Could we all be carrying alien DNA?

*UPDATE*

 

Having subsequently examined this story more closely, the Kazakhstani scientists would appear to be earnest in their theory concerning 'alien code' being hidden in human DNA - and when one starts to look at what they have to say in detail, it does start to make a strange kind of sense.

To see what I mean, have a look at the following video I've added in here from Paul Davies. Writing in New Scientist, Professor Paul Davies, from the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, also suggests - amongst other theories - that a cosmic greeting card could have been left in the so-called ‘junk DNA’ contained in every human cell.

If you can't view the video on your mobile device try clicking here.

According to an article in the Australian Courier (which in turn links to a six month old Discovery article) scientists in Kazakhstan - of all places - supposedly believe that humanity has alien code written into its DNA and that we might have been created by something 'non-terrestrial', much in the way 'the engineers' created humanity in the recent Ridley Scott movie Prometheus.  

Conspiracy theorists shouldn't start punching the air just yet however.

Still of an 'Engineer' from the Ridley Scott movie Prometheus

No hard evidence in support of this appears to have been submitted yet nor does there appear to have been any scrutiny by the rest of the world's scientific community thus far.

Could it be that someone in Kazakhstan is trying to raise the country's profile on the world map for being associated with something other than Borat?

Or could it just be an old April fool's joke - just look at the date of the original Discovery article...

UFOs over the UK both real(?) and staged

Still here folks. Just currently diverting more of my energy to searching for a decent part-time job or contract at the moment.

Real?

Anyway, you might have noticed a recent spate of sightings across the UK in recent weeks, including a ball of scintillating light captured on video over Cumbria; a vaguely 'disc-shaped' object photographed by a motorist in West Yorkshire (possibly a tax-disc holder as suggested by some keen-eyed observers!) and a green ball of light witnessed and photographed over Gloucestershire.

One incident that particularly struck me however, is the image captured by a former Royal Navy Aeronautical Engineer - see the Open Minds article. What's compelling to me is the calibre of the witness and the very interesting close up of one of the images captured - quite obviously a 'disc'.

Interesting too to note that none of the above sightings really correlate in any way, in that the phenomena - which may yet be revealed to have earthly explanations - are all visually different.

Staged

Finally - wouldn't you know it - yet another crashed 'UFO' is discovered in a school playground.

This time the event staged by North Harringay Primary School for its pupils, managed to feature in a national newspaper - The Independent (article here). More evidence, if needed, that the Department of Education appears to be endorsing a curriculum that includes a rather strangely-themed series of managed events in schools around the country...

Professional Pilots' Rumour Network - Compare and contrast

Whilst conducting internet research for another post I plan to publish, I came across some (now quite old) posts on the following forum - Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRUNE) - a site that hosts anonymous online chatter between current and former civil/commercial aviation pilots and other aviation personnel.

A number of these posts can be said to be typical of the ridicule that anyone interested in the UFO/UAP subject attracts from those claiming to represent the 'voice of reason' in the aviation community. One classic example is this post where the mere utterance of the dreaded acronym 'UFO' leads to very toxic responses. I personally find the level of arrogance displayed and cavalier attitude demonstrated on this forum, towards the subject and those merely discussing it, to be of some concern - but not unexpected.

That's because, if one was to conduct an opinion poll in the UK today on whether regular air travellers would feel safe sitting in a plane known to be piloted by someone who claimed to have seen a UFO (despite the initials standing for Unidentified Flying Object - the 'alien' stigma attached to these letters remains), then I imagine at the very least 50 per cent of those polled would say 'no'. Coupled with the point that all pilots and civil aviation personnel generally would know their career would quickly be over if they publicly insisted on having seen a UFO (whether it had an earthly explanation or not), it's not really surprising to see why this general attitude persists to this day.

What's really interesting however, is this very rare post which demonstrates that there are pilots out there who have had some strange experiences and - quite boldly in my view - are prepared to discuss this to a limited extent on the very same forum.

Another poster in this chain does, however, offer a very valid word of caution which I have quoted below:

"...Of all the witnesses, two west country policeman are perhaps the most memorable: they had become quite famous after spending most of an evening chasing a mystery object that hovered in front of their patrol car, darting from side to side and sometimes approaching very close as they hurtled along at 90mph. I remember them being distinctly disenchanted when shown astronomical tables that placed Venus right in front of them on the straight bits of road.  

These fine officers, and most other witnesses had fallen foul of two properties of the human eye: 

Firstly, it's extreme sensitivity - the ability to easily see a 3W torch bulb suspended on a hill top 6 mi away for instance. Unfortunately, the eye is not calibrated, and a pin point source has an apparent brightness linked to the surrounding environment. That is how Venus can be described by witnesses as 'dazzling' and so on.

Secondly, once denied normal visual cues in low light situations, the eye can begin rapid involuntary movements. This makes distant light sources (eg stars, planets, satellites and aircraft) appear to 'dart' about the sky.

Just note how many UFO stories involve 'dazzling' objects that 'dart' about!
I am not suggesting that all sightings can be explained in this way. But very many can. And there are important lessons for professional observers like Pilots and Policemen. The eye can certainly deceive and the more 'expert' the witness, the more extreme the mis-interpretation of visual cues can become. That's just because we all share the same physiology and no amount of training can change that, whatever any given individual might think. 

PS
I never really gave up on the UFO idea. The astonishing and continuing discovery of hundreds of extra-solar planets in the last few years gives the whole subject new momentum. But 'investigating' the anecdotes of witnesses is a hard road that rapidly becomes impassible if any kind of objective test is applied to the data. The subject was IMHO best discussed many years ago by Prof RV Jones, the man who 'discovered' the V2 rocket. His account is here"

[the link referred to at the end of this quote seems to have changed so interested parties will need to search for "Prof RV Jones"] 


These last comments give me pause for thought about my own recent sighting described in my previous post - in that it is possible that what I saw could also have been an exceptionally bright daytime celestial object - but I guess I'll never know for sure.


Should by any remote chance, any of those pilots have read this post (the latter and earnest ones only please - captain-flashheart-and-his-laugh-I-nearly-did crew of online abusers need not apply!), I would very much be interested in hearing their full accounts - anonymously of course.

Please email: Jonathan Niven at ufoscrutiny@gmail.com

As far as I'm aware, it's a shame that non-U.S. aviation personnel probably can't contact NARCAP to record their accounts.

The role and function of NARCAP can be found on its website and is self-explanatory. But this site is U.S. in origin and (tellingly) there is no such equivalent body or site in the UK for example, which means BUFORA would be the next best place for such reports in this country. 

A recent UFO sighting of my own...

I hope those of my readers in the UK enjoyed the exceptionally good weather we had this Summer (makes a change from recent years!). Aside from enhancing my visits to relatives and in-laws in different parts of the UK, the long sunny days allowed me to digest much more reading material in my back garden on the subject of UFOs, which I shall summarise in a future post.

In the meantime, I would like to share with you an interesting 'sighting' I had whilst recently walking through the area I live.

I should point out that although I am now in my mid-forties, I am very fortunate to still have very good eyesight and have yet to need glasses for any activity.

The sighting

The date was Wednesday 28 August 2013. I can remember the time of the sighting as I was walking on my way to see a matinee screening of the film 'Elysium' at my local Odeon cinema which was at 13:15pm. The sighting itself started at approximately 12:45pm. I was on my own (my wife being at work) and was in a quiet residential back street in the South London area where I live.

The sky was a brilliant cornflower blue with virtually no clouds. I just happened to look up in a northwesterly direction and noted the positions of at least two airplanes, both cruising at completely different altitudes, with one really high up (I couldn't hazard a guess at the specific altitude I'm afraid) and the other probably at base cloud level (had there been any significant cloud cover on the day).

What particularly caught my eye was a very bright object in-between these planes (in terms of guessed altitude). It seemed as bright, if not brighter, than the star Sirius would be at night-time, except this was in a clear early afternoon sky. The light was intense, white and occasionally fluctuated, but did not 'twinkle' like a night-time star would. Also of interest was its long, near-stationary position relative to other points of reference, such as the rooftops of houses over which I could see it and one of the airplanes I had first noticed. My impression was that the light source was artificial and not a natural phenomenon. There was no - even distant - accompanying jet engine or rotor noise that I would expect to hear from either a plane or helicopter. Remember I was on a quiet residential street with little or no ambient noise.

I also remember being annoyed for two reasons: that I hadn't got my binoculars with me (which though fairly portable, I only generally carry around with me when in more rural surroundings); and that the duration of the sighting was in danger of making me miss the start of the film I was going to see - in that it lasted almost 15 minutes.

Just to make sure I wasn't the only person who could see this, I asked a lady who was passing by if she could see it too (which probably unnerved her a bit and I can't say I blame her!). She had to physically cross the street to look over the rooftops from roughly where I was standing but she did indeed confirm that she could see the object too and that 'no. I wasn't going mad'. The lady then rather matter-of-factly carried on as if seeing a very bright stationary object in the daytime sky was no big deal!

I continued watching the bright object, whilst the planes disappeared on their respective flightpaths and others came into view, concerned that I would need to tear myself away soon if I wanted to see the film, as I was still some five minutes walk away from the cinema.

Then, almost as if to allay my concerns, at around 13:00pm the object very slowly appeared to descend. I say 'appeared to descend' because it could have been moving straight away from me relative to my position (in other words further northwest) which would also give the impression of descent. As it was I found myself slowly walking further and further back to keep it in sight above the rooftops until I almost banged into a tree on the kerbside.

Conventional explanation?

Now here's a list of the things, I personally believe this object couldn't have been which make the sighting interesting:-

• An airplane because I could initially see at least two of those in the sky at the same time which did not resemble this object in any way and the object 'hovered' or remained stationary for at least 10-15 minutes. Incidentally there was no vapour-trail from or near the object;

• A Chinese lantern, hot-air balloon or party balloon as the object remained stationary for a lot longer than any of those would;

• The Moon - because I saw the Moon quite clearly in another part of the daytime sky and nowhere near as bright as this object;

• Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Sirius, Arcturus or another similar such celestial body because having read up on this aspect of astronomy, it is extremely rare for these to be seen with such luminous intensity in the daytime - and they do not move across the sky in as short a time-frame as this object did at the sighting's conclusion.

• A 'sun-dog' or rainbow effect as there were no clouds near the object, which these phenomena are usually caused by and the object was only one apparent colour - a very intense white;

• A bird as most birds - as far as I'm aware - rarely hover for fifteen minutes and aren't luminous or emit intense (even reflected) light!; and

• A firework or laser show given that both of those would be more transitory, more obvious to even the casual observer and almost always take place at night.

I should also point out that, although it was a late Summer's day there were, as far as I am aware, no thunderstorms or associated atmospheric electrical phenomena in London that day.


Now it is possible that, given the objects 'flight characteristics' what I saw could have been:-

• A helicopter, (real or model) or a camera drone; or

• An airship.

However, for it to have been any of these, it would have to have had:-

• a highly polished reflective surface to reflect sunlight with such intensity, for such a duration and at just the right angle for me to see it for nearly quarter of an hour; or

• very bright searchlights pointed in my direction for nearly fifteen minutes - but why would either an airship or helicopter being using searchlights in the daytime?

Supporting evidence?

In view of the above, it is a source of intense frustration to me that I didn't have my binoculars or any other means of getting a closer view of the object. Also a video or image on my iPhone camera wouldn't have done it justice given the limitations of digital zooms - something analogue or optical zooms are much better for in these circumstances.

So no images or video to back up my sighting I'm afraid and no way for me to discern what the actual shape of the object was from such a distance. I have however found a recent UK video online (made incidentally the day after my sighting) which shows an object closely resembling what I saw. The video was posted on Youtube under the poster's heading "ufo (saucer) Derby Uk 29/08/2013". I cannot vouch for this video's authenticity however.

Conclusion

To me at least, my sighting currently sits within the pure definition of an Unidentified Flying Object, and I hasten to add - not necessarily with any of the E.T. connotations many automatically assume with such a sighting.

Given the above, I would be interested to hear from anyone who saw something similar on or around that time in the skies above South London, or indeed any other part of London which may help to 'triangulate' the sighting or even throw more 'light' (no pun intended) onto what this object was or might have been.

David Clarke and Nick Pope - For heaven's sake make up!

I see that there's been an exchange of fire between two of Britain's 'UFO experts' recently, especially coming on the heels of the final release of the MOD's UFO Files.

The Huffington Post article by Lee Speigel gives a good summary so far of these two having come to blows.

Whilst, I tend to favour Pope's view - and those of others such as Timothy Good - that these are not all the files that the relevant UK authorities possess concerning UFOs (note I'm not specifically concerned with just MOD's files here), I do wish these two would try and settle their differences.

One of the most recent salvos in this exchange was by Pope seemingly and indirectly referring to Clarke as a 'useful idiot' (which was in both the Reuters and UFOs and Nukes articles I referred to in my last post), which I thought was unkind given Clarke's work to have the MOD files released. Pope now appears to have offered an apology for his remark. It also doesn't help matters that - if certain claims being made about him are true - Pope might not have been the UFO sceptic he maintained he was before working for the MOD (the HuffPost article by Lee Speigel gives details).

As Lee says in his article:-

"If there are any losers here, it must be the public, for the confusion this has brought up. After tens of thousands of pages of UFO files have been released by the U.K., who are we supposed to believe about how significant (or not) those documents really are?"

The two protagonists - like many others in the UFO community - seem more concerned with attacking each other (and perhaps protecting their own reputations) than making a collective effort to continue to search for answers.

Despite the arguments put forward by both supporters and sceptics generally, the phenomenon of UFOs and UAP persists. Of those cases that come to light, there are still a significant number that cannot be put down to chinese lanterns, balloons, experimental aircraft, drones, meteorological or astronomical phenomena, the mental state of observers etc.

The observable universe apparently stubbonly refuses to fit into the neat world-view of either hardened sceptics or avid supporters. In addition, whilst I favour 'cock-up' or 'WYSIWYG' (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) rather than 'conspiracy' to explain much Government activity, it would be foolish to think that any Government is entirely 'open' or 'transparent' on a topic such as this.

Still both Clarke and Pope - whatever flaws they might be considered by some to have (including each other) - are well-known and dare I say, respected names in the field and are bolder than I (and many like me), by publicly having just such an association with the UFO phenomenon, whilst I - through necessity - must remain anonymous.

That is why I think it is important that they acknowledge their differences in a mature, gentlemanly fashion and just try to get along.

Smoke and mirrors - the MOD's 'X-Files'

[Updated 11 July 2013 see below*]

The tenth and final batch of files on UFOs from the Ministry of Defence have now been released (groan). If you want to see them you can go to the relevant website here.

Screen capture of the site where the MOD files can be accessed

Whilst this may engage the interest of many a ufologist, I have learned not to expect too much from, what I view, as a diversionary exercise by the U.K. authorities, in much the same way that the now infamous Project Blue Book was used (more extensively) by the authorities in the U.S. over four decades ago. Whilst they sometimes make for an interesting read, I'm afraid any excitement I might have felt over these mislabelled UK 'X-files' files dissipated shortly after release of the first set some time ago. Funnily enough, I see that former MOD official Nick Pope apparently thinks the same according to one Reuters article I read today, which I was unaware of when I started writing this post.

*Since writing this post, I notice that Robert Hastings, author of the website UFOs and Nukes has written an interesting article concerning the latest MOD UFO files release, which also includes a definitive statement by Nick Pope (some of which is referenced in the former Reuters article). Readers might want to check out the relevant page of Mr Hastings's site here.

The same can be said generally with most material released under the UK's Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Having contributed to responses to many a Freedom of Information case myself in two Government Departments, I know that our Government is, with a few exceptions, very careful not to put controversial material into the public domain and officials will obsesses over the tone of the covering response to FOI requesters, even with the relatively low or baseline security level cases I was involved in. My experience of FOI cases and processes is that these are mostly burdensome to Government Departments, using up significant amounts of officials' time and effort that could be usefully employed elsewhere, for the release of material that is effectively of little or no value.

This is, of course, one of the main reasons why the MOD set out to release 'all' the UFO files they have to the public - to reduce some of the increasing workload on an ever decreasing workforce of civil servants.

It should come as no surprise then that material of a significantly higher security level will never see the light of day. This is irrespective of the UK's blessed FOI Act because, the effort of releasing it (properly redacted) notwithstanding, it is deemed too sensitive to release in the interests of national and international security - largely with strong justification.

This leads me onto the recent Sky interview (below) of famous and long-standing ufologist Timothy Good - author of the fascinating "Need to Know" amongst other books, whose comments echo my own thoughts on the matter.

Whether you subscribe to Mr Good's theories or not, it would be truly naive to assume that the material released by the MOD is in any way a true reflection of the UK authorities' amassed files - whether definitive and revealing or not - on the subject of UFOs. As Mr Good suggests there are other players in the defence, intelligence and security community who will maintain records that will not reach the MOD, let alone reach the public domain. GCHQ, MI6 and Royal Naval Intelligence spring to mind for example and are referred to by Mr Good in the interview.

Now it may be that many such records might only be retained for 'horizon scanning', in that they are used to assess whether there is evidence of a technological or strategic advantage which our military and intelligence community needs to be aware of. This is likely to be in the context of assessing the capabilities of hostile foreign powers or organisations, and not necessarily because of some implied 'extraterrestrial' threat.

It's also interesting to note that this comes at a time when a certain whistleblower (a very foolhardy one at that) has compromised the security of some GCHQ and NSA activity, which would otherwise never have been revealed. Anything the authorities, especially those in defence and intelligence, deign to reveal to the public will only ever be a tiny piece of the true picture. And that's even excluding the subject of UFOs, which as Mr Good suggests, might have one of the highest orders of security clearance attached to it.

Douglas Trumbull's UFOTOG Resurrected?

Visual effects expert Doug Trumbull

In previous postings, you'll have seen my speculations about visual effects expert Douglas Trumbull and his supposedly shelved UFOTOG project. Mr Trumbull was kind enough to take the time out to update me on UFOTOG as it stood when I asked him about it.

My previous posts are below with the most recent first.

Douglas Trumbull's response on UFOTOG

Open email to Douglas Trumbull about UFOTOG

Still no news on UFOTOG

Well according to an interview that Open Minds (click link) was able to get with a colleague of Trumbull's, who - rather interestingly in itself - is a representative of Mutual UFO Network - Mark D’Antonio (a photo analyst for the MUFON), a new 'fictionalised' account concerning the use of the equipment featured in the UFOTOG project is soon to be released.

Whilst encouraging, this appears to be a new approach being taken with this project. It seems that rather than produce an actual documentary (yet) of Trumbull and his team's efforts to get verifiable data on intelligently controlled non-terrestrial objects; or conversely even come away with no verifiable data to support existence of the same; Trumbull is perhaps seeking to generate further interest and funding for UFOTOG by releasing this 'fictional' version of a documentary.

The UFOTOG Humvee in action

To paraphrase Mark D’Antonio from the Open Minds interview, the film will be 'A visual foray into what could be the potential reality of the project'.

I think that this is great news that the project is alive and well and that Mr Trumbull has some support in this.



It's also very interesting to see that Mr Trumbull is now apparently working with a well-known, long-standing and respected American UFO investigations body on this project.

This could be a smart way to engage more undecided hearts and minds (and potentially well-funded backers) for the project without the stigma of ridicule being attached.

We'll have to see whether this leads to an actual groundbreaking documentary in time...

Book review: "A.D. After Disclosure" by Richard M. Dolan and Bryce Zabel

Front Cover of the book

What can I say? Life got in the way of blogging again for a while so - sorry for the absence of posts since early April.

Anyway, whilst routing through one my local bookstores months ago I came across "A.D. After Disclosure" which was amongst the (frankly abysmally) tiny selection of books devoted to the UFO/UAP subject.

For my own reasons, and probably like millions of other people around the world, I'm still effectively at 'first base' when it comes to the subject. I believe the whole UFO/UAP subject deserves much more attention than it gets and less ridicule than it deserves - especially when thousands of professionals in the armed forces and other state services around the globe have been reporting inexplicable things in our skies for at least seventy years. Despite the hard line taken by debunkers and the ridicule the subject attracts, the phenomenon isn't about to go away and - like one well known UK skeptic and self-proclaimed 'expert' on the subject would otherwise like to suggest (whom I won't name here) - it seems a little arrogant to explain all of it away on just wish-fulfilment, mythology, cultural influence or some form of mass-hallucination.

However, I wouldn't go as far as saying that extraterrestrials (in the traditional sense of intelligent species from other planets) are necessarily behind the most compelling of UFO/UAP cases either. So you can begin to see why the central core of this book requires a 'leap of faith' for me - and for many other people I would imagine - by reading it.

First impressions

 

Whilst I doubted the wisdom of having an endorsement by none other than Stan Lee* (of Marvel Comics fame) on the front cover, after having looked into the (quite impressive) credentials of the two authors Richard M. Dolan and Bryce Zabel, I decided to give the book a go - and can honestly say I was not disappointed.

[*Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against Stan Lee and Marvel Comics. I just don't think he's necessarily the best person to be cited endorsing something that appears to be a serious attempt to address the issue of 'Disclosure'.]

What first struck me was that, as far as I'm aware, nobody - outside the various works of science fiction - has made a serious and in-depth effort to tackle the questions arising from what would happen were it to be publicly proven beyond doubt that: a) intelligent extraterrestrials exist; and b) they have been engaging with humanity for some time albeit in apparent secrecy.

So the authors have set a publishing precedent in this at least - but I'm happy to be corrected if there is another similar such book out there that predates this one.

I mentioned making the 'leap of faith' above by reading this book and would point out that it is a necessary one in order to properly appreciate its content.

Re: its overall content, it makes for an accessible and engaging - if sometimes slightly cliched and overly dramatic - read but I can understand that such a writing style would be necessary to retain many readers' attention.

At its Core

 

The central aim of the book is to give informed speculation about the likely consequences of - and a suggested timeline of likely events - in the face of proven intelligent ET contact and this the book does really well. In my view, it effectively leaves no stone unturned in terms of how a significant event leading to Disclosure would affect, amongst other things:-

• initial Governments' responses to the event and how this would be managed; 

• the public's reaction and their subsequent treatment of those in authority especially if certain Governments were proven to be complicit in some sort of cover-up; 

• how this might to a lesser or greater extent lead to political or civil instability; 

• the collateral damage and unintended consequences as a result of such instability; 

• how the mainstream media would cover the developments; 

• how the world would re-examine the phenomenon of UFOs and its history and how this might impact on education; 

• how the entertainment industry might deal with developments; 

• how the economies and stock markets of the world might be affected and whether this might cause another financial crisis; 

• how legal systems might have to change to incorporate previously unforseen legal complexities (something I'd honestly never considered until I read this book); 

• how religions, their followers and leaders might react and how this might affect religious views; 

• how aspects of mainstream science might have to re-evaluate certain theories; 

• how advances in technology might be affected especially in terms of how the world's energy supplies and linked economies might potentially change;

• how different generations might react to such developments; and

• how this might all impact on daily life.

Each of the above (and some other elements I haven't listed) have separate passages devoted to each topic and make a good fist of suggesting what likely consequences might be. One I hadn't expected was in terms of religion (which is backed up by some actual research into public opinion on the question). I won't spoil things by saying why here - I would suggest one reads the book to find out - but suffice to say most people's expectations in this area may be turned on their head after reading this book.

The Breakaway Group

 

Another interesting thread running through the book is the theory concerning the 'Breakaway Group' which - the authors suggest - is a super secret organisation which has supposedly been coordinating events behind the scenes ever since apparent contact with intelligent non-humans in the post-war period.  The authors attempt to speculate why the Group came about, how it has been involved with many of the issues listed in the bullets above and how it would seek to manage developments following an unprecedented event which leads to Disclosure might bring.

Conspiracy theorists will of course lap up this aspect of the book. Throughout Ufology in general there are frequent references to 'Cabals' or secret societies trying to clandestinely impose a (mostly unwelcome) 'New World Order' on a largely unsuspecting world.

Thankfully the authors do not sink to regurgitating many of the extreme ideas espoused by many theorists on the web and elsewhere. They do however attempt to take a hard look at how such a body not only could have come into existence (with the possible emergence of the 'military industrial complex' warned about by President Eisenhower in his now famous farewell address) but also just how it might be operating across geographical and legal boundaries and with technological resources quite possibly at least 60 years ahead of that available in the public domain.

The authors readily cite examples of how such secrecy could be effectively maintained and how clever manipulation of the media and national security agencies - amongst other bodies - could confound any serious attempts to reveal such a Breakaway Group to the world.  Even more compelling is the authors' suggestion that such a Group might, given their possible advanced resources, have developed its own 'infrastructure' and society 'off the grid' as it were which is operating under the noses of the unsuspecting billions around the world.

Concerning this thread, one only has to look at bodies like the Bildeberg Group (featured in the press only this week for their clandestine 2013 meeting in Watford of all places!) to see real examples of secretive bodies dabbling in world affairs, and as the authors discuss, impressively large scale undertakings like the Manhattan Project, which apparently employed 130,000 people in total secrecy in its time and was effectively kept secret until necessity required that it be revealed to the world with the infamous (and horrific) bombing of the Japanese. Given that nearly 70 years have passed since that chapter in history, one can begin to understand how mind-boggling subsequent projects could be with greater funding and more advanced technology at their disposal.

The Others

 

Of course no such book would be complete without discussing the non-terrestrial intelligences (NTIs) that are the source of an event that leads to Disclosure. Rather than dwelling much on what such NTIs or ET might actually be (given there could be a number of possible explanations), the authors do examine what might be their likely motivations.
Whilst some interesting points are made, for me this tends to be the weakest element of the book. Whilst it can be an interesting thought experiment to ponder what moves such non-human entities to apparently only indirectly interact with humanity (until the Disclosure event described), one could argue that there is no direct evidence at all to draw on for this. Conversely, the human experience and human history provides a wealth of material for speculation in terms of the likely impact of Disclosure and the likelihood of the existence of a Breakaway Group, which I think this book does really well.

Conclusion

This is a thoroughly engaging, sometimes complex and thought-provoking book which examines - as far as I'm aware - a relatively unexplored territory (outside the realms of science fiction). I would encourage any serious reader to add this to their library. What would be truly fascinating would be to see how accurate some of the authors' predictions would be if the world did indeed one day suddenly find itself facing actual public Disclosure concerning ET contact...


Disclaimer

Neither of the authors of this book are personally known to me and I have not received any incentive from them, financial or otherwise, in writing this review.

The Disclosure Project - Too good to be true?

I'm back from finishing another short-term Government contract which left me rather washed-out just before the Easter Break (hope you all had a good one) - hence another absence on my part from the blogging front.

However, I have had an opportunity to read the book "A.D. - After Disclosure" which I shall review in my next post - and which leads me onto another well publicised long-running project about 'Disclosure'.

Disclosure, with a capital 'D', has increasingly become the buzzword in the UFO community for a paradigm-shifting revelation about what is 'really going on' concerning the UFO phenomenon. Many believers in the E.T. hypothesis behind UFOs support the idea that the authorities (mainly US) have been in some sort of communication with extraterrestrials for the last 65 years (the key start date being the 1947 Roswell incident). The supposed by-product of this dialogue has been the opportunity to reverse-engineer 'alien' technology to make giant leaps in 'human' energy and military technology. All of this has - of course - happened in secret and most of the supporting evidence supplied to date would appear to be anecdotal but supposedly from 'credible' military and government sources.

The Disclosure Project's logo

Putting himself firmly at the centre of all this for the last two decades appears to be 'Dr.' Steven Greer with his Disclosure Project. There's plenty of stuff that an internet search will reveal about the project's activity which I won't go into here.

What's interesting to note however, is the project's upcoming documentary Sirius which will be broadcast towards the end of this month. It promises to be just the kind of big 'reveal' that many in the UFO community might love.

As for me, I remain firmly on the fence with the Disclosure Project for now. Here's why with some of my pros and cons:-


Pros

1. Steven Greer has been at this for a long time - over twenty years. That seems an awfully long haul for a con operation. If however, the project is a con it's a very well established and elaborate one, and what is the con's purpose - Money? Disinformation?

2. In 2001, Greer brought together an impressive panel of credible witnesses/supporters to speak about the UFO phenomenon and a related Government cover-up before representatives of major media bodies at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. Credentials of most (but not all - see below*) of the witnesses apparently checked out - or to put it another way - have not been seriously challenged by the media since. Witnesses/supporters included air traffic controllers, commercial pilots, military defence specialists with apparently top-secret clearance, military (including former US and other countries' airforce) personnel and - most significantly - astronauts.

3. As in any court of law or formal inquiry, when a significant number of people are brought together from very different backgrounds to offer evidence and testimony which supports a particular theory, there is often a hard core of truth at its centre.

4. Steven Greer appears to have some clout to have latterly been able to recruit Emmy Award winning film director Amardeep Kaleka to direct the upcoming Sirius movie, with actor Thomas Jane doing the narration - but celebrities are only human and can be hoodwinked just like Joe Public.

5. As I write, another event - echoing the one in 2001 - will be run at the end of this month - see http://www.citizenhearing.org/. Whilst this event appears to be driven by another 'Steve' - the controversial Stephen Bassett of the Paradigm Research Group - it suggests that Greer's event in 2001 paved the way for other such events - which is at least getting the whole subject discussed and debated more openly and with a higher profile.


Cons

1. Steven Greer's doctorate apparently has nothing to do with physics or astronomy. It's in 'medicine'. His training allegedly included teaching transcendental meditation and he has supposedly worked as an 'emergency room physician'. But then - what kind of doctorate exactly does one need to be an 'expert' on E.T. or 'exopolitics'?

2. No high-profile members of the mainstream scientific community have come forward to support the project. However, fear of ridicule is a very strong demotivating factor in such a community.

3. At least one witness* (supposedly ex-NASA) at the project's 2001 event famously claimed to have seen photographs of 'a base on the moon' but the dates he offered didn't check out, nor did his apparent age or work history. Was this person himself a hoaxer, a disinformation 'plant' or just simply 'one-cabbage-short-of-an-allotment'?

4. The Disclosure Project recently claims to have analysed a tiny humanoid corpse with 'unknown' DNA. That should usually set alarm bells ringing - for all the wrong reasons. In the past more than one capuchin monkey has been passed off as an 'alien' for example.

5. The mind-blowing claims being made overall by the project and its supporters just feel too good to be true. I know this point is purely subjective but it's a good rule of thumb when applied to the more mundane world of con-merchants and hoaxers. Only very rarely is such a rule of thumb wrong...

Five schools 'visited by aliens' and counting...

So - less than a fortnight after my previous article we have another school 'visited by aliens'!

This time in Buckhurst Hill today, as reported by North East London's local Guardian

Screenshot of the NE London local Guardian news item

I make that five (known to me) in the last year.

What on earth (or off it) is going on?

Why the apparent upsurge in interest in staging such events for school-children in the UK?

UFOs Disclosed - Awful Truth or Cash Cow?

You may have noticed that a new conspiracy website has popped up recently.

'UFOs Disclosed' website logo

The website in question is called
UFOs Disclosed with the (rather cliched) slogan
"Revealed: The truth about UFOs"

Now that's the end of the free advertising they get from me.

In my opinion, it reveals nothing new about the UFO/UAP phenomenon as yet.

In an extremely drawn out video introduction with the video's script on the website landing page, some of the better known events are fleetingly referred to here from the start of the modern phenomenon in 1940s, to saucers over Washington in the 50s, to UFO triangles over Belgium, to the Phoenix Lights incident.

What's interesting is the presentation employed by the site. It has a definite feel of an American news network production about it - and I'm basing this on the numerous U.S. documentaries and news items I've seen over the years - although it is claimed that the site is independent of the mainstream media.

Upon watching the video and reading the introductory page, it ends up feeling (to me at least) like just another of the millions of American advertisements or commercials out there pushing yet another product that you could probably happily survive without. In this case what is being 'sold' is some professionally finished books and CDs with a 60-day 'money-back guarantee' at a 'limited time' price offer.

It would be disappointing if this were all that was on offer. The anonymous source behind the site (a supposed reporter) makes the oft-repeated claim about having put their life at risk to reveal 'the truth' about UFOs and ET but not a single piece of earth-shattering evidence is put in the public domain for free by this source.

I would like to think that if I came into possession of any such 'smoking gun' concerning UFO/ET evidence that I would reveal at least some of it - totally gratis - to the public.

The site regurgitates surface material already accessible from other sources on the net, with a promise of access to 'classified material' or 'undeniable proof' should you choose to first part with your hard earned cash...

...Don't hold your breath though, as it's reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that this 'classified material' and 'undeniable proof' is (and I quote): "...a compilation of notable UFO sightings and cases throughout history". So just a collation of material that you could find elsewhere then!

Interestingly, the same article suggests this site is rapidly attracting interest in terms of thousands of members joining the site's community in a matter of weeks.

I would never knock any serious effort to find or even reveal the truth (or truths) about UFOs, UAP, ET etc. but it seems to me this latest site has nothing new to bring to the table for now...

Yet another school 'visited' by aliens

Remember my earlier articles about the rather strange choice of events to stage which are apparently in use in the English school curriculum?

If you don't, then here are the links:-


Why are schools running 'UFO crash drills'?

Another school running a 'UFO crash drill'?

It appears that the practice of our schools staging 'alien contact' or a 'UFO crash' is still going on as evidenced by last Friday's article in the Whitby Gazette...

Buzz Aldrin - Interesting choice of words...

Thanks to our friends at Open Minds I saw an article in the Alaska Dispatch about Buzz Aldrin visiting a university in Alaska. The only line of interest to me in the article was in connection with one of the questions allegedly asked by students:- "Did he see a UFO? Probably not."

Now this line is arguably easy to dismiss to most people (especially those with no interest in UFOs!). Except that:-

• first the headline of the article is the strangely worded "Astronaut Buzz Aldrin mum on whether he saw a UFO" (shouldn't it have been "Astronaut Buzz Aldrin keeps mum on whether he saw a UFO"?) A cynical attempt to get more web-clicks? Bit of a con if you ask me as there is almost nothing on the subject in the article except the above two sentences;

• Buzz Aldrin has been quite outspoken in the past about seeing 'UFOs' - why be reluctant to discuss them now? I suppose if I were in Mr Aldrin's shoes, I would be getting fed up with all the UFO questions but these were students asking in this case. They can be forgiven for asking such a question and be more deserving of a (perhaps less vague) response. Perhaps he had to be on his 'best behaviour' in order to 'inspire' the students; and

• there's the annoying misuse of the initials 'U.F.O.' The question - if indeed it is quoted verbatim, and is not just lazy reportage - should have been "Did he see aliens/alien craft?" Technically if Mr Aldrin had seen objects in space that neither he (nor anyone else) could identify then these would have been UFOs. If he was saying that 'he didn't see a UFO' does that mean he saw nothing at all, or that whatever he did see was clearly identifiable?

Of course, only those present in the room with him know what Buzz Aldrin did and didn't say on the day. For those of us who weren't there, we are reliant upon unexceptional journalism  to report the event - and as is almost always the case with the media - this means things are either inaccurately reported or taken out of context.

Or maybe I'm just being over-analytical and there was nothing of note to report anyway!

2012 - A retrospective

So - here's my short retrospective of 2012, mostly centred on the phenomenon of UFOs or UAP.

I really hadn't planned on starting 2013 with a post about my broadband problems but such is life.

At least I had planned on starting 2013 period.

The 2012 phenomenon

Many doom-mongers - and arguably those perhaps with a cabbage short of an allotment - didn't plan on starting 2013 at all because of ...yes you guessed it ... the supposed Mayan apocalypse.

No - the world didn't end on 21 December 2012 and there are likely to be many - bizarrely - crestfallen or hang-dog faced people out there who were disappointed that it didn't!
There wasn't even a world-wide spiritual awakening or 'rapture' as suggested by ranks of religious or new age nut-cases.

I remember that when the question about the world ending on 21 December 2012 did crop up at the BUFORA 50th anniversary conference, one of the BUFORA representatives said (and I'm paraphrasing) 'We'll get back to you on 22 December', which was a reasonable response in my view.

One thing is clear however. Hollywood did well out of it, as did many authors, cranks and posters on Youtube - and the net was flooded with nonsense on it for at least two years in the run-up to the infamous date.

But I digress, the following - with links to the relevant blog articles - are what I consider to be some of the key moments of 2012 followed by the damp squibs.

BUFORA's 50th Anniversary conference

The UFO panel at the National Atomic Testing Museum

The public release of the final set of (the UK's) M.O.D. files

Questions to the White House concerning the UFO phenomenon (the first petition being late 2011 running into 2012, the latter early 2012 - no link)

I mention these because - although both petitions 1 and 2 were unsuccessful - in that insufficient numbers of signatures were received to meet the required threshold (quickly raised incidentally from the original 5000 to 25000 shortly after launch and now again to 100,000 this year) - it was another milestone in engaging the U.S. Government on the subject. Continued pressure may force the U.S. Government to be more responsive - if not proactive - on this issue (but don't hold your breath) and that's provided 100,000 US citizens can be found to sign up...

And the damp squibs were:-

The 2012 Olympics alleged UFO sighting
Still a 'blimp' in my view

The Baltic undersea objects 
Concrete something-or-others. Who is not past caring?

The 'Anonymous to leak secret UFO data?' story
No such luck.

Life confirmed on Mars
Water? Is that the best NASA can do after the Moon Landings over forty years ago?
 

In addition, the downright embarassing were the alleged discovery of a faster-than-light particle (which proved not to be the case) and the dreadful TV debacle that was
Conspiracy Road Trip: UFOs.

Otherwise, a personal high for me in 2012 was having a brief email exchange with Douglas Trumbull - Hollywood visual effects expert - about his (still sadly shelved) UFOTOG project.

SO - All in all, 2012 was still a busy - and significant - year in terms of UFOs/UAP - and don't let the doubters or the media tell you otherwise. The UFO/UAP phenomenon is very much alive and kicking and has yet to be satisfactorily resolved!

I'm back!

After some months of frustration with my current BT service giving me a download speed as slow as 287kbs and upload 444kbs(!!!); learning more than I wanted (or cared to know) about BT's dynamic line management system and IP profiles; followed by having to admit defeat and upgrade to BT infinity (fibre optic), I am now connected with something like a decent broadband speed once again.

Even surfing the net was painfully slow compared to what I have now. Theoretically my current max download speed will be 160 times faster than what I've recently had to put up with.

And if it stays that way (the line is still in the process of settling down) blogging - and all my other net activity will be a pleasure once more.

As I have been away from my blog for some time, I plan to give a retrospective of 2012 in my next post which will follow shortly.