Wat we weten over de 'niet-menselijke' buitenaardse lichamen van Mexico

©Getty Images

Wat we weten over de 'niet-menselijke' buitenaardse lichamen van Mexico
Op 12 september 2023 presenteerde journalist en UFO-fan Jaime Maussan de stoffelijk overschotten van vermeende aliens voor de Mexicaanse autoriteiten. Zo'n congresgebeurtenis is ongekend en de wereld raakt er maar niet over uitgepraat. Maar wie zijn deze vermeende buitenaardse wezens? En hoe zijn ze in 2023 in Mexico terechtgekomen?

©Getty Images

Presentatie
Op 12 september 2023 presenteerde Jaime Maussan de stoffelijk overschotten van vermeende 'niet-mensen' voor het Mexicaanse congres.

©Getty Images

Wie is Jaime Maussan?
Jaime Maussan is journalist en onderzoeker op het gebied van ongeïdentificeerde anomale fenomenen (UAP), ook wel UFO's genoemd.

©Getty Images

Wetgevers
De lichamen werden aan de wetgevers van het land gepresenteerd tijdens de eerste openbare hoorzitting van het Mexicaanse Congres over dit onderwerp.

©Getty Images

Dozen
Twee dozen werden gepresenteerd aan het congres, elk met vermeende opgezette lichamen van buitenaardse wezens.

©Getty Images

Oorsprong
Volgens Maussan werden de lichamen van de buitenaardsen in 2017 teruggevonden in Peru, in de buurt van de oude Nazcalijnen.

©Getty Images

Hoe oud zijn ze?
Koolstof-14 datering uitgevoerd door de Nationale Autonome Universiteit van Mexico schat de buitenaardse resten op 700 tot 1.800 jaar oud.

©Getty Images

Lichaamskenmerken
In tegenstelling tot mensen hadden beide lijken maar drie vingers aan elke hand.

©Getty Images

Lichaamskenmerken
Ze hadden ook langwerpige hoofden die leken op het personage E.T. uit Steven Spielbergs film 'E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial' uit 1982.

©Getty Images

De eerste keer
"Dit is de eerste keer dat het (buitenaards leven) in een dergelijke vorm wordt gepresenteerd en ik denk dat er een duidelijk bewijs is dat we te maken hebben met niet-menselijke exemplaren die niet verwant zijn aan andere soorten in onze wereld," vertelde Maussan voor het congres.

©Getty Images

DNA-bewijs
Jaime Maussan zei dat DNA-testen zouden bewijzen dat de lijken niet van onze planeet afkomstig waren, maar dergelijk bewijs werd niet geleverd.

©Getty Images

Tests
Bovendien vertelde José de Jesús Zalce Benitez, directeur van het Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor Gezondheid van de Mexicaanse marine, ook dat er röntgenfoto's en 3D-reconstructies waren gemaakt. Maar opnieuw werd er geen bewijs gepresenteerd.

©Getty Images

Tests
Het Nationaal Laboratorium voor Massaspectrometrie met Versnellers (LEMA) bracht een verklaring uit 2017 opnieuw uit waarin stond dat hun tests alleen bedoeld waren om de leeftijd van de monsters te bepalen, en dat ze dit deden aan de hand van monsters die door de klant waren aangeleverd en niet aan de hand van de monsters zelf.

©Getty Images

Verklaring LEMA
Het lab "distantieert zich van elk gebruik, interpretatie of latere verkeerde voorstelling van de resultaten die het levert", luidde de verklaring. "In geen enkel geval trekken we conclusies over de herkomst van deze monsters."

©Getty Images

Niet de eerste
Het blijkt dat dit niet de eerste keer is dat Jaime Maussan beweert 'niet-menselijke' overblijfselen te hebben ontdekt. In 2015 beweerde hij een gemummificeerde alien te hebben ontdekt in Nazca, Peru.

©Getty Images

Niet de eerste
De 'ontdekking' werd echter ontkracht. In werkelijkheid was de "alien" een gemummificeerd mensenkind met een misvorming aan het hoofd.

©Getty Images

Veranderingen in de wet
Tijdens de hoorzitting werd gedebatteerd over of de inhoud over UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) in de Aerial Space Protection Law moest worden aangepast. Als deze veranderingen worden goedgekeurd, wordt Mexico 'de eerste natie die formeel erkent dat er buitenaards leven op aarde bestaat'.

©Getty Images

Amerikaanse inbreng
Maussan werd vergezeld door Ryan Graves, de uitvoerend directeur van de organisatie Americans for Safe Aerospace. Graves is een voormalig piloot van de Amerikaanse marine die soortgelijke zorgen naar voren bracht in Washington.

©Getty Images

Amerikaanse inbreng
Graves vertelde Mexicaanse wetgevers: "Wij geloven dat UAP een dringende prioriteit vormen voor zowel de veiligheid van de luchtvaart als voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek," zei hij. "Onze focus ligt op het verbeteren van publieke voorlichting over UAP, het doorbreken van stigma's en het werken aan betere transparantie en openbaarmaking."

©Getty Images

Een congreslid laat de deur open
"We blijven achter met overpeinzingen, met zorgen en met de weg om hierover te blijven praten," aldus Congreslid Sergio Gutiérrez Luna.

©Getty Images

Kritiek
Maussans presentatie is door een aantal mensen in twijfel getrokken, waaronder een van Mexico's beste astrobiologen, Antígona Segura, die zei: "Deze conclusies worden simpelweg niet ondersteund door bewijs."

©Getty Images

Kritiek
De vermeende buitenaardse lichamen als bewijs werd ook bekritiseerd door Julieta Fierro, onderzoeker aan het Instituut voor Astronomie van de Nationale Autonome Universiteit van Mexico, die zei dat het "nergens op sloeg".

©Getty Images

Kritiek
"Maussan heeft vele wonderen beleefd Hij zegt dat hij met de Maagd van Guadalupe heeft gesproken", aldus Fierro. "Hij vertelde me dat buitenaardsen niet met mij praten zoals ze met hem praten, omdat ik er niet in geloof."

©iStock

Misschien zijn we niet alleen
Laten we eens kijken naar de meest beroemde UFO-waarnemingen ter wereld.

©iStock

Het Roswell-incident
Het Roswell-incident is misschien wel een van de beroemdste in de Amerikaanse ufologie. In 1947 beweerden twee mannen dat ze hadden gezien hoe Amerikaans legerpersoneel een buitenaards ruimteschip uit de woestijn haalde. Het Amerikaanse leger ontkent het incident tot op de dag van vandaag.

©Getty Images

De waarneming door Jimmy Carter
In 1973 rapporteerde de toenmalige gouverneur van Georgia dat hij een UFO had gezien, een feit dat pas bekend werd nadat Carter president van de Verenigde Staten was geworden.

©iStock

De waarneming in Vancouver
Op 20 februari 2011 meldden een aantal mensen in Vancouver, Canada, dat ze een object in de lucht zagen zweven dat licht uitstraalde. Beelden van de gebeurtenis werden bekeken en er werd geconcludeerd dat de UFO eigenlijk een vlieger was met LED-lampjes.

©iStock

Het incident met kapitein William Schaffner
Op 9 september 1970 vloog piloot William Schaffner van de Royal Air Force boven de Noordzee toen hij een vreemd object zag zweven. Een paar minuten later verloor hij de radiocommunicatie. Het vliegtuig werd later in zee gevonden, maar de kap van het vliegtuig was dicht en er was geen spoor van kapitein Schaffner.

©iStock

De lichtjes van Lubbock
Tussen augustus en september 1951 werden in Lubbock, Texas, verschillende ongewone lichtformaties waargenomen die in een V-patroon waren gerangschikt. De Amerikaanse luchtmacht stelde een onderzoek in en concludeerde dat de lichten waren veroorzaakt door een plevier (een kleine waadvogel).

©iStock

De lichtjes van Rendlesham Forest
Het Rendlesham Forest incident is een serie waarnemingen die plaatsvond in 1980 nadat een UFO vermoedelijk was geland in het Engelse Rendlesham Forest. Maar het Ministerie van Defensie beschouwde de gebeurtenis nooit als een bedreiging voor de nationale veiligheid, dus werd het nooit formeel onderzocht.

Bronnen:

• (Reuters)
• (CBS News)
• (The Guardian)
• (The New York Times)
• (The Independent)
• (The Yucatan Times)
• (ABC News)
• (Snopes)

GERELATEERDE VIDEO'S

{  https://www.msn.com/nl }

05-06-2025 om 21:11 geschreven door peter  

Abductions by Extraterrestrials: Fantasy, Deception, or Reality? - PART I

1. Preface

Based on tens of thousands of reports from individuals claiming that extraterrestrial beings visit our planet and take selected persons aboard their spacecraft to perform various medical and reproductive experiments, we find ourselves delving into a new and intriguing aspect of ufology. These reports, originating from both alleged victims of abduction and some investigators, present detailed accounts that seem remarkably realistic, rooted in what the witnesses describe as genuine experiences.

Throughout history, many people have recounted encounters with strange beings, often described as humanoid or alien in appearance. Among these, the most commonly reported are the so-called Greys—small, gray-skinned entities with large black eyes—who are said to visit Earth in flying saucers. These stories have persisted for decades and continue to fascinate and mystify both the public and researchers alike.

The phenomenon of alien abductions has grown significantly over the years. According to current ufological research, thousands of well-documented reports detail encounters where individuals claim to have been taken aboard unidentified flying objects. Once aboard, they assert to have undergone medical examinations, sometimes involving invasive procedures, and to have been returned to their original location afterward. These accounts are often consistent, with many victims describing similar experiences, which lends a certain degree of credibility to their claims.

Artistic depiction of alien abduction by tractor beam

Adding to the intrigue, some ufologists believe that the incident in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947, was a significant event—the crash of a flying saucer containing extraterrestrial beings, which was allegedly recovered by the U.S. military. This incident has become a cornerstone of UFO conspiracy theories, fueling speculation about secret government dealings with alien entities. According to these theories, the U.S. government has established clandestine contact with extraterrestrials and perhaps even maintains facilities like Area 51, where such encounters are said to occur and are kept under wraps from the public.

Despite the persistent nature of these stories, skepticism remains widespread. The scientific community and many skeptics argue that the entire phenomenon is rooted in imagination, misidentification, or deliberate deception. They contend that there is no credible scientific evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial visitors or abductions. Instead, these reports are often dismissed as the result of hallucinations, sleep paralysis, psychological trauma, or the influence of popular media and science fiction.

The debate over the reality of alien abductions has become polarized. On one side are the believers—individuals and some researchers who are convinced that these experiences are genuine encounters with extraterrestrial beings. They point to the consistency of reports, the physical and psychological effects reported by victims, and the growing number of documented cases as evidence supporting their claims. On the other side are skeptics who see these stories as elaborate fantasies or fabrications, emphasizing the lack of empirical proof and highlighting the role of psychological and cultural factors.

This ongoing controversy illustrates the complex nature of the phenomenon. For many, these stories represent a profound mystery—one that challenges our understanding of reality and the universe. For others, they are simply the product of human imagination or deception. The question remains: are these abductions genuine encounters with extraterrestrial intelligences or merely a collective hallucination influenced by cultural narratives?

In conclusion, the phenomenon of alien abductions continues to occupy a prominent place in popular culture and scientific debate. While thousands of witnesses claim to have experienced these encounters, the lack of conclusive scientific evidence leaves the question open. Whether these stories are a manifestation of fantasy, deception, or an unknown aspect of reality, they remain one of the most fascinating mysteries of our time. The ongoing investigation and discussion reflect humanity's enduring curiosity about the universe and the possibility of life beyond Earth.

2. What Types of Alien Entities Are Described in UFO Reports?

Descriptions of extraterrestrial beings encountered in UFO sightings are remarkably diverse and intriguing. These accounts include a broad spectrum of entities, ranging from transparent, almost ghost-like figures to more solid, tangible beings. Some reports depict entities that appear entirely see-through or translucent, with some even showing visible skeletal structures through their semi-transparent bodies. Others describe large, bulky, glowing figures that resemble humanoid shapes but are significantly different in appearance, such as towering “men” with a luminous aura.

Among the most common descriptions are the so-called “Venusian” types—friendly, human-like aliens often associated with the planet Venus. These beings are described as having long, flowing blonde hair, and sometimes they are depicted as possessing a gentle, benevolent demeanor. Such descriptions evoke images of peaceful, approachable creatures that might be more akin to humans than to the stereotypical depiction of extraterrestrials.

In addition to these, there are reports of tiny, elf-like entities—small, delicate “little people” measuring only a few tens of centimeters tall. These diminutive beings are often described as having delicate features, and their appearances evoke fairy tales and mythologies, adding a mystical layer to the array of UFO-related encounters.

However, the most prevalent type of alien reported in the majority of cases—more than four-fifths, or about 80%—are the beings commonly known as “the Greys.” These extraterrestrials are characterized by their distinctive physical features: they are usually between 1.20 and 1.50 meters tall, with large, bald heads that dominate their small, slender bodies. Their most recognizable trait is their enormous, black, almond-shaped eyes, which are often described as deep, slanted, and mysterious. The Greys are frequently depicted as emotionless or highly logical beings, and they are associated with numerous abduction stories.

Artist's depiction of abduction by grey aliens.

Despite this prevalence, approximately 20% of these descriptions sound so bizarre and absurd that they challenge the credibility of the reports. Some accounts describe entities with features so peculiar that skeptics find it difficult to accept their authenticity, fearing they might be products of imagination or hallucination.

Nevertheless, a dedicated minority of researchers has diligently collected, analyzed, and studied these varied reports. These investigators understand the importance of setting aside personal biases and fears to compile a comprehensive database of UFO encounters. Their efforts aim to uncover patterns and possibly reveal the nature of these enigmatic beings.

Interestingly, some scientists and investigators believe that children are among the most reliable witnesses. Many UFO landings have been documented through sightings reported by children, who often describe encounters with extraterrestrial entities in great detail. Skeptics argue that children’s vivid imaginations, influenced by science fiction comics, cartoons, and video games, might lead to false or exaggerated reports. Still, proponents counter that children’s open-minded and unfiltered perspectives make them ideal witnesses; their descriptions often include details that adults might overlook or dismiss.

Furthermore, numerous cases of alleged alien abductions involve children as young as four or five years old. These individuals often report being taken aboard spacecraft and having direct contact with extraterrestrial beings. Many abductees recall their initial encounters occurring early in childhood, suggesting that these early experiences might be crucial in understanding the nature of UFO phenomena and the types of entities encountered. The consistency of these reports fuels ongoing debates and investigations into the possibility of genuine extraterrestrial contact, especially involving the most impressionable witnesses—children.

3. Who Sees UFOs?

According to skeptics, the individuals who report sightings of UFOs and encounters with UFO occupants are generally unreliable and untrustworthy. They often dismiss these reports as the product of overactive imaginations, hallucinations, or deliberate hoaxes. However, when we take a closer look at the diverse range of people who have reported such experiences, it becomes clear that skepticism may be premature or overly dismissive. Not only children but also law enforcement officers, medical doctors, notaries, lawyers, astronomers, airline pilots, and other prominent citizens have all come forward with accounts of witnessing strange flying objects and interacting with extraterrestrial beings. Even some highly trained astronauts, who have undergone rigorous psychological and physical evaluations, have reported encounters with UFOs during their missions or training. These testimonies challenge the notion that only unreliable or fringe individuals see these phenomena.

Do you know what the word “skeptic” actually means? The term originates from the Greek word “skepsis,” which translates to “doubt” or “doubting attitude.” A true skeptic is someone who questions and seeks evidence before accepting claims as fact. Yet, in practice, many so-called skeptics tend to interpret evidence through a rigid dogmatic lens, often dismissing any information that does not align with mainstream scientific paradigms. Herman Boel’s “Dictionary of the Skeptic” offers approximately 400 definitions, arguments, and critical articles covering topics from acupuncture to zombies. It is a translation of Robert T. Carroll’s “The Skeptic’s Dictionary,” an extensive compilation of skeptical viewpoints. Many skeptics seem to reject any ideas or phenomena that fall outside their narrow scientific worldview, often dismissing UFO sightings and alien abduction reports as mere fantasies or deliberate fabrications. But how can we ignore the testimonies of witnesses who, in their daily lives, serve as police officers, physicians, and other professionals—people responsible for our safety—simply because their accounts involve extraordinary experiences? How can we dismiss their reports as falsehoods without proper investigation?

Despite the fact that thousands of books have been written about UFO phenomena, there remains a surprising scarcity of objective, balanced, and scientifically rigorous studies that are accepted by all parties involved. While sightings of UFOs and encounters with alien beings—often sensationalized as “flying saucers” and “little green men” in popular media—have historically been met with skepticism by the press, secular science, and the skeptical community, the specific cases of abductions are even more controversial. Many perceive these reports as highly unreliable or sensationalized, but others believe they point to a real, unexplained phenomenon. The question remains: who is truly seeing these objects and beings? Are these sightings hallucinations, mistaken identities, or genuine encounters with extraterrestrial visitors? The debate continues, fueled by both skepticism and curiosity.

4. How Is It That Science Shows Such Little Interest in the UFO Phenomenon?

The primary reason lies in the ongoing struggle of ufology to gain recognition and acceptance as a serious field of scientific inquiry. For decades, it has been fighting an uphill battle to be regarded not as a lucrative pastime or a hobby for amateurs, fantasists, or attention-seekers, but as a legitimate subject worthy of rigorous investigation. This struggle stems from the perception that the UFO phenomenon is largely a myth, a collection of fanciful stories, or even outright deception. Consequently, mainstream scientific institutions have often dismissed or ignored it, considering it irrelevant or too fringe to warrant serious study. This skepticism is deeply rooted in the scientific community’s preference for empirical, reproducible data and their general reluctance to engage with phenomena that lack clear, conventional evidence.

Prominent skeptic Paul Kurtz famously remarked that ufology is akin to the mythology of the space age. Instead of ancient tales of angels and demons, we now confront stories of extraterrestrial beings visiting Earth. According to Kurtz, ufology is essentially a product of creative imagination—an imaginative construct that serves poetic and existential functions. It embodies humanity’s longing for higher mysteries and transcendent meaning. In this sense, UFOs and related phenomena symbolize our hopes and fears about the universe, acting as modern mythologies that reflect our desire to find purpose beyond the mundane.

One must consider whether the differences in stories about angels, demons, trolls, or UFO occupants are merely a matter of the reference frame—the mental framework through which individuals interpret their experiences. For example, when I mention the word “car,” you probably think of your own vehicle, perhaps a specific brand or model. When I think of a car, I might picture my Opel Astra. The core experience—the concept of a device used for transportation—remains the same for everyone. However, the way each person describes or interprets that experience varies according to their background, worldview, and language.

Interestingly, within the scientific and skeptical communities, you will rarely find articles, books, or responses that offer constructive criticism of ufologists, or that discuss UFOs in a positive light. Instead, their tone is often dismissive, condescending, or outright mocking. Their certainty and dogmatism are palpable—they seem to have already concluded that the phenomena are either delusions, hoaxes, or hallucinations, and they dismiss any alternative explanations without genuine investigation. Their confidence in their own rationality and science’s infallibility often seeps through their writings and arguments, making it clear that they see themselves as the ultimate arbiters of truth.

The landing reports and especially the so-called UFO abduction cases do sound absurd, implausible, and sometimes even laughable. To an objective, serious, and critically minded researcher, these accounts can seem bizarre or exaggerated, and they may be reluctant to delve into such reports due to their seemingly implausible nature. These peculiar stories provide skeptics with ample ammunition to dismiss the entire UFO phenomenon as mere fantasy, deception, or mass hysteria. As a result, many genuine investigators are understandably hesitant to dedicate time and resources to studying these cases, fearing that they will be labeled as gullible or credulous.

Moreover, there is a prevalent fear among serious researchers that engaging with these bizarre cases might harm their credibility, leading to ridicule or professional marginalization. Many investigators worry that if they explore these phenomena openly, skeptics and critics will portray them as fools or charlatans. This concern about reputation and scientific reputation discourages many earnest researchers from taking the phenomenon seriously. Instead, they prefer to leave the topic untouched or dismiss it altogether to avoid potential damage to their standing within the scientific community.

This cautious approach is reinforced by the often malicious and underhanded tactics used by some skeptics in the media. Experienced ufologists and researchers have seen how certain skeptics have used smear campaigns, ridicule, or misrepresentation to discredit individuals or entire groups. Past instances include media campaigns that portrayed ufologists as deluded or mentally unstable, or that spread false claims about their motives. These tactics deter many from pursuing serious inquiry, fearing that their work will be hijacked or dismissed without fair consideration.

In recent decades, especially since the advent of the internet, there has been a noticeable shift. More and more ufologists and witnesses are now willing to share their experiences publicly, challenging the skepticism and ridicule that historically surrounded the phenomenon. They are no longer dependent solely on traditional media outlets to spread their findings; instead, they use blogs, forums, and social media platforms to voice their opinions and share evidence. This increased openness is a significant development, allowing for a broader and more diverse range of perspectives.

In the past, researchers needed the media to disseminate their findings or to gain public attention. Today, the internet provides a democratized platform where anyone can publish reports, share sightings, and voice personal experiences without censorship or gatekeeping. This newfound freedom has enabled figures like Budd Hopkins, Dr. John Mack, Dr. Jacob Saunders, and others to publish their research and findings more openly. For example, Dr. John Mack, a renowned American psychiatrist affiliated with Harvard University, boldly publicly stated that certain abduction experiences are real and vivid, lifetime memories—not hallucinations or fantasies.

This brave stance by Dr. Mack and others was met with fierce opposition from skeptics and the scientific establishment. They attempted to discredit him, questioning his credibility and even trying to revoke his academic credentials or funding. Fortunately, they failed in these efforts. However, reading the critical comments and the translated “Dictionary for the Skeptic,” one can see how egocentric and narcissistic these skeptics tend to be. For instance, Herman Boel, in his book, claims on page 332 that Dr. Mack was “lying without ever being caught”—a statement that appears to be a direct translation of a hostile critique. Such allegations serve as veiled accusations that Dr. Mack was a fraud or a charlatan.

This kind of language reveals the underlying hostility and bias of skeptics, who are often more interested in maintaining their worldview than in genuine scientific inquiry. It is troubling to see respected scientists or professionals accused of dishonesty without evidence, especially when they have the courage to speak out about phenomena that challenge conventional paradigms. Some skeptics even go as far as labeling these researchers as profiteers, accusing them of seeking financial gain from their investigations.

Are these negative assertions rooted in objective, critical scientific methodology? Or are they merely personal attacks cloaked as skepticism? If the latter, they undermine the very principles of honest scientific inquiry—namely, open-mindedness and evidence-based reasoning. Such behavior leaves a bitter taste and raises questions about who the real deceivers are. It is perhaps more accurate to suggest that the skeptics’ relentless dismissiveness and ad hominem attacks reveal their own insecurities, biases, and inability to confront phenomena that challenge their worldview.

The “ostrich policy” of the materialist, secular scientific establishment—burying their heads in the sand regarding UFOs and related phenomena—is a simplistic and ultimately dangerous stance. This approach stems from a desire to preserve existing dogmas and avoid cognitive dissonance. Their general attitude often involves doubt and skepticism, but as Herman Boel points out, their skepticism tends to be selective—favoring disbelief in the paranormal or extraterrestrial because it threatens their worldview. Their outright denial of UFOs as a genuine phenomenon has not stopped sightings and reports from continuing or increasing. The phenomenon persists, growing in complexity and credibility as more witnesses come forward.

The internet, especially search engines like Google, serves as a valuable tool for those seeking information or wishing to connect with credible witnesses. Many experiencers and investigators prefer to share their stories online, seeking understanding rather than dismissal. The key request from witnesses is simple: respect their privacy, treat their observations discreetly, and avoid ridicule. Often, their stories are suppressed or dismissed outright, in part because media and skeptics have conditioned the public to view such reports with suspicion. Yet, many of these witnesses are ordinary people—no different from you or me—who have had extraordinary experiences.

It is a tragedy that these accounts are often dismissed without thorough investigation. Even if, in the end, research determines that the experiences are not caused by extraterrestrial beings, these individuals have still benefited from being heard and validated. Recognizing their experiences as genuine, regardless of the explanation, provides psychological relief and a sense of being taken seriously. The need for serious, unbiased investigation into UFO sightings and abduction reports is more crucial than ever. Only through honest inquiry, free from prejudice and bias, can we hope to understand the true nature of these mysterious encounters.

In conclusion, the lack of interest from mainstream science in the UFO phenomenon is rooted in a complex interplay of skepticism, institutional inertia, and cultural biases. While the phenomenon continues to grow in complexity and credibility, it remains marginalized largely because of the fear of losing scientific credibility or being associated with fringe beliefs. However, recent developments—such as the brave testimonies of researchers and witnesses online—offer hope for a future where UFOs are studied with the seriousness they deserve. Respect, open-mindedness, and a commitment to genuine scientific inquiry are essential if we are to unravel the mysteries that these phenomena present and to give voice to those who have experienced them firsthand.

5. What Is the Scientific Response?

The story of UFOs and extraterrestrial encounters begins on June 24, 1947, a date that marks the inception of modern UFO lore. On that day, an American pilot named Kenneth Arnold reported seeing nine unusual flying objects near Mount Rainier in Washington State. He described them as crescent-shaped craft flying in an irregular formation at incredible speeds, which made him think of “saucers bouncing over water.” This observation sparked widespread media attention, and the term “flying saucers” was quickly adopted to describe these mysterious objects. The media eagerly latched onto Arnold’s account, and within a matter of weeks, hundreds of reports poured in across the United States from individuals claiming to have seen similar phenomena.

This phenomenon can be loosely compared to the events that unfolded in Belgium around 1989-1990, after two police officers in Eupen observed a triangular-shaped craft in the night sky. That sighting received extensive media coverage, leading to a surge of reports from the Brussels-based UFO group SOBEPS, which documented hundreds of sightings. These episodes exemplify how media coverage can significantly influence public perception and stimulate a wave of reports—sometimes leading to what is called a “UFO flap.” Such episodes demonstrate the powerful role the media plays in shaping and even amplifying UFO phenomena, often creating a feedback loop that sustains public interest and investigation.

Many researchers point out that a significant proportion of UFO sightings and reports of “UFOonauts,” such as the famous Greys, correspond closely with standard descriptions that have become embedded in popular culture. For some, this consistency is seen as evidence that witnesses genuinely experienced something extraordinary—an authentic encounter that defies simple explanation. The recurring themes and descriptions lend credibility to the idea that these witnesses might have indeed observed real phenomena, perhaps even alien craft or beings. They argue that the similarities across reports are too consistent to be mere coincidence or collective hallucination.

On the other hand, skeptics challenge this interpretation. They contend that witnesses tend to describe these objects and beings in similar ways because of cultural expectations and stereotypical images of UFOs and aliens. According to this view, eyewitnesses are influenced by media portrayals, science fiction, and popular narratives, which shape their perceptions and descriptions. Skeptics argue that people often interpret ambiguous phenomena—such as lights in the sky or unusual shapes—through the lens of existing stereotypes, leading to reports that are essentially the same stories retold. They suggest that these accounts are constructed or influenced by psychological biases, rather than actual encounters with extraterrestrial craft.

The scientific response to UFO phenomena is multifaceted, involving disciplines such as astronomy, psychology, physics, and engineering. Most scientists approach UFO reports with a healthy dose of skepticism, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence and reproducibility. The scientific community generally regards UFO sightings, especially those that lack verifiable data, as anecdotal and not sufficient to warrant claims of extraterrestrial visitation. Many scientists argue that most sightings can be explained by natural phenomena, such as meteors, atmospheric optical effects, or human-made objects like aircraft and drones. For instance, luminous phenomena like ball lightning, planets like Venus, or even weather balloons can sometimes be mistaken for unknown craft.

Moreover, the scientific method demands rigorous investigation, including collecting physical evidence, conducting controlled experiments, and replicating observations. To date, no credible scientific evidence has emerged that confirms the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft or beings. Official investigations, such as Project Blue Book conducted by the U.S. Air Force from 1952 to 1969, concluded that the majority of UFO reports could be explained by natural causes or misidentifications. While some cases remain unexplained, the absence of verifiable physical data leaves the scientific community unconvinced that these are signs of alien visitation.

In recent years, government and military agencies have taken a renewed interest in UFOs, now often referred to as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Reports and videos released by the U.S. Department of Defense have shown objects exhibiting flight capabilities beyond known human technology. These developments have prompted calls within the scientific community for more transparent investigation and data sharing. Some scientists advocate for establishing dedicated research programs to analyze UAP data systematically, emphasizing the importance of applying scientific rigor to these unexplained sightings.

Despite the interest and advancements, the core scientific stance remains cautious. The absence of concrete, reproducible evidence means that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof—something that has yet to be provided convincingly. Many scientists remain open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life but stress that extraordinary claims demand rigorous standards of evidence. Until such evidence is available, the scientific approach continues to treat UFO phenomena as intriguing but unconfirmed anomalies, emphasizing natural explanations and the importance of empirical investigation.

In conclusion, the scientific response to UFO sightings is characterized by skepticism, rigorous analysis, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions. While public fascination and media influence have played significant roles in shaping UFO phenomena, the scientific community emphasizes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Continued investigation, improved data collection, and open-minded inquiry are essential, but until definitive proof emerges, UFOs remain a fascinating mystery—one that challenges our understanding of the universe but also demands scientific discipline and rigor.

6. Why Is It Still Important to Remain Critical, Open-Minded, and Objective When Investigating Such Experiences?

Despite my willingness to openly discuss this bizarre phenomenon related to UFO sightings, I must admit that objectively, I find it challenging to see all these strange testimonies as genuine experiences. The core question, however, remains: “Why do people continue to report such encounters?” This is especially perplexing considering their fear of ridicule or being labeled as delusional. Many witnesses are deeply apprehensive; they often request that their reports be kept discreet and their identities remain anonymous. In numerous cases, they don’t even feel comfortable sharing their stories with family, friends, or acquaintances. This reluctance highlights the profound impact of societal prejudices and media portrayals that have, over time, shaped the UFO phenomenon into something laughable or bizarre.

As investigators, should we not maintain an open attitude that allows individuals to share their accounts freely? Offering support and understanding can help these witnesses feel less isolated in their experiences. Giving them a safe space to express themselves without immediate judgment is essential, especially since they might be genuinely confused or frightened by what they’ve encountered. Dismissing their accounts outright or branding them as liars or mentally unstable is neither constructive nor ethical. In the justice system, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty; shouldn’t we apply the same principle when examining these reports?

If, after thorough investigation, evidence suggests that these experiences are caused by electromagnetic pollution or other types of radiation—such as signals from cell towers, high-voltage lines, underground streams, or natural phenomena—then studying these factors can still be valuable. Such research can help us understand environmental influences on human perception and experience. Even if the actual cause is natural or technological, it contributes positively to our knowledge and potentially aids the witnesses.

The critical question remains: why do witnesses often describe similar objects, entities, and phenomena? If these accounts are mere fantasies, why is there such consistency? Why isn’t there greater diversity in descriptions? Conversely, if even a single case—like a reported abduction—can be verified as genuine, based on the witness’s testimony, then shouldn’t we acknowledge that some encounters might be real?

Interestingly, skeptics sometimes admit that most testimonies are made by reasonably normal individuals without apparent motives. They even argue that if these stories weren’t so bizarre, it would be disrespectful not to trust the witnesses. So, why then, are the experiences of the same individuals not taken seriously? Why aren’t they studied more thoroughly by science or skeptics? These questions highlight the need for an unbiased, open-minded approach that seeks understanding rather than dismissal.

7. Which Ufologists Have Investigated or Are Still Investigating These Unusual UFO Encounters?

The dedicated efforts of qualified ufologists to analyze and interpret abduction experiences among the plethora of UFO reports are few in number but highly significant. These individuals have made substantial contributions to the field by carefully selecting, studying, and debating cases that involve extraordinary encounters with unidentified flying objects and alleged extraterrestrial abductions. Notable among them are pioneers like Aimé Michel and Jacques Vallée from France, who have long been fascinated by the mysteries of the skies. Aimé Michel, renowned for his theories on UFO flight patterns, was one of the first to systematically analyze sightings and their possible connection to extraterrestrial life. Jacques Vallée, now based in the United States, has approached the phenomenon from a scientific and psychological perspective, questioning the nature of UFO encounters rather than accepting them at face value. He has explored the idea that UFOs may be a complex, multi-layered phenomenon involving psychological, cultural, and possibly spiritual dimensions.

From the United Kingdom, notable figures include Gordon Creighton, later joined by Charles Bowen, Hilary Evans, and Jenny Randles. These researchers have contributed through extensive investigations, books, and conferences, aiming to shed light on the mysterious aspects of UFO phenomena and abduction cases. Their work often intersected with broader cultural and scientific debates, attempting to establish a credible framework within which these unexplained experiences could be understood.

In the United States, a distinguished group of investigators has dedicated their careers to studying these phenomena, including Coral and Jim Lorenzen, Ivan Sanderson, John Keel, Budd Hopkins, Jacobs Saunders, and Dr. John Mack. Budd Hopkins, in particular, became famous for his pioneering work on alien abductions, conducting interviews and hypnotic regressions to uncover details of these encounters. Dr. John Mack, a Harvard-educated psychiatrist, took an open-minded approach, believing that these experiences might have profound psychological and spiritual implications. Their collective efforts aimed to validate the reality of abduction experiences, often at great personal and professional risk, as they challenged mainstream scientific and societal norms.

In the Netherlands, Hans van Kampen authored the book “De Gezanten van Hyperion,” which delves into the mysterious encounters and possible extraterrestrial contacts reported in the region. Additionally, therapist Hilda Musch has played a role in helping abductees process their experiences through psychological support. These pioneering ufologists and therapists have been at the forefront of attempting to understand the unknown, risking skepticism and disbelief to explore the truth behind these strange phenomena.

Meanwhile, in the background of these investigations, American researcher Isabelle Davis of NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) quietly collected evidence and clues related to humanoid UFO occupants. Paradoxically, NICAP's initial reaction to abduction cases was to dismiss and ignore them, considering them too bizarre and sensational to warrant serious attention. Having fought for over a decade against media sensationalism, scientific skepticism, and outright disbelief, the organization preferred to focus on more conventional UFO sightings rather than delve into the more controversial realm of abductions and extraterrestrial-human interactions. Stories of gray, zombie-like beings performing medical and reproductive experiments on abductees seemed too outlandish, threatening the credibility of the entire UFO research community.

However, recent developments and more cautious, scientific approaches—such as regression hypnosis, lie detector tests, and detailed victim interviews—have begun to shed new light on the phenomenon. These methods suggest that UFO encounters, especially abductions, may be largely subjective experiences rooted in complex psychological, sociocultural, and possibly neurological factors. Witnesses often insist that, when reporting their experiences, they emphasize their desire for discretion and deny any influence from alcohol, drugs, or medication during the event. This raises intriguing questions: why are so many individuals hesitant, even fearful, to share their encounters? Is it fear of ridicule, social stigma, or a deeper psychological barrier?

If skeptics aimed to dismiss these reports entirely, they may have succeeded in creating an environment of doubt and silence. Yet, as responsible researchers, we have a moral obligation to offer support and understanding to those who come forward. By taking their accounts seriously and seeking plausible, balanced explanations, we foster a more constructive, empathetic approach. Only through such an attitude can we hope to genuinely understand these mysterious phenomena, and perhaps, uncover the truth behind the strange and often frightening experiences of UFO witnesses. 

{ PETER2011 }

04-06-2025 om 22:52 geschreven door peter  

Abductions by Extraterrestrials: Fantasy, Deception, or Reality? - PART II

8.  How Do Ufonauts Behave? An In-Depth Exploration

In most reported landings incidents involving UFOs, the entities associated with these phenomena tend to exhibit behaviors that seem almost comical or bizarre. These beings are often perceived as animals or mindless robots of some sort, acting in ways that defy normal human expectations and logic. Such behaviors have led many to believe that these entities are either unintelligent or merely mechanical constructs, performing repetitive or seemingly purposeless actions during their encounters with humans. However, when it comes to UFO abductions, the behavior of these beings—often referred to as Greys or extraterrestrial entities—appears markedly different. During these abduction experiences, the beings respond in an alert, deliberate, and focused manner, almost as if they are conducting specific experiments or investigations. They seem to act as “emotionless” researchers, executing precise procedures on their “lab-dwelling” subjects, which are, in many cases, humans.

Many individuals who have been abducted report that during their encounters, they felt that these entities were part of a larger, interconnected whole. Witnesses often describe the sense that these beings are not isolated but are instead integral components of a more extensive life form or collective consciousness. This perception suggests that their motivations and behaviors might be driven by a set of complex, perhaps collective, objectives that go beyond mere curiosity or simple exploration.

There’s got to be a perfectly logical explanation for this. 

Shutterstock

The history of UFO sightings and encounters extends far back in time, with significant waves of sightings recorded throughout the 20th century. The first notable worldwide UFO wave occurred in 1954, a period marked by numerous landings and sightings across France, Italy, and South America. Interestingly, the earliest known photograph of a UFO in Belgium was also taken in 1954, over the city of Namur, aligning with this early wave of sightings. Similarly, in 1955, numerous reports of UFOs were made over the town of Lotenhulle in Belgium, adding to the global pattern of early sightings.

One of the most systematic studies of these early incidents was conducted by the French researcher Jacques Vallée. In 1954, Vallée compiled and analyzed 200 reports of UFO landings from around the world, applying rigorous scientific scrutiny. His analysis revealed that in approximately 8 out of these 200 cases—about 4%—witnesses described the beings as either small humanoids or giants, sometimes covered with hair. An even more startling aspect of these encounters was the physical response experienced by witnesses: over 75% of those reporting close encounters stated they felt “paralyzed” or completely powerless to move in the presence of these entities. Despite the frequency of such reports, the physical and medical implications of these encounters were rarely taken seriously by the scientific community or authorities, and detailed investigations into these effects were seldom conducted. This neglect persisted even though thousands of individuals worldwide claimed to have been abducted or otherwise interacted with these beings.

Long before the modern era of UFO sightings, reports of strange, greyish entities—often called Big Eyes Monsters (BEMS)—were already circulating. These creatures, not fully human, were described as having large eyes and sometimes bizarre features. Vallée’s book “Passport to Magonia” catalogs hundreds of such landings and sightings, stretching back centuries. These stories suggest that encounters with strange beings are not new phenomena but are part of a long continuum of human experience with the unknown. Over time, the descriptions of these entities have evolved, shaped by cultural and linguistic changes. Ancient civilizations called them gods, dwarfs, angels, or demons, while in our current space age, they are often referred to as extraterrestrials or abductees’ “aliens.”

Historical UFO flaps in the late 19th and early 20th centuries also contribute to this ongoing mystery. In 1896 and 1897, and again in 1905 and 1909, sightings of strange, Zeppelin-like airships were reported. Analysis of these incidents revealed a peculiar pattern: the crews of these anomalous flying objects often left behind mundane objects—newspapers, shoes, even peeled potatoes—on the ground after their flights. These artifacts seemed to serve as deliberate signals or messages, as if the craft were trying to demonstrate that they originated from Earth or had some connection to it. Theories abounded that these sightings might be the work of secret inventors testing experimental aircraft, fueling speculation about hidden technological advancements during that time. Nonetheless, many of these reports lacked comprehensive details, leading to skepticism and questions about their authenticity.

The challenge with historical UFO reports is that eyewitnesses and researchers did not always record all the details or characteristics of these sightings. Some details were perhaps intentionally omitted, either to preserve credibility or because the observers did not notice them at the time. Modern journalists and investigators often encounter similar issues today. They tend to omit or dismiss extraordinary details in current UFO reports, either to protect the perceived credibility of their articles or to avoid discrediting witnesses. Sometimes, even seemingly mundane sightings—such as strange lights in the sky—are subject to requests for confidentiality or discreet handling, highlighting the persistent fear of ridicule or skepticism. It’s not uncommon for witnesses to be asked to keep their reports quiet or to avoid sharing them publicly, even in 2011, illustrating how deeply ingrained the skepticism remains.

During wartime, reports of “foo fighters”—mysterious lights accompanying military aircraft—became widespread. Both Allied and Axis forces believed these lights to be secret weapons or enemy technology. Recent revelations have shown that Winston Churchill himself requested that reports of UFO sightings be kept confidential to prevent panic. After World War II, sightings of “Ghost Rockets” over Scandinavia and other parts of Europe increased, with many reports describing strange, unidentifiable objects in the sky. American and British authorities conducted investigations into these phenomena but have yet to reach definitive conclusions; some hypotheses suggest they could have been tests of Soviet missile technology or experimental aircraft.

In 1965, a new wave of UFO sightings swept through Mexico and the world. Mexican newspapers reported encounters with strange beings—described as tall, humanoid creatures with glowing eyes, no visible nose or mouth, and large, triangular heads adorned with short horns. Witnesses often described these entities as being at least three meters tall. The most famous case involved three women from a suburb of Mexico City, who claimed to have seen these beings and later panicked, fleeing to the police. Similar sightings were reported elsewhere in Latin America, including Brazil, where some creatures were allegedly captured or observed in the wild.

One of the most compelling and well-documented cases occurred in Brazil in early 1996, in the town of Varginha. Over several weeks, multiple witnesses reported seeing strange, alien-like creatures—described as short, with dark, hairless skin, large triangular heads, three short horns, and enormous red, vertical oval eyes. The Brazilian military reportedly captured at least two of these beings alive near Varginha, and there are claims that a UFO crashed in the area, adding to the intrigue. The military authorities attempted to keep details secret, but thanks to dedicated researchers like Dr. Ubiraja Franco Rodrigues and Vitorio Paccaccini, some information eventually leaked out. Their investigations suggest that these beings were not only real but part of a larger phenomenon involving government cover-ups and unidentified aerial craft.

As you can see, stories about strange encounters and bizarre sightings periodically resurface, often gaining new life through media attention and public fascination. For serious, objective, and critical researchers, it is essential to approach these stories with an open mind but also with caution. The question remains: why do people continue to tell such bizarre and often unbelievable stories? Are they mistaken, deluded, or perhaps motivated by other factors? Or could there be a deeper truth behind these recurring reports that we have yet to fully understand? What is clear is that the phenomenon of UFOs and their associated behaviors remains one of the most intriguing and elusive mysteries of our time, demanding careful investigation and open-minded skepticism.

9. How to Respond to Such Stories?

For many decades, the majority of UFO researchers and enthusiasts chose to ignore reports of unusual sightings and encounters, often opting not to publish these accounts in their scientific journals or magazines. When they did address these stories, they frequently dismissed them as speculative nonsense—often more bizarre than the original reports themselves. Some researchers even went so far as to distort or modify the original descriptions of UFO sightings, painting them as encounters with “little green men” instead of the more detailed, sometimes alarming descriptions originally provided by witnesses. This manipulation—altering the content of reports to fit a preconceived theory or narrative—indicates a troubling lack of objectivity, honesty, and fairness toward the witnesses and their testimonies. Such biases threaten the integrity of UFO research, yet they remain a persistent issue today.

From personal experience, I know that this remains an ongoing problem within the field. Take, for example, a specific case that we investigated together. Witnesses described an oval-shaped object adorned with around ten lights. When a skeptical colleague, who assumed it was merely an aircraft—perhaps a plane on the landing approach to the nearby airport—proposed that the lights must be fewer than described, the number of lights was reduced to just two. Our colleague at BUFON, a retired engineer with years of investigative experience, had identified an electromagnetic anomaly during the sighting with his custom-built instruments. However, rather than accepting this scientifically significant finding, some colleagues attempted to discredit him by suggesting that he was unreliable—claiming he had not answered all their questions about his measurement devices. Perhaps they believed he simply didn't understand the engineering explanations, or maybe they sought to undermine his credibility. This kind of skepticism complicates cooperation among researchers with differing perspectives, especially when one side pursues objective investigation while the other is more interested in confirming preconceived notions.

I could write pages about investigators studying bizarre abduction cases and others who dismiss or ridicule such reports as nonsense. The topic has become more open for discussion, especially with the advent of the internet, which provides a platform for witnesses to share their experiences anonymously and more freely. Victims of these encounters have gathered on certain websites, exchanging thoughts and supporting each other through shared pain and confusion. As the saying goes, “Shared pain is halved pain.” This sense of community offers comfort and validation to those who might otherwise feel isolated or dismissed.

Skeptics tend to compare abductees and other experiencers to mystics from bygone centuries. Both groups claim to have had profound, sometimes supernatural, experiences that others are denied or unable to verify. These skeptics argue that the primary evidence for such encounters is the witness’s belief that it happened, along with their personal account. They dismiss the reports because they see no objective proof—no tangible, scientific evidence—only faith in the stories told. According to these doubters, the fact that mystics’ descriptions of their visions and experiences are remarkably similar across different cultures and historical periods does not serve as proof of their authenticity. Instead, they suggest that these similarities reflect a commonality in human experience—such as birth, sexuality, and death—that transcend specific spiritual or mystical claims.

Historical sources support the skeptics’ view, noting that many alleged abductions by extraterrestrial beings resemble medieval stories of monks and nuns who believed they had been tempted by demons or devils. These monks often thought they were seduced by evil spirits; ancient Greek women claimed to have had sexual encounters with animals; and during later centuries, people accused of witchcraft believed they had been involved in diabolical rituals. The priests and religious authorities of those times, rather than questioning these stories, often encouraged and reinforced them. They did not see these visions as symptoms of mental illness, but as real encounters with supernatural entities. Tragically, many of these supposed victims were subjected to torture, forced confessions, and ultimately execution—burned at the stake or drowned, often with little or no real evidence of their guilt.

Thankfully, modern society does not execute or torture alleged UFO abductees, but skeptics and mainstream science still attempt to diminish their experiences. They often dismiss reports as hallucinations, wishful thinking, deception, or even deliberate fabrications. Some go as far as suggesting that these experiences are the result of psychiatric disorders, particularly delusional or paranoid states. All these tactics serve one purpose: to discredit and destroy the credibility of witnesses and investigators alike, in an effort to dismiss the phenomenon entirely.

The physical evidence cited by some abductees—such as scars or implants—are often ridiculed or outright denied by skeptics, who regard them as mere earthly injuries or artifacts. They dismiss claims of implants as nothing more than mundane objects or surgical souvenirs, lacking any connection to extraterrestrial activity. Even when evidence suggests otherwise, skeptics tend to reject it systematically.

The media’s portrayal of UFOs, abductions, and related phenomena further complicates matters. Their dismissive attitude fosters fear and reluctance among witnesses to come forward publicly. People are often hesitant to share their experiences, fearing ridicule or disbelief from the public or scientific community.

The fundamental goal of skeptical researchers seems to be to find a mundane, terrestrial explanation for all strange phenomena—regardless of the evidence—rather than genuinely seeking the truth. Their aim appears to be the preservation of existing doctrines and beliefs, dismissing any data that contradicts their worldview. Genuine investigators who attempt to understand and help victims by exploring all possible causes are often dismissed as frauds or charlatans. Who, then, truly suffers from a mental health disorder? Is it the individual who reports a strange experience and seeks understanding or the researcher who dismisses their story outright? Or perhaps the skeptic, who refuses to accept any evidence outside their rigid framework?

In conclusion, how we respond to stories of UFO sightings and abductions depends largely on our perspective and willingness to consider the extraordinary as potentially real. While skepticism is healthy and necessary for scientific progress, it must be balanced with empathy and openness to unexplained phenomena. Dismissing witnesses outright or ridiculing their experiences not only undermines the pursuit of truth but also dismisses the suffering and curiosity of those who seek answers. Ultimately, understanding the phenomenon requires an open mind, rigorous investigation, and a respectful acknowledgment of the complex, often baffling experiences individuals report.

10. Decision

In this document, I aim to present a comprehensive and balanced overview of my perspective on the ongoing debate surrounding phenomena that are often labeled as paranormal or esoteric. While I have, at times, used strong language to critique certain skeptics, I encourage a deeper understanding of the underlying issues by referencing the book “Dictionary for a Skeptic.” This publication sheds light on the mindset and methodologies of skeptics who often dismiss extraordinary claims without fully exploring their validity. It is important to distinguish between healthy skepticism—characterized by critical thinking and open-minded investigation—and outright denial or dismissal based on preconceived notions.

I hold respect and understanding for all researchers and investigators, regardless of their viewpoints. As long as their work is conducted with honesty, integrity, and fairness, I support their efforts. Constructive criticism is also valuable, and I believe that scientific progress relies on open dialogue and mutual respect. Fortunately, the days when believers and investigators of extraordinary phenomena had to operate in secrecy or be marginalized by mainstream media are largely behind us. Today, thanks to the internet, blogs, and various online platforms, individuals can freely share their experiences and findings without the fear of ridicule or censorship. This democratization of information has opened new avenues for dialogue and discovery.

However, I am deeply concerned about the role of skeptics who, in my view, engage in a malicious attempt to diminish hope and confidence among ordinary people. Their tactics often involve dismissing practices like acupuncture—an ancient Chinese healing method that has been used for thousands of years—as mere placebo effect. They overlook the historical fact that traditional medicine, including herbal remedies, was once the dominant form of treatment before the advent of modern pharmaceuticals. Similarly, critics tend to reduce homeopathy to a placebo, neglecting its long-standing use and the cultural context in which it developed.

My position is driven by a desire to maintain hope and optimism. I prefer to see myself as a “hopeful believer,” rather than a frustrated skeptic. I believe that our collective quest should be to find common ground—a middle path—where we can study, analyze, and understand these strange phenomena in a logical and scientifically sound manner. Such an approach would allow us to develop solutions and explanations that are acceptable to all, fostering unity rather than division.

Nevertheless, I am aware that the concept of utopia—the perfect world—is perhaps an idealistic dream. It raises the question of whether such perfection is attainable or merely an illusion. Despite this, I remain hopeful that through continued open-minded research and respectful dialogue, we can make meaningful progress. In the end, our shared goal should be to seek truth, understanding, and harmony in exploring the mysteries that surround us, always mindful of the need for critical thinking balanced with an open heart.

This comprehensive overview serves as my formal conclusion, emphasizing the importance of mutual respect, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of knowledge in the ongoing quest to understand phenomena beyond conventional science.

{ peter2011 }

04-06-2025 om 22:50 geschreven door peter  

NASA spacecraft finds solar 'cannonballs' may have stripped Mars of its water — proving 

By Sharmila Kuthunur 

Over the past decade, scientists have gathered mounting evidence that solar wind — the constant stream of ionized particles emitted from the sun — and radiation stripped away much of the Martian atmosphere. Among the most significant mechanisms behind this erosion is a process called sputtering, where high-energy particles from solar wind collide with the planet's upper atmosphere. These collisions, in principle, transfer enough energy to neutral atoms and help break them free from the planet's gravitational pull, flinging them into space.

"It's like doing a cannonball in a pool," Shannon Curry, the principal investigator of the MAVEN mission at the University of Colorado Boulder who led the new study, said in a statement. "The cannonball, in this case, is the heavy ions crashing into the atmosphere really fast and splashing neutral atoms and molecules out."

While sputtering had long been suspected as a key player in Mars' climate evolution, this is the first time the process has been observed directly. Using nine years of data from the MAVEN spacecraft, Curry and her colleagues captured present-day sputtering on Mars.

Related: 

• NASA rover discovers out-of-place 'Skull' on Mars, and scientists are baffled

By combining data from three of MAVEN's instruments, the researchers created a detailed map of argon, a noble gas, in Mars' upper atmosphere. Argon is an ideal tracer for this kind of atmospheric escape because it is chemically inert, heavy, and resistant to becoming charged. This makes it unlikely to interact with other atmospheric processes, meaning any significant loss of argon serves as a clear tracer of sputtering.

Indeed, MAVEN detected the highest concentrations of argon at altitudes where solar wind particles collide with the Martian atmosphere, the new study reports. Its presence was much higher than where scientists would expect it to naturally waft under the planet's gravity, so the findings provide direct evidence that sputtering is actively lifting and removing the molecules from Mars, according to the new study.

This process may even have been the driving force behind the loss of Mars' once-thick atmosphere and, with it, its ability to host liquid water on the surface, the study notes.

MAVEN's data also revealed that this process occurs at a rate four times higher than previously predicted by models, according to the new study. It became more pronounced during solar storms, potentially offering a glimpse into how much more intense the process might have been during Mars' early history when the planet was more vulnerable to the sun's energy.

Scientists suspect this process was especially intense billions of years ago, when the sun was more active and Mars had already lost its protective magnetic field. Without that magnetic shield, the Martian atmosphere was left vulnerable to the full force of the solar wind, accelerating its erosion and pushing the planet past a tipping point where liquid water could no longer persist.

"These results establish sputtering's role in the loss of Mars' atmosphere and in determining the history of water on Mars," Curry said in the statement.

To fully determine whether sputtering was indeed the primary driver of Mars' long-term climate change, scientists will need to peer billions of years into the past using models, isotopic data, and ancient climate clues. Only then can they judge whether sputtering merely grazed the edges of Mars' atmosphere — or stripped it bare.

{ https://www.livescience.com/space }

04-06-2025 om 21:01 geschreven door peter  

 { peter2011 }

04-06-2025 om 20:41 geschreven door peter  

An illustration showing UFOs.

Depositphotos.

{ https://curiosmos.com/category/alien-theories/ }

04-06-2025 om 17:28 geschreven door peter  

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

04-06-2025 om 17:11 geschreven door peter  

June MUFON eNewsletter- with the Monthly Sighting Statistics!

COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD UNITED STATES 342 UNITED KINGDOM 21 AUSTRALIA 20 BRAZIL 13 CANADA 11 FRANCE 8 INDIA 6 IRAN 4 BULGARIA 3 COLOMBIA 3 UKRAINE 2 SLOVAKIA 2 BOLIVIA 2 POLAND 2 GERMANY 2 SOUTH AFRICA 2 FINLAND 2 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2 LEBANON 1 QATAR 1 NAMIBIA 1 VIETNAM 1 FIJI 1 ITALY 1 SUDAN 1 MEXICO 1 ROMANIA 1 AUSTRIA 1 CROATIA 1 INDONESIA 1 NICARAGUA 1 VIRGIN ISLANDS BRITISH 1 KOREA, South) 1 PORTUGAL 1 TURKEY 1 AFGHANISTAN 1 CHILE 1 HUNGARY 1 MOROCCO 1 AZERBAIJAN 1 DENMARK 1 PHILIPPINES 1 SPAIN 1   TOTAL:472 SHAPE Circle 89 Sphere 63 Unknown 36 Star-like 32 Other 30 Oval 28 Disc 23 Triangle 22 Tic Tac 16 Cigar 14 Cylinder 12 Square/Rectangular 9 N/A 9 Boomerang 8 Egg 6 Flash 5 Fireball 5 Diamond 4 Cross 3 Blimp 3 Saturn-like 2 Cone 2 Chevron 2 Bullet/Missile 2 Teardrop 1 STATES OF THE USA California 32 Arizona 31 Florida 30 Texas 23 Michigan 12 New York 12 Ohio 12 Nevada 12 Tennessee 10 Georgia 10 North Carolina 9 Virginia 9 Pennsylvania 9 Arkansas 9 Utah 8 Illinois 8 Missouri 7 New Hampshire 7 Oregon 7 Colorado 6 Minnesota 6 Alabama 6 Washington 6 New Mexico 6 Oklahoma5 New Jersey5 Massachusetts 5 Indiana 4 Wisconsin 4 Kentucky 4 South Carolina 3 Kansas 3 Mississippi 3 Louisiana 3 Iowa 2 North Dakota 2 Maine 2 Maryland 2 Rhode Island 2 West Virginia 2 Connecticut 1 Delaware 1 Vermont 1 Idaho 1 DISTANCE < 100 ft 58 101-500 Ft 44 501 ft - 1 Mile 72 Over 1 Mile 84 Unknown 71 NO VALUE 54 ERT Most impressively there were 8 Landings, Hovering, or Takeoffs reported, and 29 Entities observed.

 { https://mufon.com/ }

04-06-2025 om 16:50 geschreven door peter  

03-06-2025 om 23:48 geschreven door peter  

KOMEN UFO's (USOs) van Onderwater Basissen? Het Verkennen van het Mysterie

INLEIDING

In de afgelopen decennia hebben getuigenissen en waarnemingen met betrekking tot onverklaarbare vliegende objecten (UFO's) en onderwaterverschijnselen (USOs) de belangstelling van zowel het grote publiek als de wetenschappelijke gemeenschap versterkt. Hoewel het merendeel van deze waarnemingen kunnen worden verklaard door menselijke technologie, natuurlijke fenomenen of interpretatiefouten, blijven er gevallen over die moeilijk te verklaren zijn. Een bijzonder intrigerende hypothese is dat sommige USOs mogelijk afkomstig zijn uit geheime ondergrondse of onderwaterbases, gebouwd door intelligente wezens of clandestiene regeringsprojecten.

Deze theorie roept vragen op over de herkomst, aard en doelstellingen van deze objecten, evenals de mogelijkheid dat er onder de zeespiegel verborgen faciliteiten bestaan. Het idee dat dergelijke bases bestaan, wordt ondersteund door verschillende anekdotes, waarnemingen en bepaalde wetenschappelijke aanwijzingen, hoewel het bewijs vaak fragmentarisch en controversieel blijft.

In dit artikel wordt de plausibiliteit van deze theorie onderzocht door een analyse van bestaande literatuur, waarnemingen en wetenschappelijke inzichten. Door kritisch te kijken naar de verschillende aspecten van USOs en de mogelijke connectie met onderwaterbases, hopen we een genuanceerd beeld te schetsen van een fascinerend en mysterieus fenomeen dat nog niet volledig is verklaard.

1. Definities en Terminologie

1.1 UFO's en USOs
UFO’s, ofwel Unidentified Flying Objects, verwijzen naar objecten die in de lucht worden waargenomen en niet onmiddellijk verklaard kunnen worden door bekende technologie of natuurlijke fenomenen. Het begrip ‘onbekend’ betekent dat op dat moment geen directe identificatie mogelijk is, maar het sluit niet uit dat later een verklaring gevonden kan worden. In de praktijk omvatten UFO-waarnemingen een breed scala aan verschijnselen, van eenvoudige lichtgevende vlekken tot complexe objecten die snelheden en manoeuvres vertonen die voor menselijke technologie onmogelijk lijken te zijn. Zo zijn er talloze rapportages van objecten die met grote snelheden bewegen, abrupt van koers veranderen, of zonder zichtbare aandrijving verdwijnen (Dolan, 2009).

De meeste waarnemingen blijven onverklaard en worden vaak door wetenschappers, overheden en onderzoekers serieus genomen. Bijvoorbeeld, de Amerikaanse overheid heeft de afgelopen decennia verschillende projecten gelanceerd, zoals het Project Blue Book in de jaren 50 en 60, waarin duizenden UFO-rapportages systematisch werden onderzocht. Hoewel de meeste waarnemingen uiteindelijk konden worden verklaard door natuurlijke verschijnselen of menselijke activiteiten, blijven enkele gevallen onverklaard en voeden ze de speculatie over buitenaardse intelligentie.

USOs (Unidentified Submarine Objects) vormen de onderwatervariant van UFO’s. In tegenstelling tot de luchtwaarnemingen vinden USO-waarnemingen plaats onder water, meestal bij militaire operaties of onderwateronderzoek. Deze objecten worden vaak gerapporteerd door duikers, onderzeediensten en maritieme onderzoekers. USOs kunnen zich bewegen met uitzonderlijke snelheden onder water, snel van koers veranderen en verdwijnen onder de oppervlakte zonder dat op dat moment een duidelijke verklaring gevonden wordt. Het bijzondere aan USOs is dat de onderwateromgeving veel minder goed bestudeerd is dan de atmosfeer, waardoor er meer ruimte is voor speculatie en mysterie rondom deze verschijnselen (Haines & O'Connell, 2008).

Een bekend voorbeeld van een USO-waarneming is die van de Amerikaanse marine in 2019, toen piloten van de USS Omaha een object zagen dat zich onder water snel kon bewegen, met een snelheid die niet overeenkwam met bekende onderwatertechnologie. Dit soort incidenten roept vragen op over de aard en herkomst van deze verschijnselen en of ze mogelijk natuurlijke, menselijke of buitenaardse oorsprong hebben.

1.2 Onderwater bases en hun hypothese
De hypothese dat USOs afkomstig kunnen zijn uit onderwater bases is een van de meest fascinerende en controversiële theorieën binnen de ufologie. Deze theorie suggereert dat er geheime faciliteiten onder de zeespiegel bestaan, mogelijk gebouwd door menselijke regeringen, geheime genootschappen, of zelfs buitenaardse wezens. Deze bases zouden strategisch gelegen kunnen zijn in diepzee-gebieden, ver weg van menselijke controle en observatie, en dienen als schuilplaatsen of onderzoeksfaciliteiten voor geavanceerde technologieën.

Volgens deze hypothese beschikken deze onderwater bases over technologieën die het mogelijk maken om objecten te laten verdwijnen, te manoeuvreren op manieren die voor menselijke schepen onmogelijk zijn, en zelfs te communiceren met of te faciliteren voor buitenaardse wezens. Sommige theorieën stellen dat deze bases gebruik maken van natuurlijke geologische formaties, zoals onderzeese bergen of grottenstelsels, die moeilijk te detecteren zijn.

Een voorbeeld van de hypothese van onderwater bases is de vermeende aanwezigheid van zogenaamde ‘Black Projects’, geheime militaire projecten die zich bezighouden met het ontwikkelen van antizwaartekrachttechnologie en onderwatervaardigheden. Daarnaast zijn er geruchten over onderwater bases die verbonden zouden zijn met de zogenaamde ‘Deep Underground Military Bases’ (DUMBs), waar geavanceerde technologieën worden ontwikkeld en getest. Wetenschappers en onderzoekers die zich bezighouden met deze theorieën wijzen op het gebrek aan openlijke bewijs, maar benadrukken dat de uitgebreide militaire activiteit onder water en ondergrond mogelijk in overeenstemming is met dergelijke geheime faciliteiten.

De hypothese wordt ondersteund door enkele anekdotische rapportages en getuigenissen van marinepersoneel dat geheime ontmoetingen en waarnemingen heeft gedaan. Bijvoorbeeld, in 1980 meldde een Russische onderzeebootkapitein dat hij onderwaterbases had waargenomen die niet konden worden verklaard door bekende technologie. Het ontbreken van open data en het geheime karakter van militaire operaties maken het echter onmogelijk om definitief bewijs te leveren, waardoor deze theorie vooral in de sfeer van de speculatie blijft.

1.3. Wetenschappelijke inzichten en kritische beschouwing
Hoewel de ideeën over onderwater bases en USO-verschijnselen intrigerend zijn, ontbreekt het vooralsnog aan sluitend wetenschappelijk bewijs. Veel waarnemingen kunnen achteraf worden verklaard door natuurlijke fenomenen zoals thermale waterstromingen, bioluminescente organismen of atmosferische verschijnselen. Daarnaast wijst de wetenschap erop dat technologieën die objecten onder water laten verdwijnen of snel laten bewegen, voor zover bekend, niet bestaan of nog niet ontwikkeld zijn.

Desalniettemin blijven de waarnemingen en rapportages een fascinerend fenomeen voor onderzoekers en liefhebbers. Ze illustreren de enorme complexiteit en het mysterie van de oceanen en de atmosfeer, en benadrukken de noodzaak voor meer wetenschappelijk onderzoek onder water en in de ruimte. Sommige wetenschappers pleiten voor een meer open en transparante aanpak van UFO- en USO-onderzoeken, zodat we niet alleen kunnen begrijpen wat er in de lucht en onder water gebeurt, maar ook de grenzen van menselijke technologie kunnen doorgronden.

Geraint Rowland Photography//Getty Images

2. Historische context en waarnemingen

2.1 Historische waarnemingen van USOs
Sinds het begin van de 20e eeuw zijn er talloze rapporten en incidenten bekend waarbij onverklaarbare onderwaterverschijnselen, vaak aangeduid als USO’s (Unidentified Submarine Objects), werden waargenomen. Deze waarnemingen komen meestal van militaire schepen, onderzeeboten en gespecialiseerde onderwateronderzoekers. Een van de meest bekende incidenten vond plaats in de jaren 1970, toen de Amerikaanse marine tijdens oefeningen voor de kust van Californië vreemde onderwaterobjecten zag die zich met hoge snelheid door het water bewogen en zich plotseling konden laten verdwijnen. Deze verschijnselen werden door militaire piloten en scheepsbemanningen als zeer overtuigend beschreven en leidden tot intensieve onderzoeken door de US Navy (U.S. Navy, 2019).

Een ander opvallend geval betrof de USS Indianapolis, die tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in 1945 werd ingezet. Sommige getuigenissen uit die periode beschrijven onderwaterverschijnselen die niet door de toenmalige technologie konden worden verklaard. Zo werden objecten beschreven die enorme snelheden konden behalen onder water, veel hoger dan de bekende onderzeetechnologie uit die tijd. Bovendien zouden deze objecten abrupt van koers kunnen veranderen, wat de technologische beperkingen van destijds overschreed. Wetenschappers en historici speculeren dat deze waarnemingen mogelijk verband houden met niet-geïdentificeerde technologieën die ver vooruit waren op dat moment (Friedman, 2014).

Daarnaast zijn er uitgebreide rapportages van de Russische marine uit de jaren 1980 en 1990, waarin meldingen worden gedaan over mysterieuze onderwaterobjecten die niet konden worden geïdentificeerd. Deze incidenten werden zelden publiekelijk erkend, maar militaire bronnen en geheime rapporten bevestigen dat Russische onderzeediensten soortgelijke verschijnselen observeerden die niet overeenkwamen met bekende onderzeetechnologie. Sommige van deze waarnemingen beschreven objecten die snelheden bereikten die de limieten van bekende onderwatersystemen overstegen en zich met grote precisie konden manoeuvreren (Skripkin, 2010).

2.2 Politieke en militaire interesse
De waarnemingen van USOs hebben altijd grote politieke en militaire interesse gewekt. Overheden, vooral die van de Verenigde Staten, Rusland en andere grote mogendheden, hebben door de jaren heen uitgebreide onderzoeken uitgevoerd om de aard en oorsprong van deze verschijnselen te achterhalen. Het hoofdargument was dat deze objecten mogelijk afkomstig zouden kunnen zijn van geheime militaire technologieën, zoals onderwaterdrones, geavanceerde onderzeese voertuigen of zelfs nieuwe vormen van onderwaterwapens. Gezien de potentiële bedreiging voor nationale veiligheid werden deze waarnemingen intensief onderzocht door militaire en inlichtingendiensten.

In 2019 publiceerde het Pentagon een reeks videobeelden die waren gemaakt door radar- en videocliptechnologie van militaire piloten en schepen. Deze beelden toonden onverklaarbare onderwater- en luchtsverschijnselen die niet konden worden verklaard door bekende technologieën of natuurlijke fenomenen. De beelden leidden tot een hernieuwde discussie over de aard en herkomst van USOs en brachten vragen naar voren of deze verschijnselen mogelijk buitenaardse oorsprong hadden of dat ze door geheime technologieën van aardse makelij waren ontwikkeld (Pentagon, 2020).

Deze transparantie stimuleerde verder wetenschappelijk onderzoek en beleidsmatige discussies over de noodzaak om meer gegevens te verzamelen en te analyseren. Het blijft een open vraag of deze verschijnselen een bedreiging vormen of dat ze mogelijk nieuwe technologische inzichten bieden voor de mensheid. De voortdurende interesse en het onderzoek onderstrepen het belang van een grondige en kritische wetenschappelijke aanpak om de ware aard van USOs te achterhalen.

3. Wetenschappelijke verklaringen en theorieën

3.1 Natuurlijke fenomenen en menselijke technologie

Veel waarnemingen kunnen worden verklaard door natuurlijke verschijnselen. Onderwater vulkanen en hydrothermale bronnen kunnen bijvoorbeeld lichtgevende verschijnselen veroorzaken die lijken op UFO’s of USOs. Bioluminescente organismen, zoals bepaalde diepzeevissen, kunnen licht produceren dat op vliegende objecten lijkt, vooral in donker diepe wateren (Mikulski & O’Connell, 2013).

Daarnaast kunnen geheime militaire technologieën, zoals onderwater drones, autonome onderzeeboten en geavanceerde submarines, de waarnemingen verklaren. Tijdens de Koude Oorlog ontwikkelden de Verenigde Staten en de Sovjet-Unie geavanceerde onderzeese voertuigen die in staat waren om grote diepten te bereiken en zeer hoge snelheden te behalen. Sommige waarnemingen zouden kunnen wijzen op deze geheime technologieën die nog niet publiekelijk bekend zijn (Friedman, 2014).

3.2 Buitenaardse hypotheses

Sommige onderzoekers suggereren dat USOs mogelijk buitenaardse in oorsprong zijn. Volgens deze theorieën maken deze objecten gebruik van onderwater basisstructuren op aarde of in de buurt van de oceaanbodem om zich te verplaatsen, te observeren of te communiceren. De diepe oceaan wordt gezien als een ideale locatie voor buitenaardse wezens om zich te verbergen, vanwege de moeilijkheid om ze te detecteren en te volgen (Hynek, 1972).

Getuigenissen van militairen en duikers die objecten met buitengewone manoeuvres beschrijven, worden door sommige wetenschappers geïnterpreteerd als bewijs voor buitenaardse technologie die zich onder water manifesteert. Sommige waarnemingen wijzen op technologie die niet overeenkomt met menselijke capaciteiten, zoals de mogelijkheid om snel te manoeuvreren, abrupt van richting te veranderen en op indrukwekkende snelheden te bewegen, zelfs onder extreme druk en in de donkere diepten van de oceaan. Deze waarnemingen roepen vragen op over de aard en oorsprong van deze objecten, en of ze mogelijk buitenaards van oorsprong zijn.

Onderwater-UFO's vertonen vermogen dat de Amerikaanse maritieme veiligheid in gevaar brengt, zegt voormalig marineofficier
foxnews.com

3.2.1.De theorie van buitenaardse oorsprong van USOs

Sommige onderzoekers stellen dat onderwater onbekende objecten (USOs) niet zomaar natuurlijke verschijnselen of menselijke technologieën kunnen zijn, maar dat ze mogelijk buitenaardse voertuigen zijn die zich onder water bevinden. Volgens deze hypotheses maken deze objecten gebruik van natuurlijke onderwaterstructuren, zoals zeegrotten, onderwater vulkanen of thermale bronnen, om zich te verbergen en te bewegen. Deze locaties bieden strategische voordelen voor wezens die niet door menselijke instrumenten kunnen worden ontdekt of gevolgd.

Een belangrijk argument voor deze theorie is dat de diepe oceaan nog altijd grotendeels onontgonnen terrein is. Volgens Hynek (1972) en andere onderzoekers is de oceaan de ultieme schuilplaats voor buitenaardse wezens, omdat het voor menselijke waarnemers bijna onmogelijk is om volledige controle en detectie te verkrijgen in deze extreme omgeving. De enorme diepten en de complexiteit van onderwaterstructuren maken het mogelijk voor objecten om zich te verbergen voor observaties, terwijl ze toch in staat zijn om te bewegen en te observeren.

3.2.2. Getuigenissen en waarnemingen

Verschillende getuigenissen van militairen, duikers en luchtverkeersleiders ondersteunen de hypothese dat USOs mogelijk buitenaards van oorsprong zijn. In sommige gevallen beschrijven getuigen objecten die zich onder water bewegen met manoeuvres die geen overeenstemming tonen met menselijke technologieën. Bijvoorbeeld, sommige getuigenissen beschrijven objecten die plotseling van snelheid veranderen, onder water draaien of verdwijnen, en dat alles zonder enige zichtbare aandrijving.

Een bekend voorbeeld is een incident uit de jaren 1980 waarbij een Amerikaanse marinevaartuig meldde dat een onbekend object met snelheid onder water bewoog en zich daarna plotseling uit de oceaan verdween. Dit soort waarnemingen worden door onderzoekers geïnterpreteerd als bewijs dat deze objecten mogelijk gebruik maken van technologieën die buiten ons huidige begrip liggen, en dat ze mogelijk buitenaardse oorsprong hebben.

3.2.3. Technologie die menselijke capaciteiten overstijgt

Wat deze waarnemingen bijzonder maken, is dat de waargenomen manoeuvres en snelheden niet overeenkomen met de huidige menselijke technologie. Bijvoorbeeld, het is onmogelijk voor menselijke onderwatervaartuigen om snel van richting te veranderen op de manier die sommige getuigen beschrijven, vooral op grote diepten waar de druk en de beperkingen van de technologie het moeilijk maken om dergelijke bewegingen uit te voeren.

Sommige onderzoekers suggereren dat deze objecten beschikken over technologie die gebruikmaakt van onbekende fysische principes, zoals antizwaartekracht of andere vormen van geavanceerde energieën die nog niet door de wetenschap zijn ontdekt. Deze hypothese wordt ondersteund door observaties van objecten die plotseling snelheden bereiken die de limieten van menselijke technologie ver overschrijden, en die zich in een manier bewegen die onmogelijk lijkt voor conventionele onderwater- of luchtvaartuigen.

3.3.De rol van de diepe oceaan als schuilplaats

De diepe oceaan wordt vaak genoemd als een ideale locatie voor buitenaardse wezens om zich te verbergen en te opereren. Deze regio's zijn moeilijk te verkennen en te monitoren, en bieden talloze onderwaterstructuren en natuurlijke fenomenen die als dekmantel kunnen dienen. Thermale bronnen, onderwater grotten en vulkanische gebieden vormen natuurlijke schuilplaatsen die moeilijk te detecteren en te volgen maken.

Bovendien is het mogelijk dat buitenaardse wezens gebruik maken van onderwaterbasisstructuren die zich bevinden op de oceaanbodem of in de buurt van geologische activiteit. Volgens sommige hypothesen kunnen deze basisstructuren zich bevinden op plekken waar menselijke technologieën nog niet kunnen komen, waardoor ze perfect verborgen blijven voor onze observaties.

3.4. Wetenschappelijke uitdagingen en skeptische standpunten

Ondanks de fascinerende getuigenissen en waarnemingen, blijft de hypothese dat USOs buitenaards van oorsprong zijn, controversieel. Veel wetenschappers wijzen op het gebrek aan concreet bewijs en benadrukken dat natuurlijke verklaringen, zoals natuurlijke verschijnselen (bijvoorbeeld bioluminescente organismen, onderwaterexplosies of atmosferische fenomenen), vaak over het hoofd worden gezien of ondergewaardeerd.

Daarnaast is het technisch gezien nog steeds een grote uitdaging om te bewijzen dat deze objecten niet menselijke of natuurlijke oorsprong hebben, vooral omdat de diepe oceaan moeilijk te onderzoeken is en veel gegevens nog altijd niet beschikbaar zijn. Skeptici stellen dat waarnemingen vaak kunnen worden verklaard door misinterpretaties, optische illusies of verrassende maar natuurlijke verschijnselen.

3.5. Conclusie

De theorie dat USOs mogelijk buitenaardse voertuigen zijn die zich onder water bevinden, wordt ondersteund door getuigenissen, waarnemingen en de onmogelijkheid om bepaalde manoeuvres met menselijke technologie te reproduceren. De diepe oceaan vormt een natuurlijke schuilplaats voor deze objecten, waardoor het voor onderzoekers moeilijk is om definitief bewijs te verkrijgen. Hoewel er nog geen sluitend wetenschappelijk bewijs is dat deze objecten buitenaards van oorsprong zijn, blijft de mogelijkheid bestaan dat sommige waarnemingen wijzen op technologieën die onze huidige wetenschap overstijgen.

Het bestuderen van deze verschijnselen vereist verdere onderwateronderzoeken en het ontwikkelen van nieuwe technologische methoden om de diepe oceaan en de mysterieuze objecten die daarin worden waargenomen te verkennen. Het blijft een fascinerend en intrigerend gebied dat de grenzen van onze kennis uitdaagt en mogelijk nieuwe inzichten biedt over de aanwezigheid van buitenaardse levensvormen en hun technologische capaciteiten.

De vraag of onderwater bases kunnen dienen als herkomst voor onidentificeerbare onderwater objecten (USOs) is een complex en intrigerend onderwerp. Het wordt ondersteund door verschillende technologische, strategische en geopolitieke overwegingen. In dit hoofdstuk wordt de plausibiliteit hiervan geanalyseerd door te kijken naar de technologische haalbaarheid, de bestaande infrastructuur, toekomstige innovaties en de strategische belangen die hierbij een rol spelen.

4.1 Technologische haalbaarheid

4.1.1 Huidige technologische staat en bestaande onderwaterfaciliteiten

Het bouwen en onderhouden van onderwater bases op grote diepten vereist geavanceerde technologieën die momenteel nog in ontwikkeling zijn of geheim worden gehouden. Toch zijn er al enkele voorbeelden van onderzeese faciliteiten die aantonen dat langdurige menselijke aanwezigheid onder water mogelijk is. Zo kennen we het Amerikaanse project “SeaLab,” dat in de jaren 1960 en 1970 functioneerde op relatief beperkte diepten, en de Russische onderzeese basis “Nerpa,” die vooral voor militaire doeleinden wordt gebruikt. Deze voorbeelden tonen aan dat het technisch mogelijk is om onderzeese bases te bouwen, maar vooral op beperkte diepten en voor korte tot middellange termijn.

Het realiseren van onderwater bases op grote diepten, bijvoorbeeld dieper dan 1.000 meter, brengt echter aanzienlijk grotere uitdagingen met zich mee. De enorme waterdruk op dergelijke diepten, die kan oplopen tot meer dan 1000 bar, vereist de ontwikkeling van structures die bestand zijn tegen extreme krachten. Daarnaast spelen lage temperaturen, afwezigheid van natuurlijk licht en corrosieve omstandigheden een grote rol bij de keuze van materialen en constructietechnieken. Tot op heden zijn er geen publieke voorbeelden van langdurige onderwater bases op deze grote diepten, maar de recente ontwikkelingen in onderwatertechnologie geven reden tot optimisme dat dit in de toekomst mogelijk wordt.

4.1.2 Levensonderhoud en zelfvoorzienendheid

Een ander belangrijk aspect is de levensduur en zelfvoorzienendheid van onderwater bases. Voor langdurige operaties onder water moeten bases beschikken over systemen voor energieproductie, waterrecycling, voedselvoorziening en afvalbeheer. Moderne technieken zoals onderwater nucleaire reactoren, die al worden ontwikkeld voor onderzeese en ruimtevaarttoepassingen, zouden in de toekomst kunnen voorzien in een duurzame energievoorziening. Ook kunnen geavanceerde energieopslag systemen, zoals krachtige accu’s en waterstoftechnologieën, bijdragen aan de zelfvoorzienendheid.

Daarnaast is de inzet van autonome robots en drones van groot belang voor het onderhoud en de verkenning van deze bases. Deze technologieën verminderen de noodzaak voor permanente menselijke aanwezigheid en maken het mogelijk om grote delen van de infrastructuur op afstand te beheren. Bijvoorbeeld, de ontwikkeling van autonome onderwaterschepen zoals de Amerikaanse “Sea Hunter” – een vaartuig dat onderwater operaties kan uitvoeren zonder bemanning – illustreert de vooruitgang op dit gebied.

4.1.3 Innovaties en toekomstige technologische ontwikkelingen

De technologische uitdagingen voor het bouwen van grote, duurzame onderwater bases blijven groot, maar innovaties in materialen, constructietechnieken en robotica bieden perspectief. Zo wordt er gewerkt aan 3D-printen onder water, waarmee complexe structuren snel en efficiënt kunnen worden vervaardigd. Modulaire constructies maken het mogelijk om bases uit verschillende onderdelen samen te stellen en aan te passen, afhankelijk van de behoeften en omstandigheden.

Daarnaast worden nieuwe materialen ontwikkeld die beter bestand zijn tegen corrosie, hoge druk en lage temperaturen. Combinaties van lichtgewicht, sterke composieten en zelfhelende materialen kunnen de levensduur en stabiliteit van onderwater structuren aanzienlijk verbeteren. Het potentieel van dergelijke innovaties geeft aan dat het technisch mogelijk wordt om onderwater bases op grote diepten te realiseren, mits de juiste investeringen en onderzoeksinspanningen worden gedaan.

4.2 Strategische en geopolitieke overwegingen

4.2.1 Geheimhouding en militaire belangen

Veel van de technologieën en infrastructuren die nodig zijn voor onderwater bases worden waarschijnlijk in het geheim ontwikkeld. Militaire en strategische belangen spelen hierbij een grote rol, aangezien onderzeese bases strategische voordelen kunnen bieden voor spionage, communicatie en defensie. Het is mogelijk dat bepaalde onderzeese bases voor geheime doeleinden worden gebruikt, en dat hun bestaan niet publiekelijk bekend is.

Deze geheime bases kunnen dienen als herkomst voor USOs, vooral als ze uitgerust zijn met geavanceerde technologieën en goed beveiligde infrastructuren. Het feit dat veel militaire operaties onderwater niet onmiddellijk zichtbaar zijn, versterkt de plausibiliteit dat dergelijke bases bestaan en mogelijk worden gebruikt voor het testen en lanceren van USOs.

4.2.2 Mobiliseerbare en semi-permanente structuren

Een andere strategische overweging is dat onderwater bases niet per se permanent hoeven te zijn. Mobiliseerbare en semi-permanente structuren kunnen snel worden verplaatst of aangepast, afhankelijk van de behoeften en omstandigheden. Modulaire constructies en onderwaterdrijvende platforms maken het mogelijk om bases te herplaatsen of te herstructureren zonder grote infrastructurele veranderingen.

Dit biedt niet alleen strategische flexibiliteit, maar vermindert ook de kosten en risico's verbonden aan langdurige constructies op één locatie. Het gebruik van dergelijke structuren versterkt de plausibiliteit dat onderwater bases kunnen bestaan als herkomstlocaties voor USOs, zonder dat deze permanent en zichtbaar aanwezig hoeven te zijn.

4.3 Conclusie

Hoewel er aanzienlijke technologische uitdagingen zijn, wijzen de bestaande voorbeelden, de voortdurende innovaties en de geheime militaire ontwikkelingen erop dat onderwater bases op grote diepten technisch mogelijk en strategisch aantrekkelijk kunnen zijn. Ze zouden als herkomstlocaties voor USOs kunnen fungeren, vooral gezien hun strategisch voordeel, de moeilijkheid om ze te detecteren en de mogelijkheid tot zelfvoorzienendheid.

De combinatie van geavanceerde materialen, autonome robots, modulaire structuren en geheime militaire projecten maakt het plausibel dat dergelijke onderwater bases bestaan en worden gebruikt voor diverse doeleinden, inclusief het testen en lanceren van USOs. Hoewel het bewijs nog beperkt is en veel details in de duisternis blijven, blijft de technologische en strategische haalbaarheid een sterk argument voor de plausibiliteit van deze hypothese.

Kortom, de ontwikkeling en het bestaan van grote, geheime onderwater bases als herkomst voor USOs kunnen niet volledig worden uitgesloten. Ze vormen een intrigerend mogelijk verklaringsmodel dat verdere aandacht en onderzoek verdient.

5. De buitenaardse hypothese voor onderwater basissen

De hypothese dat buitenaards leven bestaat, is een van de meest intrigerende en controversiële onderwerpen binnen de wetenschap en de populaire cultuur. Deze theorie stelt dat intelligent buitenaards leven niet alleen mogelijk, maar ook daadwerkelijk aanwezig is op of in de buurt van onze planeet. Het verkennen van deze hypothese vereist een gestructureerde benadering, waarbij we kijken naar de bewijzen, de mogelijke locaties, en de implicaties.

5.1. Bewijs en argumenten voor de buitenaardse hypothese

Tot op heden is er geen sluitend wetenschappelijk bewijs dat buitenaards leven op Aarde aanwezig is geweest of nog bestaat. Echter, verschillende observaties en anekdotische rapporten worden door voorstanders aangevoerd als indicaties dat er mogelijk iets onverklaarbaars speelt. Bijvoorbeeld, fenomenen zoals UFO’s (Unidentified Flying Objects) worden door sommige waarnemers geïnterpreteerd als mogelijke buitenaardse voertuigen. Hoewel de meeste UFO-waarnemingen inmiddels kunnen worden verklaard door natuurlijke fenomenen, menselijke fouten of militaire experimenten, blijven een aantal incidenten onduidelijk en worden ze door sommige onderzoekers geïnterpreteerd als bewijs dat er meer aan de hand is.

Daarnaast wijzen astronomische ontdekkingen op de aanwezigheid van exoplaneten in de "bewoonbare zone" van andere sterrenstelsels, wat de plausibiliteit verhoogt dat leven elders in het universum ontstaan kan zijn. Onderzoek door bijvoorbeeld de NASA’s Kepler- en TESS-missies heeft duizenden exoplaneten geïdentificeerd, waarvan een aantal zich in de leefbare zone bevinden, waar vloeibaar water mogelijk aanwezig is. Wetenschappers zoals astrobioloog Sara Seager benadrukken dat de kans op het bestaan van leven buiten de aarde niet verwaarloosbaar is, vooral omdat het universum meer dan 100 miljard sterrenstelsels bevat.

Ook wordt er onderzoek gedaan naar extremofielen – organismen die onder extreme omstandigheden overleven, zoals in diepzee-venten, onder ijs of in zure zwavelbaden. Deze bevindingen breken met de oude opvatting dat leven alleen onder milde omstandigheden kan bestaan en vergroten de mogelijkheid dat buitenaards leven zich in totaal verschillende omgevingen kan ontwikkelen, inclusief onderwater basissen op andere planeten of manen.

5.2. Mogelijke locaties en manieren van aanwezigheid

Volgens de hypothese kunnen buitenaardse wezens zich op verschillende manieren en op diverse locaties op Aarde hebben geïntroduceerd. Twee hoofdscenario’s worden vaak besproken.

5.2.1. Indringers van buitenaardse beschavingen:

In dit scenario zouden buitenaardse wezens ons systeem bezoeken en mogelijk zelfs clandestien in onze samenleving aanwezig zijn. Dit wordt vaak gekoppeld aan de theorie van geheime bases, zoals die op de maan of op andere planeten in ons zonnestelsel, waarvan beweerd wordt dat ze door buitenaardse wezens worden gebruikt. Voorbeelden die in de populariteit blijven, zijn de zogenaamde "Roswell-incident" uit 1947, waar een vermeend neergestort UFO werd gevonden, en de vermeende geheime bases in de Antarctis, waar volgens theorieën buitenaardse technologiëen zouden worden bewaard.

Bovendien worden er geruchten verspreid dat bepaalde high-tech militaire installaties, zoals de Amerikaanse "Area 51", geheime technologie en mogelijk buitenaardse artefacten herbergen. Hoewel de officiële verklaringen meestal militaire experimenten of geheime projecten betreffen, blijven complottheorieën over buitenaardse betrokkenheid populair.

5.2.2. Langdurige aanwezigheid of contact:

Een andere theorie stelt dat buitenaardse vormen van leven al eeuwenlang onze cultuur beïnvloeden, bijvoorbeeld via oude mythes, monumenten of mysterieuze artefacten. Sommige onderzoekers denken dat mysterieuze structuren zoals de piramides van Egypte, Stonehenge of de Nazca-lijnen mogelijk bewijs zijn van buitenaardse interactie of invloed.

Daarnaast suggereren theorieën dat buitenaardse wezens zich bewust of onbewust mengen in ons dagelijks leven. Bijvoorbeeld, sommige getuigenissen verwijzen naar "zieleachtige" verschijningen of ontmoetingen die mogelijk verband houden met buitenaardse entiteiten die zich onder de mensen bevinden. Hoewel deze verhalen moeilijk te verifiëren zijn, wekken ze interesse en worden ze gebruikt om de hypothese te ondersteunen.

5.3. Kritiek en scepsis

De buitenaardse hypothese wordt niet algemeen ondersteund door de wetenschappelijke gemeenschap, voornamelijk vanwege het gebrek aan concreet bewijs en de mogelijkheid van alternatieve verklaringen voor waarnemingen en anomalieën. Veel waarnemingen kunnen worden toegeschreven aan natuurlijke fenomenen, menselijke fouten, of geheime militaire activiteiten. Bijvoorbeeld, ballonnen, weersverschijnselen, en optische illusies kunnen vaak UFO-waarnemingen verklaren.

Daarnaast wijst de wetenschap op het belang van falsifieerbaarheid; een hypothese moet getest kunnen worden en weerlegd kunnen worden. Omdat buitenaardse aanwezigheid op Aarde niet op een empirisch verifieerbare manier kan worden bevestigd of weerlegd, blijft het een hypothese die vooral in het domein van speculatie en pseudowetenschap valt.

Toch blijven onderzoekers, zoals de SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), zoeken naar tekenen van buitenaardse intelligentie via radio- en lichtsignalen, met de hoop dat toekomstige technologische ontwikkelingen meer duidelijkheid kunnen brengen. Het is belangrijk om een kritische houding te handhaven en niet te snel conclusies te trekken zonder voldoende bewijs.

Samengevat: hoewel de buitenaardse hypothese intrigerend en populair is, blijft het wetenschappelijk gezien een onderwerp van speculatie. Het onderzoek gaat door, en nieuwe ontdekkingen in astrobiologie en astronomisch onderzoek kunnen mogelijk in de toekomst meer licht werpen op de vraag of wij werkelijk niet alleen zijn in het universum.

Gallaudet zei ook dat deze "grote verlichte vaartuigen" misschien schuilgaan in de onontdekte diepten van onze oceanen

6. Wetenschappelijke kijk en sceptische benadering

De wetenschappelijke aanpak ten opzichte van de buitenaardse hypothese is sterk gebaseerd op kritisch denken, bewijs en falsifieerbaarheid. Wetenschappers benaderen onbekende fenomenen met een gezonde dosis scepsis, wat betekent dat ze eerst zoeken naar natuurlijke of menselijke oorzaken voordat ze buitenaardse verklaringen overwegen. Deze houding zorgt ervoor dat de wetenschap zich ontwikkelt op basis van objectieve waarnemingen en verantwoorde interpretaties, in tegenstelling tot speculatie en ongefundeerde aannames.

6.1. Kritisch onderzoeken en bewijzen

Wetenschap vereist dat claims worden ondersteund door herhaalbare en verificabele bewijzen. Wat betreft buitenaards leven betekent dit dat onderzoekers zoeken naar fysische, biochemische of astronomische bewijzen die een buitenaardse oorsprong kunnen bevestigen. Bijvoorbeeld, de detectie van buitenaardse signalen via radio-astronomie, zoals in het SETI-project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), kan een indicatie zijn van intelligent buitenaards leven. Daarnaast kunnen onverklaarbare emissies van exoplaneten of anomalieën in de kosmische achtergrondstraling aanwijzingen bieden. Een bekend voorbeeld is de waarneming van de 'Wow!-signaal' in 1977, dat korte tijd als potentiële buitenaardse communicatie werd beschouwd, maar nooit met zekerheid kon worden bevestigd. Wetenschappers zoeken ook naar biosignaturen, zoals specifieke chemische samenstellingen in de atmosfeer van een planeet die wijzen op biologische activiteit, bijvoorbeeld zuurstof of methaan in een exoplaneet.

6.2. Het belang van falsifieerbaarheid

Een fundamenteel principe in de wetenschap is dat hypotheses falsifieerbaar moeten zijn, dat wil zeggen dat er een manier moet bestaan om ze te weerleggen. De buitenaardse hypothese is moeilijk te falsifiëren omdat het bewijs vaak anekdotisch of interpretatief is, en omdat buitenaardse contacten mogelijk buiten ons bereik en begrip liggen. Bijvoorbeeld, het enige bewijs dat vaak wordt aangevoerd, zijn waarnemingen van onverklaarbare objecten of fenomenen die niet gemakkelijk te verklaren zijn door natuurlijke oorzaken. Echter, zonder concrete testbare voorspellingen blijft de hypothese moeilijk te weerleggen of te bevestigen, waardoor het een uitdaging vormt voor de wetenschappelijke methode. Een voorbeeld hiervan is de vermeende aanwezigheid van UFO’s, die vaak worden toegeschreven aan buitenaardse schepen, maar die meestal kunnen worden verklaard door natuurlijke of menselijke oorzaken zoals weersverschijnselen, vliegtuig- of satellietverkeer.

6.3. Het risico van pseudowetenschap

Veel claims over buitenaards leven en geheime bases worden als pseudowetenschap beschouwd omdat ze vaak niet kunnen worden getest of weerlegd. Pseudowetenschap kenmerkt zich door het ontbreken van falsifieerbare hypotheses, het gebruik van anekdotisch bewijs en het ontbreken van een wetenschappelijke methodiek. Een voorbeeld is het idee van geheime bases op de maan of onder de grond, dat vaak gebaseerd is op vermeende getuigenissen en interpretaties die niet door empirisch bewijs worden ondersteund. Het is daarom cruciaal dat wetenschappers zich baseren op bewijs dat objectief kan worden geëvalueerd en dat ze openstaan voor verschillende verklaringen. De wetenschappelijke gemeenschap waarschuwt voor het gevaar dat pseudowetenschappelijke claims de publieke perceptie van wetenschap kunnen ondermijnen en verkeerde verwachtingen kunnen scheppen over de mogelijkheden van buitenaards leven. Een goede wetenschappelijke benadering houdt in dat men kritisch blijft, openstaat voor nieuwe ontdekkingen, maar altijd terugvalt op bewijs en methodiek.

Kortom, de wetenschappelijke kijk op buitenaards leven is gekenmerkt door een kritische, bewijsgerichte en falsifieerbare aanpak. Hoewel het zoeken naar buitenaardse intelligentie en levensvormen fascinerend is en mogelijk grote wetenschappelijke doorbraken kan opleveren, blijft het belangrijk dat de claims en hypotheses binnen de grenzen van de wetenschappelijke methode blijven. Alleen op die manier kunnen we met vertrouwen spreken over wat we weten en wat nog moet worden onderzocht, en voorkomen dat pseudowetenschappelijke ideeën de overhand krijgen.

7. Eindbesluit

De vraag of buitenaards leven al dan niet op Aarde aanwezig is, blijft voorlopig onbewezen. Hoewel er veel interessante aanwijzingen en theorieën bestaan, ontbreken tot nu toe onweerlegbare bewijzen die deze hypothese ondersteunen. De wetenschap blijft echter openstaan voor nieuwe ontdekkingen en technologische ontwikkelingen die mogelijk meer licht kunnen werpen op deze mysterieuze vraag.

Gezien de huidige stand van kennis en de strengheid van de wetenschappelijke methode, kunnen we concluderen dat er geen overtuigend bewijs is voor de aanwezigheid van buitenaardse wezens op Aarde. Het is belangrijk om kritisch te blijven, bewijs te blijven zoeken en niet te snel te vervallen in speculatie of sensationele verhalen.

Tegelijkertijd moeten we de mogelijkheid niet uitsluiten dat buitenaards leven bestaat elders in het universum. De enorme omvang van het heelal en de recente ontdekkingen van exoplaneten in bewoonbare zones maken dat het plausibel is dat we niet de enigen zijn. Echter, totdat er harde en reproduceerbare bewijzen worden gevonden, blijft dit vooral een fascinerende hypothese en niet een wetenschappelijke vaststelling.

Kortom, de buitenaardse hypothese is een boeiend onderwerp dat de menselijke nieuwsgierigheid en de wetenschappelijke zoektocht naar het onbekende blijft stimuleren. Wetenschap en scepsis vormen hierbij de belangrijkste instrumenten om tot betrouwbare conclusies te komen. Pas wanneer solide bewijs beschikbaar is, kan men definitief spreken van buitenaards leven dat onze planeet heeft bezocht of hier leeft. Tot die tijd blijft het een intrigerende vraag, waarvoor we met een kritische blik en open geest blijven zoeke

{ PETER2011 }

03-06-2025 om 21:44 geschreven door peter  

An artists illustration of the true shape of the Milky Way, with an S-like warp in the outer reaches of the disk.

Image Credit: CHEN Xiaodian.

Our home in the universe is more dynamic and distorted than anyone imagined.

How the 3D map of the Milky Way was created

The breakthrough comes from scientists at the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NAOC) and Macquarie University in Australia. To build the 3D map of the Milky Way, they tracked more than 1,300 classical Cepheids — rare, pulsating stars known for their consistent brightness cycles.

Because Cepheids act like stellar mile-markers, researchers were able to measure distances across the galaxy with incredible precision — often within 3 to 5%.

What they discovered was unexpected: the outer edges of the Milky Way aren’t flat. Instead, they curve upward and downward, forming a graceful S-shaped warp that becomes more pronounced the farther stars are from the center.

Why the Milky Way isn’t flat

This strange galactic twist is likely caused by gravitational torque — a twisting force from the Milky Way’s densely packed core. As the inner regions rotate, they tug unevenly on the outer arms, bending the galaxy’s shape over time.

“We usually think of spiral galaxies as being quite flat, like Andromeda,” said Professor Richard de Grijs of Macquarie University.
“But the Milky Way is more like a warped vinyl record — it bends and twists as you move farther out.”

The team also believes hydrogen gas clouds in the galaxy’s outskirts may respond differently to gravity, adding to the distortion. In essence, the galaxy is slowly twisting — and the new 3D map of the Milky Way is the first to capture it in detail.

Why this took so long to discover

Mapping our galaxy is notoriously difficult. Since we live inside the Milky Way, our view is limited by dust, gas, and distance. For decades, astronomers had only rough, two-dimensional models to work from.

But with Cepheid variables acting as reliable beacons, scientists were finally able to stitch together a fuller view — one that shows the true, twisted structure of our galactic home.

The Milky Way isn’t the only galaxy with this kind of warp. Astronomers have spotted similar distortions in dozens of spiral galaxies, suggesting this bending may be more common than previously thought.

But what makes this discovery remarkable is how close it hits — this isn’t a distant object in the sky. It’s where we live.

Thanks to the most accurate 3D map of the Milky Way ever created, we’re starting to see our galaxy not as a clean geometric spiral, but as a living, bending, evolving structure shaped by invisible forces.

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://curiosmos.com/category/cosmic-phenomena/ }

03-06-2025 om 18:22 geschreven door peter  

This Man Built a Living Robot from Frog Cells That Move On Their Own & Even Self-Replicate

By Vicky Verma

This will totally blow your mind. Michael Levin found in his compelling study that our cells use higher-level systems to talk to each other and organize what they do. One of those higher-level systems is bioelectricity — a kind of electrical communication that happens in neurons (brain cells) and all cells. These electrical patterns help cells figure out where they are in the body and what they should become.

The groundbreaking work of Michael Levin, a scientist at Tufts University, and his research could radically change how we understand biology, development, and even intelligence itself.

Traditionally, scientists have believed that genes, the information stored in our DNA, are the main drivers of this process. Genes control how cells behave, what kind of cells they become, and how organs form. Since sequencing the human genome, most biological research has focused on figuring out how genes do all this.

Levin, however, argues that genes are not the full story. He compares genes to low-level computer code. In computer science, programmers don’t usually work with machine code directly—they use higher-level tools that make things easier to understand and control

Levin suggests that biology has higher levels of organization that go beyond genes. One of these higher levels is what he calls the bioelectric network—a system where cells communicate using electrical signals, not just chemical signals or genetic instructions.

We usually think of neurons (brain cells) as the only cells that talk to each other using electricity. But Levin’s research shows that many types of cells can do this. And these bioelectric signals help guide development, healing, and even complex decisions about what body parts to grow. (Source)

 

A powerful example of this is the planarian, a small worm that can regenerate its body, even from tiny fragments. Levin and his team discovered that the worm’s bioelectric state helps its cells “know” whether they need to grow a head or a tail. By changing the worm’s electrical signals (without altering its genes), they could create worms with two heads, no heads, or even the head of a different species. Some of these changes were permanent and passed on to offspring, showing that genes weren’t the only factor in controlling the worm’s shape and structure. (Levin website)

Levin’s lab has also used this method to make frogs grow extra limbs or eyes in strange places, like in their guts or tails, and those eyes work. This ability to guide development using electrical signals could eventually lead to tools that let us “program” living tissue, much like we program computers. Levin imagines a future where we can input a desired body part or organ into a program and output the signals needed to make it grow, which could revolutionize medicine.

But Levin’s work goes beyond just building new organs. He believes that intelligence and decision-making exist throughout biology, not just in brains. For instance, if a tadpole’s face is rearranged, the parts move back into place as it grows. Cells “know” what the final structure should look like and work together to reach that goal, even if things start wrong. This shows that development is flexible and smart—it’s not just following a rigid script written in genes.

Levin defines intelligence as the ability to reach the same goal in different ways. Cells and tissues show this kind of adaptability all the time. For example, if an embryo is split in two, both halves can grow into full organisms. If a salamander’s cells are enlarged, its organs still form at the right size by using fewer, bigger cells.

Even more surprisingly, Levin’s team has created “biobots” by giving certain chemical cues to frog or human cells. These are tiny living robots that can move, heal, and even reproduce—without any genetic engineering. This shows how much untapped creativity exists in biological systems, and how we might be able to harness it to heal diseases, repair injuries, or even clean up pollution.

On a practical level, the impact of Levin’s work is a move away from seeing genes as the sole blueprint for biological structure, toward recognizing the central role of bioelectric networks. But beneath that shift lies a deeper thesis: that intelligence and cognition are not exclusive to brains or conscious organisms, but are widespread across all levels of biology. Development itself appears to be intelligent. Take, for example, an experiment where researchers manually scrambled the facial features of a developing tadpole. Despite this disruption, the organs found their way back to their correct positions as the tadpole matured.

This shows that development isn’t a rigid, gene-driven process but something more adaptive—something that behaves as if it’s working toward a goal. The scrambling introduced by the researchers wasn’t an evolutionary pressure the animal was selected for, yet it still corrected itself. Levin and his team refer to such manipulated animals as “Picasso frogs,” highlighting the system’s ability to make sense of a bizarre configuration using its internal logic.

Biological systems adapt not just at the whole-organism level, but even at the level of individual cells and tissues. Levin defines intelligence as the capacity to reach the same goal through different means, and many of his experiments demonstrate exactly that.

If you slice an embryo in half, it doesn’t produce two malformed half-organisms—it forms two complete, viable individuals. If you artificially enlarge the cells of a newt’s kidney, the resulting structures still maintain their intended size, just built with fewer cells.

In extreme cases, when the cells are made large enough, the organism forms entire tubules out of single cells, folding inward. These systems are reconfigurable in ways that suggest decentralized decision-making and goal-directed behavior.

What makes all of this even more remarkable is that intelligence in biology doesn’t just mean resilience or robustness; it can also mean creativity.

When given the right stimuli, biological systems don’t just return to their default behavior; they can develop entirely new ones. Levin’s lab has taken frog skin cells, ordinary cells that would normally just form outer tissue, and, using biochemical signals (no genetic editing), turned them into tiny autonomous “biobots” that move and even self-replicate.

More recently, similar work has been done using adult human lung tissue to create biobots capable of repairing damaged neurons. These are early steps into a whole new world where we might create living machines to fight cancer, clean environmental waste, or regenerate damaged organs.

The broader implication of Levin’s work is that we may need to rethink our assumptions about what counts as an “agent” and what systems are capable of “goals.”

Is a cell an agent? What about a tissue, an organ, or a network of immune cells? Levin suggests that intelligent, goal-directed behavior predates brains—it appears in morphogenesis, in bacterial swarms, even in gene networks.

These systems don’t look like the agents we’re used to, but they exhibit behaviors we associate with intelligence: memory, problem-solving, and adaptation. And crucially, Levin isn’t just making this case philosophically; he and his colleagues are demonstrating it experimentally.

Read also:

• Ex-NASA Scientist Claims: “Consciousness Is Fundamental — Our Reality Is a Simulation”
• This Man Found In Brain Simulation Study That Hints Human Have Psychic Powers
• This Billionaire Saw Interdimensional Beings and Claims G-LOC Unlocks Out-of-Body Consciousness

By redefining intelligence and cognition in these more general terms, Levin opens the door to new scientific and engineering paradigms. If cells have goals, we can learn to speak their language and steer them toward outcomes we want.

If intelligence arises from cooperation among many simple parts, then the brain is just one example of a much broader class of cognitive systems. That shift could unify fields that have long remained separate: neuroscience, immunology, developmental biology, synthetic bioengineering, and even sociology.

This way of thinking reframes cognitive science itself. If cognition is not limited to brains but is a property of coordinated systems, then any system of cooperating agents, cells, tissues, organisms, or even human societies can be studied with the same tools.

Researchers have already found parallels: cancer as a kind of cellular dissociative disorder, or ant colonies falling for visual illusions in the same way individual animals do.

Levin argues that all intelligence is collective intelligence. Every complex behavior we observe emerges from the interactions of simpler units, each with its limited competencies and goals. That includes us.

What we think of as a single “self” is, biologically, a federation of trillions of semi-autonomous cells negotiating and cooperating toward loosely shared outcomes.

It’s a radical but increasingly unavoidable perspective. Just as societies are built from individual humans, your body is built from individual cells.

And just as human societies have emergent properties, like language, law, and culture, so do the cellular societies inside us. The similarity isn’t just poetic; it might be the key to understanding both biology and intelligence in a far more unified and powerful way.

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://howandwhys.com/ }

03-06-2025 om 18:01 geschreven door peter  

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

03-06-2025 om 17:33 geschreven door peter  

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

03-06-2025 om 14:36 geschreven door peter  

Bizarre Craft Hit Soldiers With Debilitating Light Beam

Courtesy John Timmerman, J. Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies
Courtesy CNI News

This text is an edited transcript of an interview between Mr. Francis P. Wall, a private first class (PFC) in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, and John Timmerman, an associate of the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in Chicago, Illinois. The interview took place in January, 1987. Noted UFO researcher Richard F. Haines checked military records and found Mr. Wall listed as a Korean combatant in the infantry unit he names below.

CNI News thanks John Timmerman for permission to reprint this text. Mr. Wall recounts his experience as follows:

"This event that I am about to relate to you is the truth, so help me God. It happened in the early Spring of 1951 in Korea. We were in the Army infantry, 25th Division, 27th Regiment, 2nd Battalion, 'Easy' Company. We were in what is known on the military maps as the Iron Triangle, near Chorwon.
"It is night. We are located on the slopes of a mountain, below [which] there is a Korean village. Previously we have sent our men into this village to warn the populace that we are going to bombard it with artillery. On this night, we were doing just that. We had aerial artillery bursts coming in.
"We suddenly noticed on our right-hand side what appeared to be a lava sphere / globe that looked like fire inside it. come wafting down across the mountain. And at first no one thought anything about it. So we noticed that this thing continued on down to the village to where, indeed, the artillery air bursts were exploding. It had an orange glow in the beginning. We further noticed that this object was [so] quick that it could get into the center of an airburst of artillery and yet remain unharmed.
"[The] time element on this, I would say, [was] anywhere from, oh, forty-five minutes to an hour all told.
"But then this object approached us. And it turned a blue-green brilliant light. It's hard to distinguish the size of it; there's no way to compare it. The light was pulsating. This object approached us.
"I asked for and received permission from Lt. Evans, our company commander at that time, to fire upon this object, which I did with an M-1 rifle with armor-piercing bullets. And I did hit it. It must have been metallic because you could hear when the projectile slammed into it.
"Now why would that bullet damage this craft if the artillery rounds didn't? I don't know, unless they had dropped their protective field around them, or whatever. But the object went wild, and the light was going on and off. It went off completely once, briefly. And it was moving erratically from side to side as though it might crash to the ground. Then, a sound -- we had heard no sound previous to this -- the sound of, like, diesel locomotives revving up. That's the way this thing sounded.
"And then, we were attacked. We were swept by some form of a ray that was emitted in pulses, in waves that you could visually see only when it was aiming directly at you. That is to say, like a searchlight sweeps around and... you would see it coming at you. Now you would feel a burning, tingling sensation all over your body, as though something were penetrating you.
"So the company commander, Lt. Evans, hauled us into our bunkers. We didn't know what was going to happen. We were scared. These are underground dugouts where you have peep holes to look out to fire at the enemy. So, I'm in my bunker with another man. We're peeping out at this thing. It hovered over us for a while, lit up the whole area with its light, and then I saw it shoot off at a 45 degree angle, that quick, just there and gone. That quick. And it was as though that was the end of it.
"But, three days later the entire company of men had to be evacuated by ambulance. They had to cut roads in there and haul them out. They were too weak to walk. They had dysentery. Then subsequently, when the doctors did see them, they had an extremely high white blood cell count which the doctors could not account for.
"Now in the military, especially the Army, each day you file a company report. We had a confab about that. Do we file it in the report or not? And the consensus was 'No.' Because they'd lock every one of us up and think we were crazy. At that time, no such thing as a UFO had ever been heard of, and we didn't know what it was.
"I still don't know what it was. But I do know that since that time I have periods of disorientation, memory loss, and I dropped from 180 pounds to 138 pounds after I got back to this country. And I've had great difficulty keeping my weight up. Indeed, I'm retired and disabled today."

Note pictures are art work

{ https://www.facebook.com/groups/ }

03-06-2025 om 14:21 geschreven door peter  

 { peter2011 }

02-06-2025 om 23:18 geschreven door peter  

A room in the deep interior of the underground city of Derinkuyu. Depositphotos.

Reconstructing Derinkuyu’s acoustic design

To build the sound model, Nas selected three spaces for detailed analysis: a church, a domestic living area, and a kitchen. These areas were chosen for their function and variation in spatial volume. Using architectural surveys and acoustic simulation tools, she mapped the surfaces, volumes, and materials. Then, she modeled how sounds, voices, tools, footsteps, fire, would behave in each room.

Derinkuyu was not silent. It was carved from soft volcanic rock called tuff, which absorbs some frequencies but carries others. Ventilation shafts, often mistaken for simple air ducts, served as both airflow systems and vertical communication lines. Nas emphasized this dual function. A single shaft could move both air and sound across levels, linking different parts of the city without direct sightlines.

These design features were not secondary. They were structural. In Nas’s model, sound is shown to travel in ways that mirror social and architectural priorities. Openings near cooking areas allowed for shared sensory cues. Narrow passageways between levels blocked sound, creating acoustic boundaries that likely shaped patterns of privacy and control.

One of the rooms of the intricately carved undergrounds city of Derinkuyu.

Depositphotos.

Derinkuyu was not the only underground city in Cappadocia, but it is the deepest and most spatially complex. Most of the surviving tunnels were cut by hand during the Byzantine period, though earlier phases may date back even further. The site’s layout reflects both practical and defensive concerns. Entrances were concealed. Rolling stone doors could be used to block off corridors. Livestock was housed below ground. Water was sourced from wells that reached deep into the rock.

For centuries, these spaces were known locally but remained undocumented by formal archaeology. Since their rediscovery in the 1960s, sites like Derinkuyu have been measured, mapped, and visited by millions of tourists. Yet until Nas’s work, few efforts had been made to study how they sounded when they were inhabited.

Nas presented her findings at the 188th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in May 2025. She described Derinkuyu as an “interior environment on an urban scale,” distinct from open-air soundscapes typically studied in urban acoustics. By reconstructing its sonic behavior, she argues, researchers can better understand how residents used space, communicated, and structured their routines.

The soundscape is not a guess. It is built from data. Nas’s model incorporates not only geometry but also human behavior. Different rooms produce different reverberation times. Kitchens absorb more sound due to their lower ceilings. Churches echo longer. In between, passageways create acoustic transitions that affect how one space flows into another.

The region of Cappadocia, where Derinkuyu is located, has long been shaped by geology. The area’s soft volcanic substrate allowed for extensive excavation. Entire villages were carved directly into rock faces. By the early medieval period, Christians fleeing persecution expanded these spaces into multi-level underground complexes.

Derinkuyu may have been occupied intermittently over many centuries. Archaeological evidence points to phases of construction and reuse, often tied to periods of threat. Its layout includes features like defensive bottlenecks, food storage rooms, and central gathering spaces. Everything about it was designed to support life under siege.

The physical conditions underground are stable. Temperatures remain constant year-round. The architecture protects against both heat and cold. But living underground also shaped experience in other ways. Light was scarce. Sound carried differently. The absence of wind and open air created an environment defined by enclosed resonance. Nas’s model captures those differences in a way that drawings and photographs cannot.

Architectural design shaped how sound traveled

“There is a notable gap in the literature regarding the acoustic environment and soundscape of underground cities,” Nas said.

Her research reveals that the city’s ventilation shafts served not only for airflow but also for communication. Voices and sounds could carry between rooms and levels, creating an interconnected audio environment.

“This multifunctional use of the ventilation system strongly highlights the exceptional construction process of the site and plays a central role in shaping its soundscape,” she said.

“Listening to the reconstructed soundscape provides insights into how sound influenced spatial experience, communication practices, and social organization within the underground city.”

Virtual soundscape revives the sounds of daily life in Derinkuyu, the ancient underground city of Turkey

To reconstruct the sound environment, Nas analyzed three key spaces: a church, a kitchen, and a living area. She studied their acoustic properties – how sound would bounce, echo, and fade – based on size, material, and use. The result is a 3D virtual soundscape that reimagines what the city may have sounded like in its prime.

Nas presented her findings on Wednesday during the 188th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America and the 25th International Congress on Acoustics, held from May 18 to 23.

Sound as a bridge to cultural memory

“Derinkuyu underground city is considered an interior environment on an urban scale,” Nas said. “Listening to the reconstructed soundscape provides insights into how sound influenced spatial experience, communication practices, and social organization within the underground city.”

She hopes her work with the sounds of ancient life in Turkey will encourage greater use of soundscapes in historical research. Beyond technical insight, she views the study as a way to honor and preserve a forgotten layer of cultural identity.

“This research also highlights the role of historical sound environments,” Nas said. It is “an important and often overlooked component of cultural heritage.”

A tool for future design

Beyond archaeology, Nas sees potential for applying this work to modern planning. As urban development pushes into underground infrastructure, understanding how sound behaves in buried environments becomes increasingly important. Most studies of urban acoustics focus on surface cities. Underground spaces are treated as isolated exceptions.

Derinkuyu offers a counterexample. It was not a tunnel or a bunker. It was a functioning urban environment, carved to support collective life. Its soundscape reflects that design. Nas argues that acoustic modeling can contribute to both historical preservation and future construction.

More broadly, the project adds a new dimension to how we study ancient environments. Architecture is often recorded visually. Sound is harder to capture. But for people living in places like Derinkuyu, sound was part of how space was navigated, understood, and controlled. Children learned where they were by the echo of a footstep. Adults heard voices through shafts before they saw faces. The city’s structure taught people how to listen.

What Derinkuyu reveals

The 3D reconstruction of Derinkuyu is not a re-creation of ancient life. It doesn’t guess what people were thinking or feeling. What it does is document how space worked, how it changed sound, and how those changes shaped experience.

Sound was never separate from architecture. It was one of the ways people understood where they were. A child would know a main room by the way it echoed. A parent might hear a pot drop two levels above. The structure itself trained people to listen.

This kind of work is rare. Archaeology usually records what can be drawn or photographed. Sound is harder. It fades. But in places like Derinkuyu, it never really disappeared. The shape of the rooms, the angles of the walls, and the width of the shafts still control how noise moves. That information is still there, waiting to be measured.

By treating sound as something worth studying, not just as an effect, but as part of how a space functioned, Nas adds something to the record that was missing. Not a story, not a theory, but a way to hear a place that once stayed quiet to the outside world. Fascinating!

{ https://curiosmos.com/category/ancient-civilizations/ }

02-06-2025 om 22:01 geschreven door peter  

Millennium Falcon In Berkshire, England, UK, Google Earth Map, Star Wars UFO UAP Sighting News.

Google Map Location: 51°22'58"N 0°34'55"W

 

Hey, this is interesting...there is a Star Wars spaceship sitting in England back in 2017. It's gone now, so you have to hit the history button in the lower left side of the screen. Then go to 2017 and there it is. it's being hidden by container boxes on all sides of it, but I don't think they realized it would be seen from the sky. Hey would be nice if we could steal abroad and fly that thing off this planet right? 

Scott C. Waring

Star Wars: A Detail Look Inside the Millennium Falcon

Star Wars Millennium Falcon Build in Starfield

{https://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

02-06-2025 om 21:16 geschreven door peter  

Is this an Alien base on island in Greenland? 🇬🇱 UFO UAP sighting news. Ancient aliens exist.

Guys there is something strange on a small island off Greenland. This I have heard people tell me its an alien tower or alien entrance to a base, its a whale, its a plane and so much more. Hey as always, you decide. 

Scott C. Waring 

UFO Experts On Existence Of Underwater Alien Bases On Earth Probe | Shocking UFO Hearing LIVE | N18G

{https://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

02-06-2025 om 20:57 geschreven door peter  

Slope Streaks on Mars are Dry, New Study Suggests

Slope streaks are dark features on Martian slopes that form spontaneously and fade over years to decades. Some planetary scientists have interpreted those streaks as liquid flows, suggesting the possibility of currently habitable environments on Mars. But new research by Brown University and the University of Bern points to a different explanation — dry process related to wind and dust activity.

This image of an impact crater in the Sirenum Fossae region of Mars was taken by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on March 30, 2015. The crater is approximately 3,300 feet (1-km) wide and appears relatively recent as it has a sharp rim and well-preserved ejecta. The steep inner slopes are carved by gullies and include possible recurring slope lineae on the equator-facing slopes.

Image credit: NASA / JPL / University of Arizona / Alfred McEwen.

“A big focus of Mars research is understanding modern-day processes on Mars — including the possibility of liquid water on the surface,” said Dr. Adomas Valantinas, a postdoctoral researcher at Brown University.

“Our study reviewed these features but found no evidence of water. Our model favors dry formation processes.”

Scientists first saw the odd streaks in images returned from NASA’s Viking mission in the 1970s.

The sinewy features are generally darker in hue than the surrounding terrain and extend for hundreds of meters down sloped terrain.

Some last for years or decades, while others come and go more quickly.

The shorter-lived features — dubbed recurring slope lineae (RSL) — seem to show up in the same locations during the warmest periods of the Martian year.

The origin of the streaks has been a hot topic among planetary scientists.

Hoping for new insights, Dr. Valantinas and his colleague, Dr. Valentin Bickel, turned to a machine learning algorithm to catalog as many slope streaks as they could.

After training their algorithm on confirmed slope streak sightings, they used it to scan more than 86,000 high-resolution satellite images.

The result was a first-of-its-kind global Martian map of slope streaks containing more than 500,000 streak features.

“Once we had this global map, we could compare it to databases and catalogs of other things like temperature, wind speed, hydration, rock slide activity and other factors,” Dr. Bickel said.

“Then we could look for correlations over hundreds of thousands of cases to better understand the conditions under which these features form.”

This geostatistical analysis showed that slope streaks and RSLs are not generally associated with factors that suggest a liquid or frost origin, such as a specific slope orientation, high surface temperature fluctuations or high humidity.

Instead, the authors found that both features are more likely to form in places with above average wind speed and dust deposition — factors that point to a dry origin.

The researchers concluded that the streaks most likely form when layers of fine dust suddenly slide off steep slopes.

The specific triggers may vary. Slope streaks appear more common near recent impact craters, where shockwaves might shake loose surface dust. RSLs, meanwhile, are more often found in places where dust devils or rockfalls are frequent.

Taken together, the results cast new doubt on slope streaks and RSLs as habitable environments.

That has significant implications for future Mars exploration.

While habitable environments might sound like good exploration targets, NASA would rather keep its distance.

Any Earthly microbes that may have hitched a ride on a spacecraft could contaminate habitable Martian environments, complicating the search for Mars-based life.

This study suggests that the contamination risk at slope streak sites isn’t much of a concern.

“That’s the advantage of this big data approach,” Dr. Valantinas said.

“It helps us to rule out some hypotheses from orbit before we send spacecraft to explore.”

• The results were published on May 19, 2025 in the journal Nature Communications.
• V.T. Bickel & A. Valantinas. 2025. Streaks on Martian slopes are dry. Nat Commun 16, 4315; doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-59395-w

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://www.sci.news/news/space }

02-06-2025 om 01:09 geschreven door peter