Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

Very interesting document on the way science has failed to address the UFO/OVNI subject.


Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (pdf)


Mainstream science tends to wilfully ignore evidence for the UFO subject such as electromagnetic interference effects, radar/visual evidence, ground trace evidence etc.. it also doesn't seem too bothered about the large percentage of unexplained reports and actual unknowns in the official case files.

Below are some relevant statements and articles dealing with this complete lack of curiosity - if anyone knows any more suitable ones (either for or against) please feel free to post.

Relevant Statements on UFOs and mainstream science:

"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987





“For nearly 40 years, the science establishment has ignored the UFO problem, relegating it to the domain of “true believers and mental imcompetents” (a.k.a. "kooks and nuts" [according to the former editor of Applied Optics magazine]).
Scientists have participated in a "self-cover-up" by refusing to look at the credible and well-reported data.
Furthermore, some of those few scientists who have studied UFO data have published explanations which are unconvincing or just plain wrong and have "gotten away with it" because most of the rest of the scientific community has not cared enough to analyze these explanations. The general rejection of the scientific validity of UFO sightings has made it difficult to publish analyses of good sightings in refereed journals of establishment science.”
Bruce Maccabee, optical physicist





“Over the past eighteen years I have acted as a scientific consultant to the U.S. Air Force on the subject of unidentified flying objects – UFO’s. As a consequence of my work on the voluminous air force files and, to a greater extent, of personal investigation of many puzzling cases and interviews with witnesses of good repute, I have long been aware that the subject of UFO’s could not be dismissed as mere nonsense".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).





"I have been studying now for about 2 years, on a rather intensive basis, the UFO problem. I have interviewed several hundred witnesses in selected cases, and I am astonished at what I have found".
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona - Oral statement to House Committee on Science and Astronautics at July 29, 1968





"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science.
In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon.”
Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University (Survey of American Astronomical Society)





“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?

There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence.
...Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and extraterrestrial life.
However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.”
John B. Alexander,Ph.D.

Its sad, because when new research points in a different direction than mainstream scientists... scientific theory fly's out the window.

Change is hard for people, and it just takes time... It seems as if it is finally getting some serious attention, and hopefully perspectives are changing. All that I can hope for is that people bury their dogmas and personal beliefs and approach every argument with a scientific approach. A concept which seems to still be greatly affected by personal emotional appeal in todays scientific community.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by tmayhew01]

Relevant Statements on unexplained case percentages and UFO/OVNI characteristics:

"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."
"From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."
Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980





"More than 10,000 sightings have been reported, the majority of which cannot be accounted for by any scientific explanation, eg that they are hallucinations, the effects of light refraction, meteors, wheels falling from aeroplanes, and the like. They have been tracked on radar screens and the observed speeds have been as great as 9,000 mph. I am convinced that these objects do exist and they are not manufactured by any nation on earth. I can therefore see no alternative to accepting the theory that they come from an extraterrestrial source."
Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding, Commanding Officer of the RAF during WWII.





"We had a number of reports from reputable individuals (well-educated serious-minded folks, scientists and fliers) who surely saw something".
As Air Force Chief of Staff, in his 1965 autobiography, Mission With LeMay, stated that although the bulk of UFO reports could be explained as conventional or natural phenomena, some could not.
Many of the mysteries might be explained away as weather balloons, stars, reflected lights, all sorts of odds and ends. I don't mean to say that, in the unclosed and unexplained or unexplainable instances, those were actually flying objects. All I can say is that no natural phenomena could be found to account for them... Repeat again: There were some cases we could not explain. Never could."
General Curtis LeMay
Statement from 1965 autobiography Mission With LeMay, with MacKinlay Kantor, New York: Doubleday, 1965.





"Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitude and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major US defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles."
Dr .H Marshall Chadwell, former assistant director of the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence, in a December, 1952 memo to then-director of the CIA, General Walter B. Smith.





"... no aircraft, neither in the United States, either in the Soviet Union is currently able to achieve the speed attributed to these objects from the radars and from the observatories. These objects appear to be driven by an intelligence the way in which they fly. According to reports from scientists and technical personnel, these objects fly in formation and finish manoeuvres that seem to point out that are not completely driven from an automatic equipment. These objects are in incontestable mode the result of long investigations and highly technological and exceptional knowledge."
Rear Admiral Delmer S. Fahrney, head missile testing of the American Navy on January 16, 1957.





"Every time I get skeptical, I think of the other reports made by experienced pilots and radar operators, scientists, and other people who know what they are looking at. These reports were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns.
We have no aircraft on this earth that can at will so handily outdistance our latest jets... The pilots, radar specialists, generals, industrialists, scientists, and the man on the street who have told me, I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen it myself, knew what they were talking about."
Captain Edward J. Ruppelt
Chief of Project Blue Book, from his book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956.





"The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as man-made objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists seems to me to be overwhelming... A very large number of sightings have been vouched for by persons whose credentials seem to me unimpeachable. It is striking that so many have been trained observers, such as police officers and airline or military pilots. Their observations have in many instances... been supported either by technical means such as radar or, even more convincingly, by... interference with electrical apparatus of one sort or another..."
Admiral Lord Hill-Norton (GCB), Chief of Defense Staff, Ministry of Defense, Britain; Chairman, Military Committee of NATO; Admiral of the Fleet; Member of House of Lords.





"I concentrate on the science. I'm interested in the UFOs seen by the police and military witnesses. I'm interested in the near misses that pilots report, where their aircraft nearly collide with these things. I'm interested in the visual sightings backed up by radar. I'm interested in the military bases that are overflown by these things. I'm interested in the cases where you have radiation readings on the ground.
These are no lights in the sky. These are not misidentifications of fantasy prone individuals. This is a cutting-edge technology being reported by reliable, trained observers, and it is something that goes beyond what we can do.
That to me suggests that if it is not ours, it belongs to someone else. If that technology is better than ours, then the extraterrestrial hypothesis seems to me the best explanation."
Nick Pope
Head of the "UFO desk" at Air Secretariat 2-A, British Ministry of Defence from 1991-1994.





"There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases - perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies - for which there is no explanation... We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to." (Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)
Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned Anthropologist.





"There are some definite flight type characteristics that are seen now that I would say represent genuine UFOs...ie: instant acceleration; instant stop; vertical acceleration -up into the air and down to the ground; reverses in direction; right angle turns -all in silence -multiple objects sometimes separating and then going back into each other.
They are classic,what I would call,genuine UFO characteristics -things that we can not do in a conventional sense".
British Detective Constable Gary Heseltine - Police UFO reporting organisation,PRUFOS.





"Unidentified flying objects are a very serious subject which we must study fully. We appeal to all viewers to send us details of strange flying craft seen over the territories of the Soviet Union. This is a serious challenge to science and we need the help of all Soviet citizens."
"Observations show that UFOs behave 'sensibly.' In a group formation flight, they maintain a pattern.
They are most often spotted over airfields, atomic stations and other very new engineering installations. On encountering aircraft, they always maneuver so as to avoid direct contact."
Dr. Felix Y. Zigel, Professor of mathematics and astronomy at the Moscow Aviation Institute





"The type of UFO reports that are most intriguing are close-range sightings of machine-like objects of unconventional nature and unconventional performance characteristics, seen at low altitudes, and sometimes even on the ground. The general public is entirely unaware of the large number of such reports that are coming from credible witnesses... When one starts searching for such cases, their number are quite astonishing. Also, such sightings appear to be occurring all over the globe." (Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, July 29, 1968.)
Dr. James E. McDonald, Senior Physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona.

Relevant Statements on the true nature of 'government sponsered' UFO investigations:

"Project Blue Book was ballyhooed by the Air Force as a full-fledged top-priority operation. It was no such thing. The staff, in a sense, was a joke. In terms of scientific training and numbers, it was highly inadequate to the task. And the methods used were positively archaic. And that is the crack operation that the general public believes looked adequately into the UFO phenomenon".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book)





"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963





"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".
Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).





"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
Senior Atmospherical Physicist Dr James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966





"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at North Western University and scientific advisor to Project Bluebook from 1952-1969

I think another reason science in general does not want to touch the UFO topic is because it may prove that they aren't the smartest kids on the block.. and that most of the theories they get payed lots of money to develop are wrong.

It reminds me of how the church tried to suppress the notion that the world was round and revolved around the sun.

However having said that, UFOlogy in general does more damage to the serious study of the phenomena than science does. If we can collectively drown out the fringe elements, magical thinkers and charlatans within our community by being more discerning and methodical in our research, we may eventually get mainstream science to take a closer look.

IRM

It's always depending on WHERE you get the sources of your informations:
the fact that someone has failed in their research does not mean automatically that someone else is not doing some great job and explaining a lot of things.
For example, Sprites are one of the many Luminous Transient Phenomena that are being observes since Earth was born, but many refuse to study them because of their complexity: basically,
it's too difficult, hence i ignore it.
LTPA (luminous Transient Phenomena in the Atmosphere) are being studied since many years, Italian Committée for Hessdalen Project, which realized an international bibliography that can be found here, set up one of the greatest databases in the world, with 5000+ entries about books regarding the phenomena. What we really lack is some way to move our steps with some coordination: this has two sides, like a coin: the bad one is the lack of funds, the good one is that NO ONE can control what they do, wich is always a very good thing.

Giuseppe Stilo, from CIPH, made a list which purpose is to semplify the classification: so it's not a detailed one, but it makes the point:

AB = Aurora Boreali
AE = Atmospheric electricity
BL = Ball lightning
BR = Brontides
EF = Electrophonics
EL = Earth lights
ELR = Enhanced luminosity of rocks
EQL = Earthquake lights
GP = Gorgons phenomena
HP = Hessdalen phenomena
IF = Ignes fatui
IL = Ignes lambentes
LLP = Long-lived plasmas
MPL = Mountain peaks luminosity
NLC = Noctilucent clouds
SEF = Saint Elmo's fires
SL = Speleolights
SOL = Sonoluminescence
SP = Seismic precursors
TLE = Transient Luminous Events
TLP = Transient Lunar Phenomena
TST = Tectonic strain theory
UP = Unconventional plasmas

The MAJORITY of these phenomena have more chances to be mistaken for UFOs than sprites, for example LLP, EL, HP, BL.
Here are some examples i've gathered recently:

Sprites,


Red Sprites,


Blue jets,


Giant jets,


Elves,


Ball Lightnings,


Atmospheric electricity,


Earth lights,


Earthquake lights,


Hessdalen Phenomena


Ignes fatui, (artist rendition)


Plasma,


Noctilucent clouds,


St. Elmo's fires,


Transient Lunar Phenomena,


Ask to those who jumped to those conclusions if they know about this stuff.
The major problem is always the same: ignorant and presumptuous people believing to know everything but what they really know is the 0,00003 of what they should know before even opening their mouth.
After having ruled out birds, chinese lanterrns, planes, helicopters, bugs and a LOT of more stuff then you have a real ufo.

[edit on 7/9/2009 by internos]

Science needs money, and money is only given to science after they have proven the "why" of the investiment.

It's utopical to think that science goes after everything that exists on Earth or that they investigate anything unusual.

I give you the example of aviation, that produced much of the intel that we have around atmospheric events and weather phenomena.

Many (more than some people realize) of the investigations and researchs made around this phenomenas are made AFTER something BAD happens.

Microbusts were discovered and investigated (and radars were improved) AFTER several aircraft crashes that killed many people.

The way winds change, how clouds are built, and so on, are researched when the need appears, not because someone is scratching his head.

For example, UFO's weren't taken seriously untill they actually became a threat to aviation. It's the purest example of humanity fearing the unknown, and when that goes over aviation, where a single screw on the plane is measured, people start to think in other ways, out of the box.

But again, the need for safety and money saving drives them, not curiosity. Which I actually consider sad.

well it begs the question what is a scientist. The definition of scientist is so broad that includes anyone who uses the scientific method. For UFOs it is hard to find "scientists" to proove anything. Due to the very nature of science and how specialized every field of science it just complicates the problem. If you were to ask a Meteorologists about UFOs he could put forth theories of atmospheric phenomena that could explain the presence of UFOs in the sky. If you were to ask a Zoologists he could provide birds that could be mistaken for UFOs.
The subject of science is very broad and many things are called psuedo or junk science until they are accepted by the main stream, which is where UFOs fall for now. Like right now ball lightning, was thought to be fictitious but is now gaining ground as something real and ironically being used to explain UFOs.

reply to post by internos


Internos, thanks for the reply mate, I do applaud the work of the CIPH and, as well as the Sprite phenomenon, I also think that ball lightning may account for some UFO sightings.

There are some pretty remarkable interviews in the documentary below with people who have experienced ball lightning and some of their observations do share certain characteristics with UFO testimony:


See 7:20




That said, there is also this interesting report which appears to discount 'Sprites' as an explanation for specific UFO incidents due to certain aspects of their nature:

RED SPRITES AND THE UFO PHENOMENON:

It is erroneous to think that the UFO phenomenon UFO might be explained by the red sprites phenomenon:


Red sprites are a very high altitude phenomenon, their top reaches the extreme limit of the atmosphere, it does not explain any UFO case under the level of clouds or involving a landing, or any testimony of encounter with extraterrestrial beings.


Red sprites do not move, they are too brief. The majority of UFO reports mention a displacement, and there is almost no example of reports considered serious UFO report in which the duration of the observation is below the second.


Red sprites are a natural phenomenon, they cannot explain UFO reports in which the UFOS showed an intelligent behaviur, for example by chasing or avoiding aircraft.


Red sprites are a luminous phenomenon, of red color. UFO sightings often refer to objects described as solid, possibly metallic, with many cases where an actual machine is described, and not necessarily just a luminous phenomenon. Also, the red color is not a constant in UFO sightings.


No Air Force ever scrambled its jet fighters to chase red sprites, no qualified UFO case was ever a pilot report for which an investigation would have demonstrated that what a pilot considered to be a non terrestrial flying machine was actually a red sprite.


The size of these red sprites is in the range of fifty kilometers height, which is incompatible with the vast majority of UFO reports where the UFO generally has a much smaller size.


The red sprites appear only above thunderstorms area, whereas UFO sightings are not occurring only in the event of storm at all.



In other words, an observation of UFO is explainable as a manifestation of the red sprites phenomenon if and only if:


*the phenomenon lasts less than three tenth of a second, except for the observer's approximations,


*the phenomenon has its low point within 20 kilometers of altitude, and goes up from 15 to 50 kilometers higher,


*the phenomenon is of red color,


*the phenomenon occurs above a zone of storms, with thunderbolts and lightning,


*the phenomenon is only a luminous phenomenon,


*the phenomenon does not show any sign of intelligent control,


*the phenomenon does not show occupants, portholes, artificial structure,


*the phenomenon is stationary.

Link

Cheers.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


IRM, thanks for the reply matey and I certainly agree with your comments about scientific dogmatism (which in an ideal word should be a contradiction in terms) - also found it interesting that the academics, scientists and aviation professionals who do profess to have an healthy interest in the UFO/OVNI subject are often publicly castigated and lose their funding, jobs or positions - perhaps it's due to the erroneous (and conditioned?) widespread belief that 'UFOs are just a silly nonsense'.

Don't know if you've read it but there's also a good report below from NICAP's Richard Hall which is linked from the Rockefeller briefing document and it makes some good points about deeply embedded UFO misconceptions and stereotypes, there's also some interesting discussion about flight characteristics, physical and physiological effects and specific unexplained incidents.

THE SCIENCE OF UFOs: FACTS VS. STEREOTYPES


Stereotypes die hard. The myth among scientists that UFOs are a "nonsense problem" without any substance was firmly established more than 50 years ago and persists until this day.


Among the deeply embedded misconceptions of scientists are:


*UFOs are nothing but vague fleeting lights seen at night,


*No trained or experienced observers have reported truly puzzling UFOs,


*UFOs are prosaic objects or phenomena that are converted into spaceships by "believers,"


*A religious-like "will to believe" in salvation from the outside drives the entire UFO phenomenon, and


*Nothing of substance has been reported that science could investigate even if it wanted to.


These notions all are demonstrably false. They are "psychological road-blocks" that need to be cleared away so that discovery of UFOs can proceed.

Link

Also agree with your comments about the 'lunatic fringe' but think it's only fair to say there exists ego obsessed, agenda based fanatics on either side of the UFO debate.

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


There's a very important clarification in your last post, i will try to add something to it.
Yes, it is true, a sprite can't be mistaken for a ufo but...
depending on the observer. If i see a sprite i know that it's a sprite, but if some guy, even some scientist, but untrained in this field sees it, could scream UFO (i say this because it has happened more than once in the past ). The station of Ferrara, in February 10, 2009, 18h35m48s TMEC caught this on camera:


Video # 1: www.ciph-soso.net...

Video # 2: www.ciph-soso.net...

Credits:
Ferruccio Zanotti
CIPH
www.ciph-soso.net...
Italian Meteor and TLE Network
meteore.forumattivo.com...



Well, the event was very spectacular, but if you take a look to the relevant article,
ciph-soso.blogspot.com...
you will find out that some investigations were made in real time, involving not just experts in this very field, but also meteorologists (which are the BEST allied of serious UFO researchers) and others.
So they were observing and catching on camera the phenomenon, and at the same time explaining it

Now, if the same event was just spottted by some guy whatsoever, we would have yet another UFO case, because he would likely add wrong details in order to add some appeal to what he saw (it's incredibly hight the percentage of people who do that).

In my humble opinion, some (but i mean SOME) sprites can be mistaken for ufos, depending on the sprite and on the observer.


[edit on 7/9/2009 by internos]

reply to post by InfaRedMan


i agree with that infa, but it also perplexes me to no end. i mean what could be more fascinating and exciting than finding out every thing you thought you knew about physics was wrong and that incredible feats aren't impossible but well within grasp with the right equations and fundamentals!? maybe it's because i'm not a professional in any of those fields, but just the thought that one brilliant deduction that flies against what we know to be true and turns out to be right on the money allowing us to traverse amongst the stars at an acceptable rate (in human lifetime terms) gets me so excited.

reply to post by karl 12


Karl, i couldn't add this scheme before because couldn't find it: here is it

This makes some points, of course does NOT explain everything. Now the phenomeon oobserved in Ferrara, happened because some cold and unstable air entered the area of the Adriatic sea: this generated the formation of some convection cells, also forming electric activity:

Copyright Met-9, 2009 EUMETSAT, elaborated by Centro Nazionale di Meteorologia e Climatologia Aeronautica - Servizio Meteorologico dell'Aeronautica Militare)

While this happened, the event that you can see in the video was caught on camera. A full coverage of the event can be found here

This is the type of research that we need, not that guy from mexico claiming to have caught some ALIEN using a RAT TRAP.


[edit on 7/9/2009 by internos]

I'm glad this thread was made because it gives me a chance to repost one my previous posts. I'd like to give you a few things to think about and consider. This is not a setup for a debate, just information that could enlighten and help you restructure your views about what really is happening in the world, especially in the realm of science.

No authority figure in the "public limelight," whether it being the president of the most powerful country in the world or an astrophysics professor at Harvard, knows anything more about this reality than what has been made public, official knowledge and truth through academic textbooks, journals, the media, and in rewritten biblical and holy books. The ones who do know the inside story are never seen publicly, are not "functional" members of society, and probably even deny their existence. These people work behind the veils of public knowledge and perception in a sort of shadow government, very subtlely, with what you might call a "dark," or negative extraterrestrial energy (Reptilians) to keep humanity's consciousness broadcasting at a certain vibrational frequency band (fear) that feeds them and keeps them in control. These extraterrestrial energies reside and operate through a plane of existence, or dimension, that you have been taught does not exist: the astral/etheric plane. They could also turn physical.

You see, the ultimate tyranny in this society is not control by Marshall Law; it is control by the psychological manipulation of consciousness so that those living within it do not even know they're in prison. Everyone who's been born in the past few hundred years (including everyone at NASA) was born into a society that was already deeply brainwashed and manipulated down the deepest end of the barrel. They're puppets. They can't see the noses on their own faces. Whenever they cross paths with topics related to spirituality and extraterrestrials, they reject or oppose them because the subjects don't fit into the model of reality that they have been manipulated into. An American who sees the word "favour" for the first time will reject it's spelling because it doesn't fit into his model of Americanized english spelling, which spells favour without the "u." How and when did this brainwashing occur? Let me explain.

What is a calendar? Think about it for awhile. Search for the best definition on Google. Now, let me give you the true definition: a calendar is the absolute dead center of a civilization’s consciousness. As you know, the dead center of our civilization's consciousness is The Gregorian Calendar. It’s the calendar on which all things are bought and sold. Our lives revolve around this calendar. Now ask yourself, what is our calendar based on, exactly? The Gregorian Calendar was forced into the world by Pope Gregory in 1582 during the Roman Catholic Inquisitions, and it is based entirely on cycles of physical objects (earth) going around other physical objects (the sun) through space. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nor was nothing prophetic or divine about it, it's just based on what can be seen and measured. Humanity has been paying attention to a calendar that has, over the course of time through conditioning, shifted it's consciousness into paying attention to material, physical evidence only. This is just one example of how these negative extraterrestrial energies have, very subtlely, manipulated the consciousness of humanity directly through their dimension/plane, influencing thought and human creativity, to keep us controlled and to feed off our negative emotions.

This has impacted science in an insiduous way because many people are convinced that scientists stand for all things "rational and reasonable," although in actuality, science, like religion, is just another grand form of control that places limitations on what is and isn't possible in reality.

reply to post by hermantinkly


i'm sorry, but how is our calendar being based on our revolution around the sun negative alien energy? why is it evil science? i don't get it.

i mean, roughly, we circle the sun once every 365 days aka a year. what's so evil or alien about that?

reply to post by optimus primal



There is an ancient universal law that goes, "what you pay attention to, you become conscious of." When you pick up a leaf, it might look uniform and the same, but if you pay close attention to it you'll soon begin to see all the veins, blemishes, markings, etc. How about a word? Take any word you know and repeat it outloud several times, paying close attention to the pronounciation of each syllable as it comes out of your mouth. After awhile of repeating outloud, the word doesn't seem like much of a word anymore as much as it seems like a mesh of weird sounds travelling up your throat. When the planes struck the WTC buildings 2001, most people found it hard to believe that it could've been an inside job, but if you've been paying attention to all the evidence, findings, and eyewtiness testimony in recent years you would know that the original story does not hold up to scrutiny any longer. The harder you pay attention to something, the more you become conscious of it and can see all the differences.

If you take a pair of newborn twins and ship them each off to two completely different countries in order for them to be raised for 20 years; two countries with completely different customs, values, languages, etc., such as England and Cuba, each of those twins will have paid so much attention to the the customs, values, and languages of their given countries for so long that when they reunite, they'll be two completely different people with two completely different personalities, mannerisms, languages, customs and values. Albeit, they'll still be blood relatives.

Now, rather than a pair of twins, what would happen to the collective consciousness of humanity if it paid attention to a calendar based completely on the physical motion of objects through space for 500 years? What would happen overtime through conditioning is that the consciousness of humanity would slowly begin to shift so that it values physical evidence only -- what one can see and measure through physical space. This is insiduous, especially if you're a scientist, because it affects how you view and interpret reality, so once you've paid attention to physical evidence for long enough, anything nonphysical; anything that can't be perceived with the senses would naturally be opposed and rejected. In this particular case, this "shift" was caused purposefully by the negative extraterrestrial energies (Reptilians) so that intuition (the ability to see around corners) would erode and lose it's value in society, and that's exactly what has happened in the course of the last few hundred years. People (particularly scientists) ridicule the subject of extraterrestrials and spirituality because of this erosion of intuition that has taken place due to the purposeful shift in consciousness that took place when The Gregorian Calendar was instilled into civilization.

Infact, they wanted so much to rid of intuition that they slayed millions of women for having it, since intuition is a feminine energy. If a woman knew something without first providing the physical proof for how they got to knowing it, they were deemed witches and dragged, hanged, burned at the steak, etc. This was another subtle attempt to control consciousness and eliminate intuition by the negative ET energy (Reptilians). It wasn't just that the Catholics really thought women were witches and had to be murdered; there were hidden intentions by the etheric, negative ET energies who influencing peoples' behavior in that time period. This all sounds crazy doesn't it? That's only because of how detached from truth people have been made!






[edit on 7-9-2009 by hermantinkly]

reply to post by hermantinkly


seriously? it couldn't be because it takes roughly 365 days for the earth to complete one orbit around the sun? because this is what we observe and is easy to measure? it's gotta be some insidious conspiracy by evil alien energies to distract us and to get rid of intuition?

wow....that's just is overly complicated and quite frankly appears frighteningly delusional.




edit, fixed number of days, accidently put 265 instead of 365

[edit on 7-9-2009 by optimus primal]

reply to post by internos


Internos -those are some pretty intriguing photographic stills and I can certainly see how some folks on the ground would wonder about their origin.

P.S. Sticking with weather phenomenon, if you've not seen it before then Dr James E. Mcdonald's rebuttal to Philip Klass's article about Plasma theory is an absolute classic:


Title:

UFOs - An International Scientific Problem, Paper Presented at the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronautics Symposium, Montreal, Canada, March 12, 1968, James E. McDonald, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Link:

ufologie.patrickgross.org...

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


Link not working, but i know the rebuttal: if im correct you can find it here
www.ufoevidence.org...

i admit that I can't tell you who is right, but i can tell you that i prefer, in general, McDonald's take, which is technically a wrong take since he's a physicist, while Klass had some confirmed knowledge in electrical engineering, which matches the matter better. But there's also to add that McDonald was some atmospheric physicists, which gives to him more credibility, besides Crookes tube have been discovered by William Crookes, a physicist (google "fourth state") indeed: basically, it's a clash of the titans, but i bet on McDonald.
First, we need to know what Plasma is: long story short, it's (partially) ionized gas: its ability to react to electromagnetic fields has been proven, but not measured yet: basically we have something that is there, we know it, it even conducts electricity but we have no way to work on it, no way to measure it and neither we are able to predict its appearance nor its vanishing:
Frustrating, let's call it that way.
But this has a few to do with "our" plasma: actually, the one mentioned in the LTPA classification is called UNCONVENTIONAL plasmas: way rare, way different, way more difficult to explain: not neutral ones, powder ones, fullerene ones, electro-positronic ones, ultra-dense ones, and more: each one of these would deserve some months of discussion, but it would be boring to many: Zorgon would love it, he loves this stuff Serious studies over critical ionization velocity is something that could take us to the right way, but let me say that we are in some primitive stage of study: so, even if one of the two is right, then the difference is not that important.


[edit on 7/9/2009 by internos]

reply to post by karl 12


i think you and them fail to take into account the scientific inverstigations that have been carried out. I recall one from the late 70s early 80s where anomolous radar signals were investigated. They even had a plane on standby to go hunt for the "ufos".

The thing about radar is it can see things that we cant such as turbulence etc. So the blips appeared on the radar they scrambled the plane and every time the plane went to the location it would find some sort of weather phenomenon/turbulence. Now i'm sure the ufo crowd would be screaming ufo becuase of the radar data. Just shows a little investigation can reveal the truth.

Of course i dont expect you to read that info on any ufo website. That doesnt fit with their propoganda.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by yeti101]