reply to post by NickPope
Good morning to you, sir. I am
John Skieswanne, pleased to meet you.
I would be honoured to know some of your thoughts about some wild theories around here.
1) I once theorized that some of these UFOs could in fact be military projects whose appearance causes confusion and thus can operate without risking
persecution. According to this possibility, all UFOs are manmade crafts with different technological evolution, and this "E.T." thing is just some
sort of a worldwide craze.
2) Another theory is that higher levels (a "cryptocracy") works hand-in-hand with non-human beings (namely, renegade Sirians, or other allies to the
draconian empire, such as the greys, renegades Aldebaranians or even reptilians such as the J-rods) to increase and ensure tight control over the
Earth and the solar system. In such a possibility, it is obvious the "cryptocracy" would keep the relation a secret.
3) Another yet theories is that there's an invasion coming, but due to the failed panic test of the Edwards Base, the people wasn't notified, so to
avoid general panic, and, thus, enormous casualties.
According to your investigations, what would you say is, really, going on? I know from one of your interview transcripts that you feel there's
efforts at Hollywood to make Mankind less afraid of E.T.s. It is my understanding that you are confident that extraterrestrial life does exist and did
contacted governments. Obviously, if a more advanced civilisation exists, the first military to contact it and get a grip on its technology, wins
undeniable advantages over other nations.
But if I may ask... what could make us confident that there is any ET life out there? I would like to cite for instance the Rendelsham Forest incident
to demonstrate my point. The craft had egyptian-like markings, and carried high level of radioactivity. How can we be sure that this craft wasn't
made by some secret agency in an attempt to explore cutting-edge technologies? If an "advanced" civilisation was to use a power source, antimatter
would be a far better choice since it directly converts to 100% energy, against about 6% (non-kinetic) energy for nuclear.
Also, on now an unrelated line of thought:
I was wondering if perhaps you would know the motive behind NASA's Kepler Project (searching for habitable exoplanets) choice to look into Cygnus .
Why Cygnus?
I sincerely hope I'm not taking too much of your time.
Respectfully,
Swan