Tag: conspiracy theories

Archangel Gabriel – How to Prepare for Telepathic Contact – October-29-2016

View Article Here   Read More

Why science is so hard to believe?

 
In the recent movie “Interstellar,” set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked.


Excerpt from 


There’s a scene in Stanley Kubrick’s comic masterpiece “Dr. Strangelove” in which Jack D. Ripper, an American general who’s gone rogue and ordered a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, unspools his paranoid worldview — and the explanation for why he drinks “only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure grain alcohol” — to Lionel Mandrake, a dizzy-with-anxiety group captain in the Royal Air Force.
Ripper: “Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?”
Mandrake: “Ah, yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes, yes.”Ripper: “Well, do you know what it is?”
Mandrake: “No. No, I don’t know what it is, no.”
Ripper: “Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?” 

The movie came out in 1964, by which time the health benefits of fluoridation had been thoroughly established and anti-fluoridation conspiracy theories could be the stuff of comedy. Yet half a century later, fluoridation continues to incite fear and paranoia. In 2013, citizens in Portland, Ore., one of only a few major American cities that don’t fluoridate, blocked a plan by local officials to do so. Opponents didn’t like the idea of the government adding “chemicals” to their water. They claimed that fluoride could be harmful to human health.

Actually fluoride is a natural mineral that, in the weak concentrations used in public drinking-water systems, hardens tooth enamel and prevents tooth decay — a cheap and safe way to improve dental health for everyone, rich or poor, conscientious brushers or not. That’s the scientific and medical consensus.
To which some people in Portland, echoing anti-fluoridation activists around the world, reply: We don’t believe you.
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge — from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change — faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.
Science doubt has become a pop-culture meme. In the recent movie “Interstellar,” set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked.


The debate about mandated vaccinations has the political world talking. A spike in measles cases nationwide has President Obama, lawmakers and even potential 2016 candidates weighing in on the vaccine controversy. (Pamela Kirkland/The Washington Post)
In a sense this is not surprising. Our lives are permeated by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is wondrous, comfortable and rich in rewards — but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can’t easily analyze.
We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because, the experts point out, there’s no evidence that it isn’t and no reason to believe that altering genes precisely in a lab is more dangerous than altering them wholesale through traditional breeding. But to some people, the very idea of transferring genes between species conjures up mad scientists running amok — and so, two centuries after Mary Shelley wrote “Frankenstein,” they talk about Frankenfood.
The world crackles with real and imaginary hazards, and distinguishing the former from the latter isn’t easy. Should we be afraid that the Ebola virus, which is spread only by direct contact with bodily fluids, will mutate into an airborne super-plague? The scientific consensus says that’s extremely unlikely: No virus has ever been observed to completely change its mode of transmission in humans, and there’s zero evidence that the latest strain of Ebola is any different. But Google “airborne Ebola” and you’ll enter a dystopia where this virus has almost supernatural powers, including the power to kill us all.
In this bewildering world we have to decide what to believe and how to act on that. In principle, that’s what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.”
The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing and sometimes hard to swallow. In the early 17th century, when Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun, he wasn’t just rejecting church doctrine. He was asking people to believe something that defied common sense — because it sure looks like the sun’s going around the Earth, and you can’t feel the Earth spinning. Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later, Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people.
Even when we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions — what researchers call our naive beliefs. A study by Andrew Shtulman of Occidental College showed that even students with an advanced science education had a hitch in their mental gait when asked to affirm or deny that humans are descended from sea animals and that the Earth goes around the sun. Both truths are counterintuitive. The students, even those who correctly marked “true,” were slower to answer those questions than questions about whether humans are descended from tree-dwelling creatures (also true but easier to grasp) and whether the moon goes around the Earth (also true but intuitive).
Shtulman’s research indicates that as we become scientifically literate, we repress our naive beliefs but never eliminate them entirely. They nest in our brains, chirping at us as we try to make sense of the world.
Most of us do that by relying on personal experience and anecdotes, on stories rather than statistics. We might get a prostate-specific antigen test, even though it’s no longer generally recommended, because it caught a close friend’s cancer — and we pay less attention to statistical evidence, painstakingly compiled through multiple studies, showing that the test rarely saves lives but triggers many unnecessary surgeries. Or we hear about a cluster of cancer cases in a town with a hazardous-waste dump, and we assume that pollution caused the cancers. Of course, just because two things happened together doesn’t mean one caused the other, and just because events are clustered doesn’t mean they’re not random. Yet we have trouble digesting randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning.
Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. They, too, are vulnerable to confirmation bias — the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review before publishing them. Once the results are published, if they’re important enough, other scientists will try to reproduce them — and, being congenitally skeptical and competitive, will be very happy to announce that they don’t hold up. Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or an absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.
That provisional quality of science is another thing a lot of people have trouble with. To some climate-change skeptics, for example, the fact that a few scientists in the 1970s were worried (quite reasonably, it seemed at the time) about the possibility of a coming ice age is enough to discredit what is now the consensus of the world’s scientists: The planet’s surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 130 years, and human actions, including the burning of fossil fuels, are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century.
It’s clear that organizations funded in part by the fossil-fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics. The news media gives abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional controversialists and table thumpers. The media would also have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses. Not so. The (boring) truth is that science usually advances incrementally, through the steady accretion of data and insights gathered by many people over many years. So it has with the consensus on climate change. That’s not about to go poof with the next thermometer reading.
But industry PR, however misleading, isn’t enough to explain why so many people reject the scientific consensus on global warming.
The “science communication problem,” as it’s blandly called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe — and why they so often don’t accept the expert consensus. It’s not that they can’t grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to 10. Then he correlated that with the subjects’ science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views — at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that’s because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce their worldviews.
Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more “egalitarian” and “communitarian” mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a “hierarchical” and “individualistic” mind-set respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs; they’re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to — some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.
In the United States, climate change has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this.
Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. “We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school,” says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.”
Meanwhile the Internet makes it easier than ever for science doubters to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions — elite universities, encyclopedias and major news organizations — served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized it, which is a good thing. But along with cable TV, the Web has also made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information with which you already agree.
How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert science skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators at an organization called Compass, says people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. She has personal experience with this. Her father is a climate-change skeptic and gets most of his information on the issue from conservative media. In exasperation she finally confronted him: “Do you believe them or me?” She told him she believes the scientists who research climate change and knows many of them personally. “If you think I’m wrong,” she said, “then you’re telling me that you don’t trust me.” Her father’s stance on the issue softened. But it wasn’t the facts that did it.
If you’re a rationalist, there’s something a little dispiriting about all this. In Kahan’s descriptions of how we decide what to believe, what we decide sometimes sounds almost incidental. Those of us in the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else, he told me. We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community. When I mentioned to Kahan that I fully accept evolution, he said: “Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.”
Maybe — except that evolution is real. Biology is incomprehensible without it. There aren’t really two sides to all these issues. Climate change is happening. Vaccines save lives. Being right does matter — and the science tribe has a long track record of getting things right in the end. Modern society is built on things it got right.
Doubting science also has consequences, as seen in recent weeks with the measles outbreak that began in California. The people who believe that vaccines cause autism — often well educated and affluent, by the way — are undermining “herd immunity” to such diseases as whooping cough and measles. The anti-vaccine movement has been going strong since a prestigious British medical journal, the Lancet, published a study in 1998 linking a common vaccine to autism. The journal later retracted the study, which was thoroughly discredited. But the notion of a vaccine-autism connection has been endorsed by celebrities and reinforced through the usual Internet filters. (Anti-vaccine activist and actress Jenny McCarthy famously said on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” “The University of Google is where I got my degree from.”)
In the climate debate, the consequences of doubt are likely to be global and enduring. Climate-change skeptics in the United States have achieved their fundamental goal of halting legislative action to combat global warming. They haven’t had to win the debate on the merits; they’ve merely had to fog the room enough to keep laws governing greenhouse gas emissions from being enacted.
Some environmental activists want scientists to emerge from their ivory towers and get more involved in the policy battles. Any scientist going that route needs to do so carefully, says Liz Neeley. “That line between science communication and advocacy is very hard to step back from,” she says. In the debate over climate change, the central allegation of the skeptics is that the science saying it’s real and a serious threat is politically tinged, driven by environmental activism and not hard data. That’s not true, and it slanders honest scientists. But the claim becomes more likely to be seen as plausible if scientists go beyond their professional expertise and begin advocating specific policies.
It’s their very detachment, what you might call the cold-bloodedness of science, that makes science the killer app. It’s the way science tells us the truth rather than what we’d like the truth to be. Scientists can be as dogmatic as anyone else — but their dogma is always wilting in the hot glare of new research. In science it’s not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it. For some people, the tribe is more important than the truth; for the best scientists, the truth is more important than the tribe.

View Article Here   Read More

NASA Discovers Hidden Portals In Earth’s Magnetic Field

Our planet has come a long way in scientific breakthroughs and discoveries. Mainstream science is beginning to discover new concepts of reality that have the potential to change our perception about our planet and the extraterrestrial environment that surrounds it forever. Star gates, wormholes, and portals have been the subject of conspiracy theories and theoretical physics for decades, but that is all coming to an end as we continue to grow in our understanding about the t [...]

View Article Here   Read More

The End of Ufology: Why Serious Research Goes Underground


UFO Depiction

ufocasebook.com

Recently, New York Magazine featured a thoughtful article on ufology, Mark Jacobson’s “The End of UFOs,” which presented a recap of the recent MUFON Symposium in Pennsylvania.
In the commentary Jacobson provided, I found the following excerpt particularly poignant, in light of a culture of belief that surrounds a subject about which, in pure honesty, I feel a number of its great adherents remain very “in the dark”:

“Fernando Garces-Soto, a wry, 60-ish Colombian-born music producer from Miami and fellow witness, was taking it more personally. ‘I’m spending a $1,000 to come to this. That’s a lot of money for the same old stories. This rehash, and more rehash. Probably next year I’ll spend another $1,000. What choice do I have?’ Fernando exclaimed, finding the existential humor of the situation. ‘I’m obsessed,’ he sighed. ‘I’m all messed up.’ "In truth, maybe we’ll stay “messed up” if we continue re-hashing and re-hashing, and hiring only “celebrity Ufologists” to come out and give lectures because they are “the big names in the field,” and hence, the ones who will sell tickets.

There are a great many brilliant thinkers out there whose names you never hear, and who wouldn’t sell tickets to a large-scale event; but what they have to offer might do more than just amuse or entertain… it might cause you to think.

Innovators in ufology today, who actually present the best case for the existence of a phenomenon which we don’t fully understand?
Arguably, many of the brightest thinkers aren’t names you would even know… and hence, from a practical business standpoint, you likely won’t hear them lecturing at large-scale UFO events. I think we all have to understand this… but we also must remember to try and overcome our reservations about listening to new voices in the field, whose work we know nothing about… just like we must overcome our feelings about what a UFO skeptic has to say on the subject.

In truth, we might learn something meaningful from each of them. Innovators in Ufology today, who actually present the best case for the existence of a phenomenon which we don’t fully understand?
In truth, we might learn something meaningful from each of them.
So is ufology “dying”?

Is there so little to this phenomenon that there is nothing to be studied at all? I think that’s hardly the case; the problem, instead, is that we have become hung up in the ideological extremes, and the cult of personality surrounding those who have (and I say this in appreciation of their work) dedicated their lives, and livelihood, to studying this mystery.

For a few of them, it has led to fame and notoriety… I wonder if they, after working so hard, and for so long, would really want people to shrug off new ideas and good research that may arise elsewhere, in favor of an autograph instead? It’s food for thought…
Still, I would argue that the newest, and best innovators in this field are “below the radar,” so to speak. You may not find them at conferences, because they don’t draw crowds; you won’t see them on television, because they aren’t sensational enough to bring ratings. You may not even read about their work, because some of them are applying technical thought to the subject that publishers wouldn’t find appealing on any printed page… but they are out there, and they are working.

I know, because I am familiar with many of them myself. In fact, I would argue that some of the best innovations in the study of unidentified aerial illuminations aren’t even generally accepted as what we call “UFOs,” and largely due to the fundamental (but timeless) misinterpretation of the acronym UFO–meaning simply an unidentified flying object–being taken to mean an extraterrestrial spaceship, which was never the intended use of the term.

Serious study of UFOs will always be criticized, but arguably, this is largely because its detractors are among those who don’t know where to look for the good research that’s being done.

These critics will continually watch the sensational television shows, and sit in the back rows at popular conferences and events, criticizing arguments that, at times, are so easily deconstructed that it’s easily likened to shooting fish in the proverbial barrel. But what they are criticizing often isn’t the most meaningful, relevant, or up-to-date information on the subject; perhaps they should spend their time and criticisms more wisely, and go looking for a harder argument to deconstruct.

And as for the groups who continually prop ufology high atop a rickety scaffolding of old cases, fringe theories, and sensational claims, they should learn to expect that critics will continue to attempt to debase their arguments.

In truth, neither of these opposing sides seems to be interested in discussing the most relevant details pertaining to true anomalies which may exist in our world.

KENS NOTE: I have been harping for years as to why all of the UFO conferences do not have a showcase of UFO photos. I had a presentation of UFO photos at the Baltimore Conference a few years ago and I feel it was a hit. There are many original and real UFO photographs.
Thanks to Ken Pfeifer

View Article Here   Read More

The Mysterious UFO ‘Foo-Fighters’ of World War 2

ufocasebook.com WW II Document Research (In search of "Foo-Fighters") By Andy Roberts (Originally published in: UFO BRIGANTIA No 66, JULY 1990) Every student of the history of UFOs knows of the phenomenon seen during WWII and known as foo...

View Article Here   Read More

The real Men in Black, Hollywood and the great UFO cover-up


By Steve Rose

The Guardian

In a new documentary, US government agents claim they spent decades giving fake evidence of extraterrestrials to gullible ufologists. But why? And how can we trust them now?

Hidden among the avalanche of documents leaked by Edward Snowden were images from a Powerpoint presentation by GCHQ, entitled The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations. Images include camouflaged moths, inflatable tanks, women in burqas, and complex diagrams plastered with jargon, buzzwords and slogans: "Disruption Operational Playbook", "Swap the real for the false and vice versa", "People make decisions as part of groups" and, beneath a shot of hands shuffling a deck of cards, "We want to build Cyber Magicians". Curiously, sandwiched in the middle of the document are three photographs of UFOs. Not real ones – classic fakes: one was a hub cap, another a bunch of balloons, and one that turned out to be a seagull.
Devout ufologists might seize upon this as further proof that our governments "know something" about aliens and their transportation methods, but really it suggests the opposite: the UFO community is a textbook case of a gullible group susceptible to manipulation. Having spent too long watching the skies and The X-Files, it's implied, they'll readily swallow whatever snippet of "evidence" suits their grand theory.
If there really is a UFO conspiracy, it's surely the worst-kept secret in history. Roswell, Area 51, flashing lights, little green men, abductions – it's all been fed through the pop culture mill to the point of fatigue. Even the supposed enforcers of the secret, the "men in black", have their own movie franchise. But a new documentary, Mirage Men, unearths compelling evidence that UFO folklore was actually fabricated by the US government. Rather than covering up the existence of aliens, could it be that the real conspiracy has been persuading us to believe in them?

Mirage Men's chief coup is to land an actual man in black: a former Air Force special investigations officer named Richard Doty, who admits to having infiltrated UFO circles. A fellow UFO researcher says: "Doty had this wonderful way to sell it – 'I'm with the government. You cooperate with us and I'm going to tell you what the government really knows about UFOs, deep down in those vaults.'" Doty and his colleagues fed credulous ufologists lies and half-truths, knowing their fertile imaginations would do the rest. In return, they were apprised of chatter from the community, thus alerting the military when anyone was getting to close to their top-secret technology. And if the Soviets thought the US really was communing with aliens, all the better.
The classic case, well-known to conspiracy aficionados, is Paul Bennewitz, a successful electronics entrepreneur in New Mexico. In 1979, Bennewitz started seeing strange lights in the sky, and picking up weird transmissions on his amateur equipment. The fact that he lived just across the road from Kirtland air force base should have set alarm bells ringing, but Bennewitz was convinced these phenomena were of extraterrestrial origin. Being a good patriot, he contacted the Air Force, who realised that, far from eavesdropping on ET, Bennewitz was inadvertently eavesdropping on them. Instead of making him stop, though, Doty and other officers told Bennewitz they were interested in his findings. That encouraged Bennewitz to dig deeper. Within a few years, he was interpreting alien languages, spotting crashed alien craft in the hills from his plane (he was an amateur pilot), and sounding the alert for a full-scale invasion. All the time, the investigators were surveilling him surveilling them. They gave Bennewitz computer software that "interpreted" the signals, and even dumped fake props for him to discover. The mania took over Bennewitz's life. In 1988, his family checked him into a psychiatric facility.
There's plenty more like this. As Mirage Men discovers, central tenets of the UFO belief system turn out to have far earthlier origins. Mysterious cattle mutilations in 1970s New Mexico turn out to have been officials furtively investigating radiation in livestock after they'd conducted an ill-advised experiment in underground "nuclear fracking". Test pilots for the military's experimental silent helicopters admit to attaching flashing lights to their craft to fool civilians. Doty himself comes across as a slippery character, to say the least. "He remains an absolute enigma," says Mark Pilkington, writer of the book Mirage Men, the basis for the documentary. He found the retired Doty working as a traffic cop in a small New Mexico town. "Some of what he said was true and I'm sure a lot of it wasn't, or was a version of the truth. I have no doubt Rick was at the bottom of a ladder that stretches all the way to Washington. It's unclear to what extent he was following orders and to what taking matters into his own hands."
Doty almost admits to having had a hand in supposedly leaked "classified" documents, such as the "Majestic 12" dossier – spilling the beans on a secret alien liaison committee founded by President Truman. But he denies involvement in the "Project Serpo" papers – which claimed that 12 American military personnel paid a secret visit to an alien planet in the Zeta Reticuli system – only to be caught out as the source of the presumed hoax. The Serpo scenario, it has been noted, is not unlike the plot of Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. Does that suggest that the forgers lazily copied the movie? Or that the movie is based on real events and Spielberg was in on the conspiracy?

Close Encounters of the Third Kind


The place of movies in the grand UFO conspiracy is a tricky area. Depending on which theory you subscribe to, Hollywood's steady stream of sci-fi is either a deliberate exaggeration, designed to make the "truth" look unbelievable (the "you've been watching too many movies" defence), or it's a way of psychologically preparing the populace for staggering alien secrets yet to be revealed. There are at least grounds for suspicion in the latter camp. Pilkington points to the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board, founded after the second world war to promote US propaganda. Associated with the board was veteran film producer Darryl Zanuck. In 1951, Zanuck executive-produced seminal alien-visitation sci-fi The Day the Earth Stood Still, often cited as a government-sanctioned testing of the waters for alien contact. Like Zanuck, the film's writer, Edmund North, was ex-military, while director Robert Wise apparently became a UFO believer on account of discussions he had with Washington figures during the making of the movie.
Steven Spielberg is a less likely government stooge, though he has been obsessed by aliens his entire career, from Close Encounters and ET up to War of the Worlds and the last Indiana Jones film (not forgetting his producer role in Falling Skies, Transformers and, er, Men in Black). If anyone's paving the way for the big reveal, it's Spielberg, but, after 30 years of paving, we're still waiting.
Mirage Men finds an even more extreme example in the form of industry veteran Robert Emenegger, who claims that in 1971 he was approached by the Pentagon to make a film revealing "what the government really knows". The Pentagon's big lure was that they would let him incorporate top-secret footage of an alien craft landing at Holloman Air Force Base in the 1960s. Predictably, the footage never materialised but Emenegger – no less cryptic a character than Richard Doty – claims to have seen it, and still believes alien contact has been established. He went ahead and made his documentary, entitled UFOs: Past, Present And Future. Presented by Rod "Twilight Zone" Serling, it culminates in a rather anti-climactic "reconstruction" of the Holloman UFO landing.
In the cold light of the post-cold war, the evidence is starting to look pretty shaky for UFOs. Numbers at UFO conventions and clubs are dwindling. The UK's Ministry of Defence closed its UFO desk in 2009, and, like many countries, has declassified its UFO documents. If there was any smoking gun, you'd imagine it would have been found in our current golden age of leaks and disclosures – but so far there's only been more smoke. On a Guardian webchat in 2010, relating to Wikileaks' release of the US embassy cables, Julian Assange asserted that "many weirdos email us about UFOs" but he'd come across nothing concrete. There were references to UFOs in the cables, he noted, but mostly to do with UFO cults rather than UFOs themselves – in the same way that GCHQ's Art Of Deception slideshow references UFO cults.
If nothing else, the leaked GCHQ document tells us the Mirage Men are still out there, sowing deception and disinformation. These days they're more likely to be targeting suspect extremist religious groups, or hackers and online fraudsters. Meanwhile, recent claims to have "deciphered" hidden backwards messages about UFOs in Edward Snowden's interview only go to show how desperate the alien conspiracy cause has become.
There's something else ufologists are a textbook example of: cognitive dissonance – the mental distress of trying to hold two conflicting worldviews simultaneously. The term was coined in the 1950s by psychologist Leon Festinger, who illustrated it with the example of a UFO cult shattered by the unfulfilled prophecy of an alien visitation. Some tenacious devotees still refuse to accept Mirage Men's findings, says Pilkington: "If beliefs are strongly held, nothing can sway them and anything that appears to undermine them will just be absorbed and repurposed. So if you're really, really dedicated, this is just chaff to throw you off the trail." Pilkington himself has been accused of working for MI5 or being a stooge controlled by the government, if not the aliens. "If I'm under intelligent control from elsewhere then I'm unaware of it, and I'm a victim, and it would be against my programming for me to be able to prove it," he reasons.
As always in the conspiracy-theory hall of mirrors, it's possible to flip the hypothesis on its head: what if the lies and hoaxes Mirage Men reveals are simply a smokescreen for the fact that the authorities really do know secrets about extraterrestrials? What better way to conceal them than by getting "found out" in their disinformation tactics? What better way of throwing sceptics off the scent than disseminating the confessions of an ex-man in black like Richard Doty, in documentaries, and articles in respectable new organisations – like this one. Perhaps we're no closer to knowing if the truth really is out there, but we can be sure the lies are.

View Article Here   Read More

‘Enormous triangle’ UFO reported over Quebec, Canada


mufon.com


A Quebec, Canada, witness at Port-Cartier reported watching an enormous, triangle-shaped UFO similar to a recently reported Burlington, Ontario, case, according to testimony in Case 58850 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.

The witness was outside in a front yard talking on the telephone with a friend at 8:30 p.m. on July 27, 2014, when lights in the sky were first thought to be a plane moving overhead.

“I then caught sight of multiple plane lights and thought it was strange that they were so close to each other and so many,” the witness stated. “That was when I realized they were all connected to each other and that it was one big craft that was blocking out all the stars when it passed. It looked like an impossibly enormous triangle.”

The witness was outside at 8:30 p.m. on July 27, 2014, when lights in the sky were first thought to be a plane moving overhead. Pictured: Port-Cartier, Quebec, Canada. (Credit: Google)
The witness was outside at 8:30 p.m. on July 27, 2014, when lights in the sky were first thought to be a plane moving overhead. Pictured: Port-Cartier, Quebec, Canada. (Credit: Google)

The witness described the object.

“It was blacker than black. It made no sound.”

The witness alerted the friend on the telephone and called to her husband to come outside.

“When I returned to the driveway I continued to watch it pass and go towards Sept-Îles silently until I could no longer see the lights. My husband came out too late to see it.”

The witness reports an unusual amount of helicopter traffic followed the sighting.

“For the next two days following that night, there was an unusual amount of helicopters flying in circles over our block. It’s normal to see one or two in a day but there was more than five and they came all together and stayed around our block for over 30 minutes.”

For the next two days following the UFO incident, there was an unusual amount of helicopters flying in circles over the area. Pictured: Port-Cartier, Quebec, Canada. (Credit: Google)
For the next two days following the UFO incident, there was an unusual amount of helicopters flying in circles over the area. Pictured: Port-Cartier, Quebec, Canada. (Credit: Google)


The witness referred to a previous UFO case: Low flying V-shaped UFO spotted by Canadian witness – where the object seen was similar to what was reported here.

Port-Cartier is a town in the Côte-Nord region of Quebec, Canada, population 6,651. MUFON Canada is investigating.

View Article Here   Read More

Low Flying V-shaped Craft Photographed by Canadian Witness

http://www.mufoncms.com/files/58833_submitter_file2__ufp.jpg

Posted by: Roger Marsh 

An Ontario, Canada, witness at Burlington reported watching a large, V-shaped UFO that was first thought to be a building – until it moved about 9:40 p.m. on August 10, 2014, according to testimony in Case 58833 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.

The witness was driving to a friend’s house when bright red and white lights were first seen.
“I thought it was a structure’s lights until it started moving and I stopped my car,” the witness stated.
The witness described the object.

“It was a wide/long, V-shaped object with two lights at each point, two on the outer wings and one in the middle. Each light was red with a smaller white light atop. Initially I thought it was a building until it started moving.”

The witness said the object was massive in size.
“I observed the distance and realized just how gigantic it was. I tried to then take pictures with my cell phone after pulling the car over. I then followed it to get more pictures.”

The object moved over a nearby tree line and was lost from view.
 Burlington is a city located in Halton Region at the western end of Lake Ontario and is part of the Greater Toronto Area, population 175,779. MUFON Canada is investigating.


http://www.mufoncms.com/files/58833_submitter_file1__ufo.jpg
This photo was provided by the witness who stopped and used a cell phone to try and capture the large, V-shaped UFO. (Credit: MUFON)

View Article Here   Read More

Horseshoe shaped UFO caught on camera over Australian mountain



The object was described as a dark gray metallic with a highly reflective surface. (Credit: MUFON)
The witness was looking west toward the mountains near Port Macquarie, Australia, when the horseshoe-shaped object was captured in the photo about 1:30 p.m. on July 29, 2012. (Credit: MUFON)
Posted by: Roger Marsh 
August 8, 2014 
An Australian witness at Port Macquarie captured a dark gray, metallic-looking UFO while shooting photos looking west over nearby mountains, according to testimony in Case 58741 from the Mutual UFO Network witness reporting database.

The witness was looking west toward the mountains near Port Macquarie, Australia, when the mushroom-shaped object was captured in the photo about 1:30 p.m. on July 29, 2012. (Credit: MUFON)
The witness was looking west toward the mountains near Port Macquarie, Australia, when the mushroom-shaped object was captured in the photo about 1:30 p.m. on July 29, 2012. (Credit: MUFON)
 
“When I was checking my footage later in the day I saw what appeared to be a craft of moderate size zooming in and out of the clouds.”

The witness described the object photographed about 1:30 p.m. on July 29, 2012.

“It was a flat mushroom-shaped craft with a dark gray metallic look with highly reflective surfaces.”

Port Macquarie is a town in the local government area of Port Macquarie-Hastings located on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales, Australia, about 242 miles north of Sydney, population 41,491.

View Article Here   Read More

Argentina’s President Urged to Release UFO Data

UFO over Argentina



Taking advantage of Argentinean President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s May 13, 2010 visit to Victoria, a city in the province of Entre Ríos, prominent Argentinean ufologist Silvia Pérez Simondini handed the president’s chief of security and protocol an envelope with a ten-page report about UFOs from CEFORA (Spanish acronym for Commission for the Study of the UFO Phenomenon in the Argentinean Republic).
Pérez, who is the director of the Victoria-based Visión OVNI (UFO Vision) group and museum, had the opportunity of talking briefly with President Fernández during the ceremonies commemorating the bicentennial of Argentina’s independence.

Forty-eight hours later, Pérez received a call from the Casa Rosada (the presidential offices) acknowledging receipt of the CEFORA document and promising a quick response.

CEFORA is an umbrella organization of various Argentinean UFO groups and researchers, specifically created to lobby for the declassification of official UFO files in Argentina. CEFORA is also working on a campaign to collect one hundred thousand signatures petitioning UFO declassification to be presented to the Argentinean congress.

Andrea Pérez Simondini, Silvia’s daughter who is also a prominent ufologist and chemist who has documented dozens of cattle mutilation cases in Argentina, cautioned that the successful delivery of the CEFORA documents to President Fernández “may have extraordinary results or may end up in nothing.” CEFORA is clearly following the Brazilian model created a few years ago in a “Freedom of Information” public campaign that yielded significant results when the Brazilian Air Force instituted an official policy to declassify its voluminous UFO files, which is still ongoing.

President Fernández’s political biography has been compared to that of Hillary Clinton. Her husband, Néstor Kirchner, was the former president of Argentina, and she was a powerful senator from Buenos Aires province when she won the presidential election in a landslide in October 2007. Whether President Fernández will implement pro-UFO policies remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that Argentina’s military has in its possession UFO-related documents and probably some physical evidence. The Argentinean Navy created as far back as 1962 a “Permanent Commission for Studies of the UFO Phenomenon,” which lasted for several years. As a result of a series of spectacular sightings over Argentinean, Chilean and British meteorological bases in Deception Island, Antarctica, in 1965, the commission’s director, Captain Engineer Omar Pagani, stated, “Unidentified flying objects do exist. Their Presence and intelligent displacement in the Argentine airspace has been proven.


Their nature and origin is unknown and no judgment is made about them.”

In the late 1960s it was the Argentinean Air Force (AAF), through a small office out of their CNIE (Spanish acronym for National Commission for Space Research) that undertook the official study of UFOs. The AAF Commanderin- Chief, Brigadier Adolfo Alvarez, revealed in a radio interview (subsequently published in the newspaper La Razón) that “the Air Force has a specialized agency that has conducted investigations about this field for some time.” This agency was led for many years by AAF Captain Augusto Lima, who generally kept a tight-lip operation, although a few investigations were reported in the press. It appears that the CNIE has more than just documents in its possession since The Argentinean press reported at least two cases—one in General Ocampo, Argentina, on December 21, 1978, and the other in the Andean province of Rio Negro on October 3, 1980—in which metallic debris following a UFO sighting was retrieved by Captain Lima. Argentina’s neighboring countries of Chile and Uruguay already have official UFO agencies.And, Brazil continues to release some of its own UFO files, so Buenos Aires seems to be behind the curve. Perhaps President Fernández will do something about it.

View Article Here   Read More

2014 IUFOC Recap

The 33rd International UFO Congress was February 12 – 16. It’s the largest conference of its kind in the world. The International UFO Congress is an organization in Arizona dedicated to the dissemination of information related to many areas in Ufology. It was established in 1991 and hosts an annual conference. While previously held in Laughlin, Nevada, the conference moved to the Phoenix, […]

The post 2014 IUFOC Recap appeared first on UFOlogy PRSS Blog.

View Article Here   Read More

Roswell… the series

Roswell… the series We’ve come a long way since the Roswell crash and years later the star charts from Betty and Barney Hill. The UFO experience has transformed through several iterations and manifestations that have produced books and even events of both short and long-term survival. Still, the obsession of ufologists to get to the […]

The post Roswell… the series appeared first on UFOlogy PRSS Blog.

View Article Here   Read More

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
.
unless otherwise marked.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy



Up ↑