograph of Mr. Basiago taken at the scene of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863 after he was teleported to that location in the time-space continuum via DARPA time travel technology.

Andrew D. Basiago at Gettysburg, PA on November 19, 1863 (Gettysburg Address)

Figure A (above) is a photograph of Andrew D. Basiago as a Project Pegasus time travel participant taken at the site of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, to which Mr. Basiago had been teleported back in time by DARPA.

Mr. Basiago has publicly answered questions about this corroborating photographic evidence of his time travel experiences in the secret U.S. government program in which time travel was achieved.

Q: Is this [Figure A] the photo of you on November 19, 1863?

Andrew D. Basiago: Yes. I am the boy standing in the foreground of the image at center-left, looking to his right. My shoes were lost in the transit through the quantum plenum that took me from the plasma confinement chamber at the time lab in East Hanover, NJ in 1972 to Gettysburg, PA on the day that Abraham Lincoln gave his famous address there in 1863. When I walked into downtown Gettysburg, where the shops were, after walking into town along the north-south arterial that led into Gettysburg, a cobbler by the name of John Lawrence Burns accosted me and took me inside a millinery shop and furnished me with a pair of men’s street shoes and a Union winter parka that he took from a stack of military clothing in a storeroom at the back of the shop. In this image, one can see how over-sized the shoes were. I can confirm that this image was taken right after President Lincoln arrived on the dais, because when I walked over to this location and stood in this manner to detract attention from my shoes, I had been standing over by the dais, and Lincoln had not yet arrived, and I only stood in this position for several minutes before the quantum field effect produced by the plasma confinement chamber ended and I found myself back in the time lab in New Jersey.

Q: This is incredible, Andrew! I did not know there were pictures. Was this a picture (Figure A) discovered that just happened to have you in it, or was this picture taken by those with you and you brought it back?

Andrew D. Basiago: To my knowledge, this was the only photograph that was taken in a past or future time when I was time traveling for DARPA’s Project Pegasus. I think another breakthrough will come in the form of accounts from residents of Santa Fe [New Mexico] about children suddenly appearing at the state capitol complex there in the early 1970′s. Our arrivals were sometimes witnessed. Several of my own arrivals were witnessed. I have spoken with area residents who knew that individuals were teleporting into Santa Fe in the early 1970′s. Some of that knowledge resulted from the arrival of teleportees, including myself, being seen by others; other knowledge resulted from the fact that employees of LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM] were bringing stories about the teleportation that was going on home from work and sharing them with their children around the dinner table in Los Alamos and White Rock.

Q: What were you looking at [in the photograph in Figure A]?

Andrew D. Basiago: Nothing, intentionally. I was wearing a hodgepodge of clothes: the Union bugle boy uniform that I had been issued back in East Hanover, NJ in 1972; the Union winter parka that Burns had outfitted me in when I walked into town shivering in the brisk autumn air; the huge men’s shoes that he gave me when I walked into town barefoot. When I walked over to the dais, several women were gossiping about me (presumably, because I was apparently a bugle boy separated from his regiment or a carpetbagger). I was questioned by two Union officers about where my regiment was bivouacked. I also had a strange encounter with my father, who was dressed as a Pennsylvania farmer and standing in front of the dais, in which he intentionally ignored me. He later said that encountering me there at Gettysburg was how he found out I was going to be in the program. But he was startled to see me and not expecting me to be there, [he] acted like he didn’t know who I was. After I was questioned by the two Union officers, I was concerned that I should make myself inconspicuous. We had been trained to avoid being conspicuous, being questioned, being arrested, being detained, and so on, because these things might create complications that would prevent us from getting back to the present. So, self-conscious about the huge shoes that I was wearing and trying to avoid being further noticed, I walked about 100 paces from the dais and stood with my back to the dais looking in the opposite direction from where I knew Lincoln would be arriving. I hoped that by affecting an air of non-chalance in this manner, I would avoid further scrutiny by those present. It didn’t work! I ended up becoming the first time traveler from the future to be photographed!

Q: How much information about the future has Project Pegasus learned about?

Andrew D. Basiago: My experiences in Project Pegasus indicate that by 1970, the US government was using chronovision to capture remotely and record on film a vast amount of footage of past and future events. When we visited the project location at Flemington, NJ — where I was shown remote images of the signing of the US Constitution in 1787 and saw George Washington and Benjamin Franklin as they appeared in life — we could see that the technicians there were filming reams and reams of scenes of past events on 16 mm film stock and storing it in film canisters. Presumably, this process is done digitally today.

Q: Is Project Pegasus still active?

Andrew D. Basiago: I do not know whether Project Pegasus is still active, but the intelligence infrastructure that evolved from it is in all likelihood very active at this time. Project Pegasus was a small, highly secret research and development program launched in the late 1960′s. However, the technologies that it developed gave the US government the keys to past and future events. My guess is that the quantum access capabilities that Project Pegasus provided the US government are now headquartered at some form of national intelligence center that provides the President, the intelligence community and the military information about future events.

Q: Was just the military involved or was the government also involved?

Andrew D. Basiago: Project Pegasus combined individuals employed by the US military (Navy, DARPA), the US intelligence community (CIA) and civilian defense contractors (e.g., Parsons). It was a research and development program of the US Department of Defense (DoD).

Q: How could a father actually put his son through all of these violent and possibly fatal transportation experiments?

Andrew D. Basiago: It is my position that my father and I were proud to serve our country during its hour of maximum danger and were also privileged to be involved in America’s early activities in time-space exploration. My father did not involve me in Project Pegasus. Rather, we were approached by the US government and told we had to be involved for reasons that remain a mystery. In all likelihood, we were identified by project personnel from the future, who knew from the perspective of their time that we had been involved in the program, and hence we were brought into the program to create the future program that had knowledge of our past involvement.

Q: Why was not an adult the one transported so that the information brought back might be more precise?

Andrew D. Basiago: Children were involved for five main reasons. First, we were experimental test subjects into the physical and mental effects of teleportation on children. Second, we were necessary participants because the holograms produced by the chronovisors would collapse if adults were involved and so small, cooperative, intelligent human beings were needed as the time travelers in the chronovisor probes, and therefore a decision was made to involve gifted and talented American school children. Third, we were regarded as better participant-observers of the past and future events accessed in the program because children are tabula rasa — blank slates whose perceptions are not skewed by the selection bias produced by their previous experiences. Fourth, we were trainees who were expected to become America’s first generation of “chrononauts” in a fully fledged time-space program when we grew up. Fifth and lastly, the Department of Defense found that when adults were involved in time travel, the psychologically destabilizing effects of moving between alternate time lines was causing some adult time travelers to become insane, so it was hoped that by training time travelers from childhood a competent cadre of US time travelers could be formed.

Q: How could a child possibly be put through all of this and also remember everything he saw or even understand what he saw or heard?

Andrew D. Basiago: I am a gifted individual with exceptional powers of observation and memory. These gifts were identified when I was being trained in Project Pegasus. In one test, I recited back random numbers provided to me verbally to 84 places. I was identified as the future whistle blower about Project Pegasus even while I was still serving on the project. I have spent over 10 years investigating my experiences and proving them to an historical certainty. I am an individual who did remember what I saw and heard, so it is not valid to say that I couldn’t have done so because a child couldn’t or shouldn’t have been able to. That involves the fallacy of using the general to refute the specific. I not only remembered much of what I saw and heard, but I later wrote it down and went back and investigated it and proved my memories. Consequently, I am now able to provide an insider’s account of the US government’s time-space program at the time of its emergence in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s.

Independent whistleblower witness evidence of U.S. government time travel

Andrew D. Basiago is not the only whistle blower witness from a formerly associated with secret U.S. time travel programs.

Quantum access technology is used to time travel U.S. armed service personnel who serve as permanent staff at the secret U.S. base on Mars and to age-regress them back to their original time-space starting date after the completion of their 20-year rotation cycle on Mars.

Thus, the secret U.S. base on Mars may be hyperdimensionally “cloaked” from civilian society on Earth, and “hidden” in covert niches in the time-space hologram.

Two independent whistle blowers, both former U.S. armed service personnel stationed at the U.S. secret base on Mars, have now come forth with detailed accounts of their experiences on Mars.

Time travel whistle blower Michael Relfe is a former member of the U.S. armed forces who in 1976 was recruited as a permanent member of the secret Mars colony.  In 1976 (Earth time), he teleported to the Mars colony and spent 20 years as a permanent member of its staff. In 1996 (Mars time), Mr. Relfe was time-traveled via teleportation and age-regressed 20 years, landing back at a U.S. military base in 1976 (Earth time).  Mr. Relfe then served six years in the U.S. military on Earth before being honorably discharged in 1982.

In a two-volume book authored by his wife, Stephanie Relfe, B.Sc., The Mars Records, Mr. Relfe describes the two types of individuals at the secret Mars colony:

“To clarify: Remember there are two kinds of people that I remember.

“1. People visiting Mars temporarily (politicians, etc.) – They travel to and from Mars by jump gate. They visit for a few weeks and return. They are not time traveled back. They are VIP’s. They are OFF LIMITS!!

“2. Permanent staff – They spend 20 years’ duty cycle. At the end of their duty cycle, they are age reversed and time shot back to their space-time origin point. They are sent back with memories blocked. They are sent back to complete their destiny on Earth.”  (Vol. 2, p. 204)

AP: Stephen Hawking at Texas A&M lecture, April 5, 2010

Stephen Hawking’s statements about time travel

In the Discovery Channel documentary, Prof. Hawking makes a statement about time travel that is a mixture of (1) near factual description of a time travel portal such as those used on DARPA Project Pegasus time travel operations to the future and the past, as described by former Project Pegasus participant Andrew D. Basiago, mixed in with a (2) “quantum” theory holding that “time travel wormholes” occur only at the quantum level and are “one billion trillionth trillionth of a centimeter” in diameter.

Science would have to expand these “time travel wormholes” to human size for time travel to be possible, according to Hawking.  Thus having raised realistic expectations of time travel in an initial several minutes video introduction, Prof. Hawking then summarily dashes the probability of present operational quantum access time travel capability with an explanation that runs contrary to empirical eyewitnesses and documentary evidence of contemporary U.S. secret time travel.  According to Andrew D. Basiago, in the quantum access technology developed by the U.S. government vortal tunnels are opened in time-space via Tesla-based teleporters.

One source states that “Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false…. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).  The Cold War made disinformation a recognized military and political tactic.”

Are Prof. Stephen Hawking’s Discovery Channel statements intentional “disinformation,” calculated to mislead the public about the existence of operational quantum access time travel technology?

1.  The Hawking “psyops” about extraterrestrial civilizations – As Examiner.com has reported, it is more likely than not that Stephen Hawking is engaged in a conscious and deliberate disinformation campaign designed to engender fear about extraterrestrial civilizations amongst the human population.  Readers are referred to “Hawking: A U.K. psyops to promote space weaponization and a false war against extraterrestrials?“

Stephen Hawking’s April 25, 2010 public statements about extraterrestrial civilizations can be plausibly interpreted as a part of a larger psy op – psychological operation – by U.K. military intelligence to use Hawking’s carefully crafted profile as Royal Society protégé to brainwash the human population into fear-driven support of the weaponization of space, and acceptance of a possible false flag war in space against a hyperdimensional extraterrestrial civilization which is being groomed as a foe of humanity’s sovereignty over Earth’s 3rd dimension.

If Stephen Hawking has been recruited by U.K military-intelligence (or some other entity) to engage in a disinformation campaign about extraterrestrial civilizations, then the likelihood is that the information that he is imparting about the science of time travel is also part of an intentional “disinformation” campaign that is escalating.

2.  Content analysis of Hawking’s time travel statements – A content analysis of Prof. Hawking’s statements about time travel in the Discovery Channel documentary reveals that it conforms to a standard definition of “disinformation.”  Prof. Hawking appears to be engaging in “a common disinformation tactic, [which] is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).”

3.  The “Sacred Cow of Science” effect – Prof. Hawking appears to have been groomed as a “Sacred Cow of Science.” Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA, “was one of the youngest elected members of the Royal Society in 1974, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, recipient of the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, a Distinguished Research Chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years.”

Not only is Prof. Hawking a “Sacred Cow of Science,” by the evidence he is a protégé of the Royal Society, which “which is dominated by a Masonic network connected to the British monarchy, military-intelligence agencies, and City of London financial institutions.”

Prof. Stephen Hawking appears to be a prime disinformation asset of some unknown entity, carrying out what meets the definition of “disinformation” with regard to two key areas of official disclosure affecting the public interest and the human future:  the intent and presence of extraterrestrial civilizations, and the existence of operational quantum access teleportation and time travel technology.

As he is a “Sacred Cow of Science,” the views expressed by Prof. Hawking must be challenged with empirical eyewitness and documentary (photographic) evidence, which this Examiner.com report on the existence of quantum access time travel technology used by secret U.S. government programs has done.

War Is Crime is an independent weblog from Paris, France. Our mission is to provide the Truthers with analysis of what really happens in and to the world, and to show why it happens this and not other way.

War Is Crime is the publisher of The Dot Connector magazine.

Stop MK ULTRA and all of its secret sub-projects!

Duncan O’Finioan  |  DuncanOFinioan.com 1,440 views

Greetings from the Survivors of Project Talent.

We, the survivors of MK ULTRA and all of its sub-projects — Project Talent being one of them — are coming to you, the leaders of the free world, for redress. We request action on this matter post-haste, as we have waited long enough for our respective governments to take notice of our tortures, trials, and tribulations that were forced upon us as children by the same said governments.

We ask for recognition of all that was done to us, all that is still being done to us, and recognition of duties that we performed for our respective countries in the name of freedom and national security.

We request our files be shown to us. We request public recognition for all that was done and is still being done. We request apologies from same said governments. We request face to face meetings with the highest officials of our respective countries in order to discuss this matter on a personal level. We request Congressional hearings in the United States to address this subject. We feel this is very little to ask in lieu of what was done to us, and what is still being done to us.

You, the abovementioned, are the leaders of the free world. Please stand up and act like it.

The torture of children can in no way ever be condoned by any country for any reason. It is our highest wish to have a public announcement that these projects using children will be stopped.

Our resolve is beyond what any normal person could ever imagine, and we shall not stop until our grievances are dealt with.

We respectfully await your replies, if any. Fore, we contacted various government leaders separately in the past and have never once received a reply. Is this the way governments of the free world react to people like us?

We are not, as we have been told, “used goods”, to be tossed to the wayside when their usefulness has ended.

Thank you,

Duncan O’Finioan
And the People of Project Talent
DuncanOFinioan.com