The purpose of this blog is the creation of an open, international, independent and free forum, where every UFO-researcher can publish the results of his/her research. The languagues, used for this blog, are Dutch, English and French.You can find the articles of a collegue by selecting his category. Each author stays resposable for the continue of his articles. As blogmaster I have the right to refuse an addition or an article, when it attacks other collegues or UFO-groupes.
Druk op onderstaande knop om te reageren in mijn forum
Zoeken in blog
Deze blog is opgedragen aan mijn overleden echtgenote Lucienne.
In 2012 verloor ze haar moedige strijd tegen kanker!
In 2011 startte ik deze blog, omdat ik niet mocht stoppen met mijn UFO-onderzoek.
BEDANKT!!!
Een interessant adres?
UFO'S of UAP'S, ASTRONOMIE, RUIMTEVAART, ARCHEOLOGIE, OUDHEIDKUNDE, SF-SNUFJES EN ANDERE ESOTERISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN - DE ALLERLAATSTE NIEUWTJES
UFO's of UAP'S in België en de rest van de wereld Ontdek de Fascinerende Wereld van UFO's en UAP's: Jouw Bron voor Onthullende Informatie!
Ben jij ook gefascineerd door het onbekende? Wil je meer weten over UFO's en UAP's, niet alleen in België, maar over de hele wereld? Dan ben je op de juiste plek!
België: Het Kloppend Hart van UFO-onderzoek
In België is BUFON (Belgisch UFO-Netwerk) dé autoriteit op het gebied van UFO-onderzoek. Voor betrouwbare en objectieve informatie over deze intrigerende fenomenen, bezoek je zeker onze Facebook-pagina en deze blog. Maar dat is nog niet alles! Ontdek ook het Belgisch UFO-meldpunt en Caelestia, twee organisaties die diepgaand onderzoek verrichten, al zijn ze soms kritisch of sceptisch.
Nederland: Een Schat aan Informatie
Voor onze Nederlandse buren is er de schitterende website www.ufowijzer.nl, beheerd door Paul Harmans. Deze site biedt een schat aan informatie en artikelen die je niet wilt missen!
Internationaal: MUFON - De Wereldwijde Autoriteit
Neem ook een kijkje bij MUFON (Mutual UFO Network Inc.), een gerenommeerde Amerikaanse UFO-vereniging met afdelingen in de VS en wereldwijd. MUFON is toegewijd aan de wetenschappelijke en analytische studie van het UFO-fenomeen, en hun maandelijkse tijdschrift, The MUFON UFO-Journal, is een must-read voor elke UFO-enthousiasteling. Bezoek hun website op www.mufon.com voor meer informatie.
Samenwerking en Toekomstvisie
Sinds 1 februari 2020 is Pieter niet alleen ex-president van BUFON, maar ook de voormalige nationale directeur van MUFON in Vlaanderen en Nederland. Dit creëert een sterke samenwerking met de Franse MUFON Reseau MUFON/EUROP, wat ons in staat stelt om nog meer waardevolle inzichten te delen.
Let op: Nepprofielen en Nieuwe Groeperingen
Pas op voor een nieuwe groepering die zich ook BUFON noemt, maar geen enkele connectie heeft met onze gevestigde organisatie. Hoewel zij de naam geregistreerd hebben, kunnen ze het rijke verleden en de expertise van onze groep niet evenaren. We wensen hen veel succes, maar we blijven de autoriteit in UFO-onderzoek!
Blijf Op De Hoogte!
Wil jij de laatste nieuwtjes over UFO's, ruimtevaart, archeologie, en meer? Volg ons dan en duik samen met ons in de fascinerende wereld van het onbekende! Sluit je aan bij de gemeenschap van nieuwsgierige geesten die net als jij verlangen naar antwoorden en avonturen in de sterren!
Heb je vragen of wil je meer weten? Aarzel dan niet om contact met ons op te nemen! Samen ontrafelen we het mysterie van de lucht en daarbuiten.
07-09-2013
Why Are You Climbing A Mountain? Well, Mr. Lay, Because It Is There!
Here
you can re-watch Thursday night's Live broadcast.
UFOs - Generals, Pilots and Government Officials go on the
record LIVE - Truthloader
There's a BUG on YouTube that keeps resetting the
countdown timer. The event is starting at 22:30 in the UK, 17:30 Eastern Time, 14:30 Pacific Time. Please inform people who
ask!
Tonight (or today depending on where you are) Generals, Pilots and
Government officials will go on the record live to discuss their experiences
with UFOs. Post your questions and get voting now - there will be a 30 minute
question and answer session at the end of the panel discussion. The
panel will include Leslie Kean, author of the New York Times best seller on
UFOs. She spent 10 years researching the book, which includes officially
documented cases and reports by highly credentialed people from around the
world. Joining Leslie Kean on the panel is Jose Lay, international
affairs director at CEFAA in Chile, a government agency whose mission is to
collect, study and analyze scientifically, all reports of Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena (UAP) in Chile. Colonel Charles Halt, who in 1980 officially
reported a UFO at RAF Woodbridge in England, which later became known as The
Rendlesham Forest Incident, which we made a video about - it's
there. Captain Robert Salas, whilst an officer in the US Air Force,
witnessed 10 nuclear missiles become non-operational after guards reported UFOs
hovering above the facility. Captain Ray Bowyer, a British pilot who,
along with some of his passengers, witnessed an object estimated to be up to a
mile long over the English Channel in 2007. Parviz Jafari is a retired
General of the Iranian Air Force. In 1976 he was ordered by the Air Force
Command to approach an intense flashing object observed over
Tehran. Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/TRUsub
UFOs - Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the
Record LIVE! | VIDEO
By
Phil Harper ITN Producrions 8-4-13
Generals, Pilots
and Government officials will go on the record live to discuss their experiences
with UFOs this Thursday at 10:30pm GMT, 2:30 PDT, 5:30 EDT. A panel of credible
witnesses will join the YouTube channel Truthloader via webcam, each speaking
for 10 minutes before a 30 minute Q and A session.
The panel will include
Leslie Kean, author of the New York Times best seller UFOs:
Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record. She spent 10
years researching the book, which includes officially documented cases and
reports by highly credentialed people from around the world.
Joining
Leslie Kean on the panel is Jose Lay, international affairs director at CEFAA in
Chile, a government agency whose mission is to collect, study and analyze
scientifically, all reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in
Chile.
Colonel Charles Halt, who in 1980 officially reported a UFO at RAF
Woodbridge in England, which later became known as The Rendlesham Forest
Incident.
Captain Robert Salas, whilst an officer in the US Air Force,
witnessed 10 nuclear missiles become non-operational after guards reported UFOs
hovering above the facility.
Captain Ray Bowyer, along with some of his
passengers, witnessed an object estimated to be up to a mile long over the
English Channel in 2007.
Parviz Jafari is a retired General of the
Iranian Air Force. In 1976 he was ordered by the Air Force Command to approach
an intense flashing object observed over Tehran. Jafaris weapons were jammed
and communications garbled when he approached the object.
"This online
conference will help bring the serious side of the subject to a wide audience.
The audience will have the opportunity to interact with the panelists which
makes this a unique event." said Leslie Kean.
With the 30 minutes Q and
A at the end of the event, its an opportunity to ask some of the most credible
UFO witnesses some questions. If people want to take part, leave a comment on
the live video on Truthloader, post on our Facebook wall, or tweet us
@truthloader said Truthloader Producer, Phil Harper.
I was gone for 5 days and leave tomorrow for 4
days more, so limited time.
The stuff posted by Robert Sheaffer provides a fine
example of selective choice of data and of the intellectual bankruptcy of the
pseudoscience of antiufology.Not surprisingly there is no Friedman file at the
Klass collection at the American Philosophical Society Library despite many
letters over more than 20 years. Do note that there is no mention of my 90 page
"Final Report on Operation Majestic 12" from 1990. There is no mention of my
book "TOP SECRET/MAJIC" first hard cover and then trade paper.. The first has
many more letters back and forth.Klass's many offers all had kickers. I inisted
on modification to the $100. per year one. I just verified that Klass had never
been to the Eisenhower Library (nor the HST).. neither had Oberg or
Sheaffer..
Incidentally It was not a wager. He challenged me.
I met the challenge. He paid me.(Told lots of people about challenging me, few
about paying me). I wagered nothing. He mentions a modest sample. The Ike
Library.. (at which I have spent weeks) had over 250,000 pages of NSC materials.
To suggest that one can generalize from 9elite items to 250,000 is absurd. I
have dealt with all of his pseudoscientific arguments. None standup.Why no
mention of Roger Westcott's research? Did he check the Hillenkoetter files at
the Hoboken National Archives branch??I did and also talked to Mrs. H. and Mrs.
Menzel etc etc.
Please feel free to distribute this missive. My
publications are listed on my websitewww.stantonfriedman.com
I have just placed on my Historical documents
page on Debunker.com some newly-scanned "white papers" and correspondence by
the influential skeptic Philip J. Klass (1919-2005) concerning the supposed
MJ-12 papers, and a pre-publication critique of the Condon report.
In
November, 1968, Klass
wrote an advance critique of the not-yet-published Condon Report (University of Colorado study of
UFOs), and circulated it to only a very few persons (fortunately, I was
one). He notes that the persons involved in the study were supposed to be
uncommitted on the the question of UFOs, but several were already UFO
believers.
Here
are Klass' "White Papers" and other
correspondence on the supposed MJ-12 papers (first series only. Even Stanton
Friedman is reluctant to defend the MJ-12 papers of the second series!). He
explains why they are hoaxes. The discussion involves William L. Moore, Stanton
Friedman, Peter A. Gersten. (57 pages)
Thomas
J. Carey is the co-author of 'Inside the Real Area 51: The Secret History of
Wright-Patterson', a work of investigation centering on the Roswell, New Mexico
crash of 1947 and the tantalizing possibility that remains from it and other
alien crash sites are being held deep within Wright-Patterson Air Force base.
Book is available on August 20. For audio-only version of this interview,
subscribe to the DisinfoCast on iTunes.
What
about building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11
conspiracy theories
Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the
importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy
theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and
conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to
investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs.
rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our
hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue
against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their
own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters.
However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an
account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more
likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references
to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were
largely unwilling to apply the conspiracy theory label to their own beliefs
and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion
that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist
arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive
communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist
worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less
important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.
The Internet was made for conspiracy theory: it is a conspiracy theory: one
thing leads to another, always another link leading you deeper into no thing and
no place.
Conspiracy theories, defined as allegations that powerful people or
organizations are plotting together in secret to achieve sinister ends through
deception of the public (Abalakina-Paap et al.,1999;
Wood et al.,2012), have long been an important element of
popular discourse. With the advent of the Internet, they have become more
visible than ever. Although the psychological literature on conspiracy belief
has a relatively short history, with most of the relevant research having been
conducted only within the past twenty years, it has revealed a great deal
regarding individual differences between those who generally believe conspiracy
theories (whom we call conspiracists) and those who prefer conventional
explanations (whom we call conventionalists). Conspiracy beliefs have been
shown to be positively correlated with mistrust of other people (Goertzel,1994)
and authorities (Swami et al.,2010); feelings of powerlessness and low
self-esteem (Abalakina-Paap et al.,1999);
superstition, beliefs in the paranormal, and schizotypy (Darwin et al.,2011); a
perceived lack of control (Hamsher et al.,1968;
Whitson and Galinsky,2008); a Machiavellian approach to social
interaction (Douglas and Sutton,2011); and openness to experience (Swami et
al.,2010; but see Swami et al.,2011).
At the present time, questionnaire-based investigations of individual
differences make up the bulk of the existing research, although experimental
approaches are emerging (e.g., Douglas and Sutton,2008;
Jolley and Douglas,2013). A fairly recent development in the field
has been an acknowledgement that in addition to trait-like variables and
transient psychological states, ideologies and broad belief systems play a
substantial role in conspiracy theory belief. For example, in an examination of
conspiracy theories regarding an alleged cover-up of the divinity of Mary
Magdalene and the bloodline of Christ, Newheiser et al. (2011) demonstrated that the plausibility of these
theories hinged largely on broader beliefs about the world. People with
traditional Christian beliefs were likely to reject such theories out of hand,
while those with a more New Age approach were much more receptive. In a similar
vein, Lewandowsky et al. (2013b)
demonstrated that rejection of climate science (though not explicitly
conspiracist) is determined in part by ideological concerns, with libertarian
free-market ideology, apparently predisposing people to believe that
anthropogenic global warming is an unscientific hoax. It is clear, then, that
individual conspiracy theories or related counter-normative explanations can
seem more or less likely depending on how they comport with other beliefs held
by the audience.
Some researchers have gone further, proposing the existence of a conspiracist
worldviewa belief system conducive to conspiracy beliefs in general (e.g.,
Goertzel,1994; Swami et al.,2010;
Wood et al.,2012). This proposal stems primarily from the
finding that beliefs in unrelated conspiracy theories tend to intercorrelate:
for example, someone who believes that Princess Diana was deliberately
assassinated is also more likely to believe that the moon landing was a hoax.
Indeed, Wood et al. (2012) demonstrated that
even beliefs in directly contradictory conspiracy theories were positively
correlated with one another, indicating that conspiracy beliefs may be held
together not by direct agreement with one another, but by mutual agreement with
higher-order beliefs about the world. One particularly important element of the
conspiracist worldview is thought to be a generalized opposition to official or
received narratives. In this view, conspiracy belief is not about believing in
particular alternative theories, but in disbelieving in whatever the official
story is. This tendency has been informally noted by Dean (2002), who described most conspiracy theories as
bits and pieces without a plot [that] fail to delineate any conspiracy at all.
They simply counter conventional narratives with suspicions and allegations
that, more often than not, resist coherent emplotment (p. 92). Likewise, Clarke
(2007) observed that conspiracy theories are
often extremely vague, particularly in the Internet age.
If this is the case, then for people who hold a conspiracist worldview, the
specifics of a conspiracy theory are less important than its identity as a
conspiracy and its opposition to the official explanation. The important element
is that those in power are lying and cannot be trusted, and that they are
covering up something sinister. Opposition to officialdom, in this sense,
parallels the generalized prejudice that Adorno et al. (1950) found to be strong enough to overcome
contradictions between different anti-Jewish stereotypes. More than being a
specific belief that Jews are overly secretive or overly intrusive,
anti-Semitism appears to be more of a general belief that Jews are generally
unpleasant people. Likewise, conspiracy theory belief appears to be more of a
negative belief than a positive oneit is more concerned with saying what the
cause of a condition or event wasnot(i.e., whatever the official explanation is)
than with putting forward a specific alternative account.
An opportunity to test this idea presents itself in the form of observation
of online discourse. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the lack of mainstream
public acceptance for their theories, many conspiracists, both prominent and
otherwise, appear to see themselves as having a duty to spread their views to
the public at large. They often exhort the unthinking masses to wake up (e.g.,
Crane,2008; Byers,2009;
Icke,2012). This is a reasonable reaction: given a
belief that people's lives are being manipulated by malevolent forces beyond
their control, most would probably agree that trying to spread the word about
that fact is a good idea. Outspoken conventionalists, such as those in the
skeptic movement (e.g., Randi,1982; Sagan,1995;
Shermer,1997; Novella,2009),
find most conspiracy theories to be misguided at best and destructive at worst,
and so make a point of arguing against them in the public sphere.
This discussion is voluminous and highly visible in many arenas, perhaps none
more so than news website comment sections. Articles about topics for which
popular conspiracy theories exist, such as 9/11, the moon landing, and vaccines,
can have tens of thousands of comments, most of which are devoted to advancing
or refuting allegations of conspiracy. These comments are often archived along
with the associated articles for months or years afterward, which provides an
excellent opportunity for archival research to give some insight into the
thoughts and beliefs of those writing them (e.g., Fat et al.,2012;
Loke,2012; Sisask et al.,2012).
The present study consists of an examination of a large number of conspiracy
theory-related persuasive comments on news stories. Such analysis of online
discourse as a method of examining psychological states has increased in
prominence as the Internet has become a more popular place to discuss one's
ideas. The subject and pace of online discussion has been shown to be a more or
less reliable barometer of public concern over social issues (Roberts et
al.,2002; Scharkow and Vogelgesang,2011),
and emotional reactions expressed online can be used to consistently predict
political approval ratings (Gonzalez-Bailon et al.,2012).
Quantitative analysis of online discussion has also been used to gain insight
into the social psychology of groups with fringe views (Douglas et al.,2005),
attitudes toward Tourette's Syndrome (Fat et al.,2012),
and racial views (Loke,2012). Qualitative research on online discourse
has been more common, including a study demonstrating the evolution of
conspiracy theories over time in response to evidence (Lewandowsky et al.,2013a).
In the context of conspiracy theories in particular, there are several
advantages to content analysis of online commentary. The self-selective nature
of online communication allows for the collection of a great deal of data
regarding opinions that may be held by only a minority of people; moreover, the
degree of anonymity facilitates the honest expression of opinions that might not
be held in high social esteem elsewhere (e.g., Douglas et al.,2005;
Loke,2012).
There are some caveats associated with analyzing persuasive comments in
particular. While external validity may benefit from observing behavior in a
naturalistic setting, there is some degree of uncertainty regarding the internal
validity of any conclusions drawn from such methods. Most obviously, there is
the issue of to what degree the content of persuasive communications reflects
the properties of the author rather than the demands of the situation. Rather
than faithful representations of internal psychological processes, commenters'
methods of argumentation might instead reflect strategic considerations
regarding the audience, the venue, and the subject matter. While
self-presentation is very often a concern in psychological research, even in
laboratory settings, such demands may be especially salient in a situation where
one's goal is implicitly (or even explicitly) to persuade others rather than to
provide an honest and straightforward account of one's beliefs. Indeed, some
research has shown that people do adapt their persuasive techniques according to
their knowledge of the audience and the subject (Friestad and Wright,1999;
Douglas et al.,2010; Vogel et al.,2010).
The question of whether we can expect persuasive communication to accurately
reflect inner psychological processes is not easily answerable, as the effect of
lay persuasive knowledge on generation of persuasive arguments is fairly sparse.
While there is a substantial body of research on lay persuasive knowledge, the
vast majority of it focuses instead on how such knowledge affects susceptibility
to the persuasive messages of others. However, it is well-established that
people tend to rely heavily on projection for predicting others' behaviorthat
is, they use themselves as a model for prediction. This effect is especially
strong when relatively little is known about the target [for a review, see
Robbins and Krueger (2005)]. In general,
then, it is likely that persuaders use the self as a model for argument
generation: in other words, they argue in a way that they would themselves find
convincing. This, in turn, suggests that the types of arguments used by
persuaders can contain information relevant to understanding how they think
about the issue at hand.
The tendency to use social projection is especially relevant in online
settings. Much online discussion is either fully anonymous or conducted under
pseudonyms, greatly limiting the amount of information available about the other
party in a discussion. As such, we assume for the purposes of the present study
that people will generally tend to use arguments that they themselves would find
most convincing were they the audience rather than the persuader. This, in turn,
should reflect the structure of their belief systemsthe arguments that people
find most convincing are those that match up with how they view the world
(Darwin et al.,2011; Newheiser et al.,2011;
Wood et al.,2012; Lewandowsky et al.,2013b).
To that end, we systematically coded and analyzed conspiracist and
conventionalist persuasive comments from four major news websites on articles
relating to 9/11 from the period of July 1st through December 31st, 2011,
encompassing the months surrounding the tenth anniversary of the attacks.
9/11 conspiracy theories provide an excellent research subject for several
reasons. First, the community associated with these theories, known as the 9/11
Truth Movement, is noted for its substantial online presence and focus on
Internet proselytizing. Bartlett and Miller (2011) observed that the movement's mass
membership backbone (p. 45) devotes a substantial amount of time to producing
large numbers of online comments, and Clarke (2007) saw the Truth Movement as a paradigmatic
example of Internet conspiracy culture. Second, the timing was fortuitous, with
the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, sure to herald a number of stories on
the subject and therefore many relevant comments, having occurred shortly before
data collection commenced. The recency of the materials lowered the probability
of comments having been expunged from archives or lost as an unintended
consequence of comment software upgrades. Third, just as the Truth Movement has
a substantial online presence, so too do its conventionalist opponents in the
skeptic movement. We therefore expected that there would be a good deal of
debate between the two sides, providing further raw materials for analysis.
Finally, the Truth Movement is a well-established community with a substantial
intellectual output, including popular books (e.g., Griffin,2004),
conference circuits, several sub-organizations such as Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth, and at least one peer-reviewed journal, theJournal of 9/11 Studies.There is substantial debate within the Truth
Movement regarding whether 9/11 was a controlled demolition, a deliberate
intelligence failure, or even the result of exotic space-based weaponry
(Barber,2008). In short, its body of work is varied,
voluminous, and well-developed, and should therefore be able to provide a wide
range of different arguments for analysis.
If our reasoning regarding the influence of projection on persuasive tactics
holds, we should see systematic differences in the characteristics of
conspiracist and conventionalist arguments. Specifically, we should be able to
replicate earlier results demonstrating that unrelated conspiracy beliefs are
intercorrelated (e.g., Goertzel,1994; Swami et al.,2010;
Wood et al.,2012)in this case, conspiracist comments should
contain more positive (and fewer negative) references to unrelated conspiracy
theories compared with conventionalist comments. Examining a long-standing
correlate of conspiracy belief, we also investigated the degree to which
comments contained explicit expressions of mistrust, predicting that
conspiracist comments would be more likely to express mistrust of authorities or
other targets than conventionalist comments (e.g., Wright and Arbuthnot,1974;
Simmons and Parsons,2005). Further, we examined expressions of
powerlessness, and predicted that conspiracist comments would express more
concerns about power, as feelings of powerlessness have been shown to correlate
reliably with conspiracy theory belief (Abalakina-Paap et al.,1999).
Replicating the previously established relationships between conspiracy beliefs,
trust, and power would increase confidence in the present study's methods and
help to justify any novel results derived therefrom.
In addition to verifying the utility of this archival approach by replicating
previous results, we made several novel predictions. First, if we are correct in
our contention that much of the conspiracist worldview is based on a generalized
rejection of official explanations rather than on positing particular
alternative narratives, conspiracist comments should focus on refuting
conventional explanations more than on presenting or supporting specific
conspiracy theories. Therefore, conspiracist comments, relative to
conventionalist comments, should be more likely to derogate rival explanations
and less likely to promote their own. Second, we elected to examine the veracity
of the long-held contention that conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist
carry an intellectual stigma (e.g., Bratich,2002,2008;
Coady,2006). If this is true, people should be unwilling
to apply the term to themselves and should object when others do so. As such, we
predicted that conspiracists would avoid applying the term conspiracy theory
to their own beliefs (or conspiracy theorists to themselves), and would
attempt to dispute others' usage of the term. While this might seem an obvious
predictionand indeed many authors take it as a given that the term is
stigmatizedto our knowledge there have not yet been any empirical
investigations of this contention.
Finally, another possible avenue by which the spread of conspiracy theories
could be fruitfully understood is social influence theory (Latané,1981).
Since 9/11 conspiracy theories are (at least in the West) an opinion held by a
vocal minority attempting to effect change, social influence theory
(Latané,1981) would predict that conventionalists, if they
are good majority influencers, are more likely to show patterns consistent with
normative social influence. In particular, Bratich (2008) has highlighted the hostility of
intellectual orthodoxy toward conspiracist explanations for events and the
labelling of conspiracists as paranoid or otherwise mentally ill (c.f.
Hofstadter,1964; Kalichman et al.,2010).
At the same time, conspiracists are often hostile in a different way, dismissing
conventionalists as naïve, gullible, and either unwitting dupes or willing
stooges of the conspiracy (Crane,2008; Byford,2011).
Therefore, we examined the hostility of each persuasive comment, whether
characterized by outright insults, threats, dismissive sarcasm, accusations of
complicity, or other hostile or insulting content.
It is my opinion as a close observer that these
students are most likely seeing things too much in black and white and are
speaking from total ignorance, probably as a consequence of continued inaccurate
media reporting over the years. Not every NSA guy is evil or a liar. Most of
them just do their delicate jobs as best as they can. Because of the highly
sensitive nature of their jobs they are bound by secrecy laws to prevent them
from disclosing classified information, so they have to be damned careful what
they say and how they paraphrase it when talking to outsiders which are
strangers to them and hence potential adversaries. One never knows what the
intentions of any of these students might be. I
assume the NSA by its very nature is usually forced to misdirect by deliberate
disinformation and fabrication to conceal very sensitive (operational) secrets
and to protect the effectiveness of their secret operations. However, the
question is how far they are allowed to go. Are they (or any other government
agency/government contractors) e.g. allowed to intentionally misdirect the
public, the media and science in matters of utmost importance to all of
humanity, viz. the possible visitation of non-human intelligences to Earth in
the event that they have been aware that this is the case? Maybe they are
allowed to do so because of global security issues we are unaware of? Maybe the
expression the pot calling the kettle black also applies to the students: How
accurate are these taped conversations? Maybe they have been distorted in such a
way to inflict harm for whatever reason or to add fuel to the existing
conspiracy debates re the NSA. There is of course no way of
knowing.
I
hope I have been clear in expressing my personal opinion in English. As always,
my personal analyses could be wrong. So be it!
When NSA recruiters went to the University of Wisconsin
earlier this week to pitch language students on working for the agency, they got
more than they bargained for.
The informed students turned the
question-and-answer session into a hearing. On trial were the NSA's lies, their
legality, and how they define "adversary".
The students recorded audio of
the exchange on an iPhone proving that the language-analyst NSA recruiters were
left tongue-tied.
"I'm surprised that for language analysts you're
incredibly imprecise with your language," grad student Madiha Tahir charged when they failed to define what
constitutes an adversary.
"What you're selling us is untrue" she added.
"We also know that the NSA took down brochures and fact sheets after the Snowden
revelations because those fact sheets had severe inaccuracies and untruths in
them -- so how are we supposed to believe what you're saying?"
Another student directly challenged the NSA's morality
for using the "globe as their playground" and then partying at the office with
co-workers. She then challenges them to become whistleblowers because the truth
will ultimately prevail.
"Given the fact that we have been lied to as Americans, given the
fact that fact sheets have been pulled down because they clearly had untruths in
them, given the fact that Clapper and Alexander lied to Congress...Is being a
good liar a qualification to work for the NSA?" Tahir asks.
These young
students forced the NSA recruiters to claim, in a seemingly desperate defense,
that they were not actually there "representing the NSA as an
agency."
Clearly the people have questions that aren't being addressed by
their representatives, and a much larger debate is needed. However, it'd be
much more productive if these kids get to question the NSA leadership instead of
our blackmailed politicians. Listen to the whole exchange
below: Read other articles by Activist Post
Here
BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
Valentich
- In one of the great unexplained mysteries of aviation, pilot Fred Valentich
and his light aircraft disappeared without a trace from the skies above southern
Australia in 1978. His final words, describing his terrifying encounter: its
above me and its not an aircraft; then a mysterious metallic sound. After this
moment Valentich and his plane were never seen again. Is this evidence of UFO
contact? In a TV first we hear the actual audio of Valentichs final moments
(at
about 20:36: Dr. Richard Haines from Narcap)
Senate Years of Service: 1959-1983 Party: Democrat
CANNON, Howard Walter, a Senator from
Nevada; born in St. George, Washington County, Utah, January 26, 1912; graduated
from Arizona State Teachers College in 1933, and University of Arizona Law
School in 1937; admitted to the bar in Arizona in 1937, Utah in 1938, and Nevada
in 1946; reference attorney, Utah State senate in 1939; elected county attorney
of Washington County, Utah, in 1940; during the Second World War served in the
United States Army in 1941 and the United States Army Air Corps 1942-1946,
attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel; served in the Air Force Reserve and
retired as a major general; elected city attorney of Las Vegas, Nev., in 1949
and served for four consecutive terms; elected as a Democrat to the United
States Senate in 1958; reelected in 1964, 1970 and 1976 and served from January
3, 1959, to January 3, 1983; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1982;
chairman, Joint Committee on Inaugural Arrangements (Ninety-second Congress),
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct (Ninety-third and Ninety-fourth
Congresses), Committee on Rules and Administration (Ninety-third through
Ninety-fifth Congresses) , Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (Ninety-fourth
Congress), Joint Committee on Library (Ninety-fifth Congress), Joint Committee
on Printing (Ninety-fifth Congress), Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation (Ninety-fifth and Ninety-sixth Congresses); died in Las Vegas,
Nevada, on March 5, 2002; interment in Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington,
Va.
Bibliography
Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives; Gilbertson, John. Plane
Politics: Lyndon Johnson, Howard Cannon, and Nevadas 1964 Senatorial Election.
Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 46 (Winter 2003): 257-85; Titus, A.
Costandina. Howard Cannon, the Senate and Civil-Rights Legislation, 1959-1968.
Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 33 (Winter 1990): 13-29; Venetti,
Michael. Senator Howard Canon of Nevada: A Biography. Reno: University of
Nevada Press, 2008.
A few months back, a British anomaly investigation organization announced
the
possible death of UFOlogy. They admitted that failure to provide proof that
UFOs were extraterrestrial craft and a decline in the number of UFO reports
suggests that aliens do not exist after all. Was this the end of UFOlogythe
study of UFOs? No way! It's alive and well here, said the U.S. UFOlogists. So
it is. But what is the real status of the study of UFOs?
The UFO research field is having a bit of a crisis these days. Reports come
in by the hundreds. There are not enough people to investigate them. Yet,
decades of UFO research by private and military organizations have resulted in
disappointment for those who surely thought there was something out there to
reveal. Many of the historic figures of UFOlogy are aging or have passed away.
Who is doing the work now? And what exactly are they doing?
The major organization remaining in the U.S. for investigating UFO sightings
is MUFON, the Mutual
UFO Network. MUFON is not in good shape. Their stated mission is to conduct
scientific investigation of UFO reports for the benefit of mankind. But there is
dispute about their ability to actually do that. The current version of MUFON,
according to those observing the situation, is focused on everything
except proper UFO investigation and is nowhere near scientific.
Membership in the organization has fallen off and some local MUFON groups are
disgruntled. Leadership upheavals over the past few years may have been
distracting and overall, they are experiencing a serious case of mission creep.
MUFON consists of chapters covering each state across the country who operate
somewhat independently with members paying dues to the main headquarters. They
promote a scientific method. But do they actually accomplish that goal? Recent
commentators say no, they do not. The focus in local MUFON chapters meetings
these days is decidedly unscientific with talks on alien abduction, conspiracy
theories, human-ET hybrids, hypnotic regression, and repressed memories. That's
a wide range of pseudoscience in one place. It's dragging down the credibility
of the entire subject as well as missing the point of improving actual UFO
investigations.
A comprehensive
two-part piece recently appeared online describing the changing of the guard
at MUFON that is installing its fourth director since 2009. The UFO
Trail blog critiques the current status the field and takes note of the
rising voices in the community, some of whom wish to elevate the investigations
and methods out of the realm of pseudoscience. Author of The UFO Trail, Jack
Brewer, is critical of the current methodology, characterized it as sham
inquirya label I used to describe amateur paranormal investigation and one he
thought also applied in this case.
The newly named director of MUFON, Jan Harzon, states that UFOlogy is a
science and intends to put a scientific face back on UFO
investigations. Their latest symposium, held in Las Vegas this past July had
the theme Science, UFOs, and the Search for ET. The conference featured
presentations from several science professionals (current and former) but did
not provide any blockbuster information or do much to promote science.
"We hope to bridge the gap between science and UFOlogy," said Jan Harzan,
state director of network's Orange County bureau. "They're one in the
same." - Las
Vegas Sun (19 July 2013).
Many skeptical critics would dispute the claim that UFOlogy is a science but
that depends on how you wish to define science. A general definition such as a
systematically collected body of knowledge is not very descriptive of a
subject area that contains a lot of data but few constructive hypotheses to
provide a framework. The UFO sighting data is mostly witness reports and much of
it is of questionable veracity or too old to be of much value any longer. The National UFO
Reporting Center has a database of reported sightings but I havent found
any compelling reports about flaps or trends to make sense of the data. It could
be that Im not reading cutting-edge UFO research but if there really was a good
report that solidly concluded that there was a pattern and subsequent
explanation for UFO flaps, I would be interested. I would hope Id have heard of
it, at least from those who have a more in-depth knowledge. But, as with claims
of proof of psychics or hauntings, we only have popular, often biased reports
about particular events from individuals that have a belief to promote. Those
case studies in addition to being problematic in their accuracy (since its hard
to confirm many of the events via witnesses), are not robust enough to aid in
explaining the phenomenon.
The discussion coming from a small group of today's modern UFO researchers
suggests that UFOlogy is on the wrong track these days. With a focus on
abductions, conspiracies, and exopolitics/disclosure, the core of the field is
no longer about investigating and identifying what people are reporting to have
seen in the sky.
Antonio Paris runs the API Aerial Phenomenon Investigation
Team, which has a somewhat different focus than MUFON. He wishes to return
to the nuts and bolts idea of UFO investigation and get away from the
conspiracy and fringe topics that so often dominate the symposiums and local
MUFON talks.
I asked Antonio what sorts of tools his organization uses to do
investigations. He noted that Internet sites can help identify some of the
man-made objects like aircraft and satellite. MUFON also mentions these tools on
their sites along with astronomical sites to identify bright celestial objects
that are sometimes confusing to people viewing them on the ground. Paris is also
familiar with the shape of many military aircraft and says he can typically
identify them in association with military bases nearby. API has tackled about
300 or so cases but does not pursue those that look like jokes, hoaxes, or give
them nothing to go on. There is no lack of UFO reports. An initial screening to
determine viable cases is necessary to remove those cases not worthy of
investigation or they would be overwhelmed.
MUFON trains their investigators through a manual and an exam. Paris noted to
me that the test requires no specialized skills and many people could
potentially pass it without even looking at the manual. The certification as a
field investigator is a worthwhile effort by MUFON to standardize their methods
and provide a framework for consistency of methods but it's only internal to
MUFON. When each MUFON chapter operates pretty much on its own, inconsistency
and regional differences creep in. Paris told me he is frustrated by the lack of
sharing of information both internally and externally of MUFON noting that an
object of interest can fly over a wide area. Coordination of reports that may be
of the same object would be a worthwhile effort. Science is dependent on sharing
information either through collaboration or peer review of findings. UFOlogy
appears weak in that area having no established journal or even an online
location for filing results.
Even more fundamental to UFOlogy than answering Is it a science? is Can it
ever be scientific?
UFOs are uniquely difficult to investigate for several reasons. The
observation is fleeting. It may not repeat. It is difficult to reproduce. If it
remains airborne, it leaves no physical evidence behind, only the story of the
witness. The observation is often made in the dark under conditions in which it
is difficult (or impossible) to accurately judge size and distance.
If by scientific we mean methodical, objective observations in
consideration of natural laws, logic and reason, then, yes. I think UFO
investigation can be scientific but the sea change that is needed would be
pretty huge for the field and I dont know if they can pull it off. As with
paranormal investigators, UFO researchers tend to lean towards the believer
side. Thats what keeps them passionate. But it's also their undoing. A bias
towards belief in a mystery or in alien craft is the first giant misstep in
UFOlogy. The first step for a rejuvenated field to gain credibility is to drop
the default belief that ETs are visiting earth and back up to the very basic
question, What, if anything, did this witness see? Begin looking for real
world answers instead of proof to support a belief in alien life.
I found a great example of one such sound UFO investigation. Andrew Hansford
recently gave an excellent talk at the 2013 Amazing Meeting about how he
examined a UFO case from Marblehead, MA. You can see his report here.
He was able to glean the best answer and make a solid conclusion from rather few
bits of initial information. He used the tools available to him to seek a
down-to-earth explanation.
I asked CFI fellow and Skeptical Inquirer UFO columnist Robert
Sheaffer his thoughts about scientific investigation of UFOs. It's a bit tricky.
Many have assumed it's possible, he says, but it turns out to be more difficult
than it seems. Sheaffer has documented the several times rapid response teams
have been attempted by UFO organizations. It was hoped that by gathering
reliable witness reports, and implementing a rapid response team to capture
the UFO with professional filming techniques, better evidence could be put forth
for the claim that something worth paying attention to was really occurring.
Rapid response teams turned out to be disappointing, says Sheaffer. Antonio
Paris was part of one such team, the STAR Team for MUFON. Millionaire
Robert Bigelow funded the project. MUFON has been somewhat tight-lipped
about the results, Sheaffer tells me, but they are generally conceded to be
hugely disappointing. It did not give them the results they hoped for.
Sheafffer has written about other rapid response efforts prior to the STAR
Team in his Psychic
Vibrations column of July/Aug, 2009 of Skeptical Inquirer. In
1967, J. Allen Hynek proposed and later implemented a national toll-free UFO
Hotline. Experienced screeners manned the lines twenty-four hours a day. They
contacted local police and/or other investigators who would rush to the scene.
Hynek expected this method would yield excellent evidence. Even with the
cooperation of the FBI, years later, it did not produce the expected results.
In 1977, the French government created an agency called GEPAN to
investigation UFO reports. After producing nothing convincing, official UFO
investigations in France ended in 2004. The British UFO desk was closed in
2009 despite a surge of sighting reports. Nothing was distillable from the
reports.
In the late 1990s, the Los Vigilantes of Mexico City was organized
to respond to a flap of UFO sightings in the area. Cameras were at the ready to
respond to UFO reports on short notice. Sheaffer says, as far as he was aware,
they never obtained anything of significance.
MUFON still gets hundreds of cases a month and there is considerable backlog
of investigations. Thats a hefty work load for volunteers. There is a need to
sort the wheat from the utter chaff but there still are valid means to find out
what people probably saw in the sky. Most reports will have a satisfying answer
if diligently investigated. But that may not happen or the eyewitness may not
accept it.
Pariss API group is in contact with the new leadership at MUFON and is
encouraged that a more sound approach to the field is on the horizon. This may
be a new dawn for UFOlogy as the old guard dies away and the new, more centered,
serious thinkers take over. UFOlogy is undergoing a transformation once again.
For now, UFOlogy attempts to sound sciencey, but it is not nearly up to the
standards to be called science. Can it be science? Only with a wholesale
change in assumptions and approach. Drop the fascination with conspiracies and
abductionsgo back to nuts and bolts.
Sharon will be participating in UFOCon14 in Baltimore,
Maryland in 2014.
Remark of Peter2011: Who can tell me why the sceptics do it know always better? Have they seen the light? A sceptic is a doubter, what means that he does doubt about all things, except sciences... I wonder if they know they do exist? If science is so miraculous, why can the academics not cure diseases, as cancer, AIDS,...
Is it a bird, is it a plane, is it a UFO? Strange lights in the sky are being
closely watched by atmospheric scientists.
Dubbed red sprites by researchers, these dancing fairies-of-the-clouds are
sometimes glimpsed as blood-red bursts of light in the shape of jellyfish.
At other times, they appear as trumpet-shaped blue emissions, called blue
jets. Like the most elusive of nymphs, however, red sprites and blue jets come
out on only one occasion: during severe thunderstorms.
Although sporadically reported for years by airline pilots, only in the past
decade or two has there been enough evidence to convince atmospheric
scientists to investigate the phenomenon.
What's that in the skies?
Now baffled researchers asking "What in the world is this?" may have found
answers.
Above a thunderstorm's black clouds, sprites appear as bursts of red light
flashing far into Earth's atmosphere, according to scientist Hans Nielsen of the
University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
The brief flashes look like glowing jellyfish, with red bells and purple
tentacles. In a single night, a large thunderstorm system can emit up to one
hundred sprites.
Into the wild blueor redyonder
Nielsen, Jason Ahrns, also of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, Matthew
McHarg of the U.S. Air Force Academy and researchers from Fort Lewis College
teamed up this summer to study sprites.
They used the National Science Foundation (NSF)/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Gulfstream-V aircraft, a high-flying plane capable of
reaching altitudes of 50,000 feet, to conduct their research. Their project is
funded by NSF.
Sprites are similar to lightning, say Nielsen and McHarg, in that they are electrical
discharges from the atmosphere.
But while sprites mimic lightning "in some ways," says McHarg, "they're
different in others. Lightning happens below and within clouds, at altitudes of
two to five miles. Sprites occur far above the clouds, at about 50 miles up10
times higher than lightning."
One-one thousandth of a second: How long red sprites last,
faster than our blinking time. Credit: Jason Ahrns
They're also huge, he says, reaching 30 miles high.
"Red sprites don't last very long, though, about one-one thousandth of a
second. That's 300 times quicker than the time it takes us to blink!"
Blue jets, which weren't directly part of the scientists' study, stick around
longer than red sprites, originate at the tops of storm clouds, and shoot up to
an altitude less than half that of red sprites. Blue jets are narrower than red
sprites, and fan out like trumpet-shaped flowers in blue or purple hues.
"This field of research is fast evolving, and is important for understanding
the global electric circuit," says Anne-Marie Schmoltner, program director in
NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which supports the
research. "The red sprite airborne field campaign this summer provided
observations at unprecedented time resolutions."
What makes thunderstorms' celestial lights
Atmospheric researchers have developed theories to try to explain these
celestial lights.
Red sprites may happen at the time of positively charged cloud-to-ground
lightning strikes, which make up about ten percent of all lightning and are many
times more powerful than more common, negatively charged lightning.
The flashes may be akin to giant electric sparks.
After a powerful ground strike, the electric field above a thunderstorm may
become strengthened to the point that it causes an "electrical breakdown," an
overload that weakens the atmosphere's resistance to electric current flow. The
result is an immense red spark, or sprite, in the atmosphere.
Although still something of a mystery, red sprites have helped solve other
long-standing questions.
Scientists have found that red sprites create some of the low-frequency radio
bursts picked up for years by instruments around the world, but whose source was
unknown.
Other NSF-funded research has tracked blue jets, close
relatives of red sprites. Credit: Stanford University
Large bursts of gamma rays, emanating from Earth rather than space, originate
during thunderstorms, although their exact relationship to red sprites remains
unclear.
Researchers now wonder whether red sprites (and blue jets) might affect the
atmosphere in important ways.
For example, sprites and jets might alter the chemical composition of the
upper atmosphere. Though brief, they could set off lasting charges.
Sprites' deep red color is caused by the light emitted from nitrogen
molecules in the atmosphere, says McHarg. Red sprites may turn out to be
important to atmospheric chemistry and global climate by changing concentrations
of nitric oxides high in the atmosphere.
The researchers are using a technique called high-speed spectroscopy to study
sprites' different colors to determine the amount of energy the sprites carry,
and to find out more about their chemical composition.
How to see a sprite
Can thunderstorm-watchers on the ground glimpse red sprites and blue jets
with the naked eye? Yes, if they know where to look.
Viewers must be able to see a distant thunderstorm with no clouds in the way,
in an area without city lights. Then they must look above the storm, not at the
lightning within the clouds.
It's likely, say the scientists, that if watchers wait long enough, they'll
see a red sprite. Blue jets are more elusive. The best viewing would probably
come from a plane flying very high, and located miles and miles away from a
thunderstorm.
With its rubber tires, a car may be the safest vehicle from which to hunt for
ephemeral sprites of the thunderclouds.
A few months back, a British anomaly investigation organization announced
the
possible death of UFOlogy. They admitted that failure to provide proof that
UFOs were extraterrestrial craft and a decline in the number of UFO reports
suggests that aliens do not exist after all. Was this the end of UFOlogythe
study of UFOs? No way! It's alive and well here, said the U.S. UFOlogists. So
it is. But what is the real status of the study of UFOs?
The UFO research field is having a bit of a crisis these days. Reports come
in by the hundreds. There are not enough people to investigate them. Yet,
decades of UFO research by private and military organizations have resulted in
disappointment for those who surely thought there was something out there to
reveal. Many of the historic figures of UFOlogy are aging or have passed away.
Who is doing the work now? And what exactly are they doing?
The major organization remaining in the U.S. for investigating UFO sightings
is MUFON, the Mutual
UFO Network. MUFON is not in good shape. Their stated mission is to conduct
scientific investigation of UFO reports for the benefit of mankind. But there is
dispute about their ability to actually do that. The current version of MUFON,
according to those observing the situation, is focused on everything
except proper UFO investigation and is nowhere near scientific.
Membership in the organization has fallen off and some local MUFON groups are
disgruntled. Leadership upheavals over the past few years may have been
distracting and overall, they are experiencing a serious case of mission creep.
MUFON consists of chapters covering each state across the country who operate
somewhat independently with members paying dues to the main headquarters. They
promote a scientific method. But do they actually accomplish that goal? Recent
commentators say no, they do not. The focus in local MUFON chapters meetings
these days is decidedly unscientific with talks on alien abduction, conspiracy
theories, human-ET hybrids, hypnotic regression, and repressed memories. That's
a wide range of pseudoscience in one place. It's dragging down the credibility
of the entire subject as well as missing the point of improving actual UFO
investigations.
A comprehensive
two-part piece recently appeared online describing the changing of the guard
at MUFON that is installing its fourth director since 2009. The UFO
Trail blog critiques the current status the field and takes note of the
rising voices in the community, some of whom wish to elevate the investigations
and methods out of the realm of pseudoscience. Author of The UFO Trail, Jack
Brewer, is critical of the current methodology, characterized it as sham
inquirya label I used to describe amateur paranormal investigation and one he
thought also applied in this case.
The newly named director of MUFON, Jan Harzan, states that UFOlogy is a
science and intends to put a scientific face back on UFO
investigations. Their latest symposium, held in Las Vegas this past July had
the theme Science, UFOs, and the Search for ET. The conference featured
presentations from several science professionals (current and former) but did
not provide any blockbuster information or do much to promote science.
"We hope to bridge the gap between science and UFOlogy," said Jan Harzan,
state director of network's Orange County bureau. "They're one in the
same." - Las
Vegas Sun (19 July 2013).
Many skeptical critics would dispute the claim that UFOlogy is a science but
that depends on how you wish to define science. A general definition such as a
systematically collected body of knowledge is not very descriptive of a
subject area that contains a lot of data but few constructive hypotheses to
provide a framework. The UFO sighting data is mostly witness reports and much of
it is of questionable veracity or too old to be of much value any longer. The National UFO
Reporting Center has a database of reported sightings but I havent found
any compelling reports about flaps or trends to make sense of the data. It could
be that Im not reading cutting-edge UFO research but if there really was a good
report that solidly concluded that there was a pattern and subsequent
explanation for UFO flaps, I would be interested. I would hope Id have heard of
it, at least from those who have a more in-depth knowledge. But, as with claims
of proof of psychics or hauntings, we only have popular, often biased reports
about particular events from individuals that have a belief to promote. Those
case studies in addition to being problematic in their accuracy (since its hard
to confirm many of the events via witnesses), are not robust enough to aid in
explaining the phenomenon.
The discussion coming from a small group of today's modern UFO researchers
suggests that UFOlogy is on the wrong track these days. With a focus on
abductions, conspiracies, and exopolitics/disclosure, the core of the field is
no longer about investigating and identifying what people are reporting to have
seen in the sky.
Antonio Paris runs the API Aerial Phenomenon Investigation
Team, which has a somewhat different focus than MUFON. He wishes to return
to the nuts and bolts idea of UFO investigation and get away from the
conspiracy and fringe topics that so often dominate the symposiums and local
MUFON talks.
I asked Antonio what sorts of tools his organization uses to do
investigations. He noted that Internet sites can help identify some of the
man-made objects like aircraft and satellite. MUFON also mentions these tools on
their sites along with astronomical sites to identify bright celestial objects
that are sometimes confusing to people viewing them on the ground. Paris is also
familiar with the shape of many military aircraft and says he can typically
identify them in association with military bases nearby. API has tackled about
300 or so cases but does not pursue those that look like jokes, hoaxes, or give
them nothing to go on. There is no lack of UFO reports. An initial screening to
determine viable cases is necessary to remove those cases not worthy of
investigation or they would be overwhelmed.
MUFON trains their investigators through a manual and an exam. Paris noted to
me that the test requires no specialized skills and many people could
potentially pass it without even looking at the manual. The certification as a
field investigator is a worthwhile effort by MUFON to standardize their methods
and provide a framework for consistency of methods but it's only internal to
MUFON. When each MUFON chapter operates pretty much on its own, inconsistency
and regional differences creep in. Paris told me he is frustrated by the lack of
sharing of information both internally and externally of MUFON noting that an
object of interest can fly over a wide area. Coordination of reports that may be
of the same object would be a worthwhile effort. Science is dependent on sharing
information either through collaboration or peer review of findings. UFOlogy
appears weak in that area having no established journal or even an online
location for filing results.
Even more fundamental to UFOlogy than answering Is it a science? is Can it
ever be scientific?
UFOs are uniquely difficult to investigate for several reasons. The
observation is fleeting. It may not repeat. It is difficult to reproduce. If it
remains airborne, it leaves no physical evidence behind, only the story of the
witness. The observation is often made in the dark under conditions in which it
is difficult (or impossible) to accurately judge size and distance.
If by scientific we mean methodical, objective observations in
consideration of natural laws, logic and reason, then, yes. I think UFO
investigation can be scientific but the sea change that is needed would be
pretty huge for the field and I dont know if they can pull it off. As with
paranormal investigators, UFO researchers tend to lean towards the believer
side. Thats what keeps them passionate. But it's also their undoing. A bias
towards belief in a mystery or in alien craft is the first giant misstep in
UFOlogy. The first step for a rejuvenated field to gain credibility is to drop
the default belief that ETs are visiting earth and back up to the very basic
question, What, if anything, did this witness see? Begin looking for real
world answers instead of proof to support a belief in alien life.
I found a great example of one such sound UFO investigation. Andrew Hansford
recently gave an excellent talk at the 2013 Amazing Meeting about how he
examined a UFO case from Marblehead, MA. You can see his report here.
He was able to glean the best answer and make a solid conclusion from rather few
bits of initial information. He used the tools available to him to seek a
down-to-earth explanation.
I asked CFI fellow and Skeptical Inquirer UFO columnist Robert
Sheaffer his thoughts about scientific investigation of UFOs. It's a bit tricky.
Many have assumed it's possible, he says, but it turns out to be more difficult
than it seems. Sheaffer has documented the several times rapid response teams
have been attempted by UFO organizations. It was hoped that by gathering
reliable witness reports, and implementing a rapid response team to capture
the UFO with professional filming techniques, better evidence could be put forth
for the claim that something worth paying attention to was really occurring.
Rapid response teams turned out to be disappointing, says Sheaffer. Antonio
Paris was part of one such team, the STAR Team for MUFON. Millionaire
Robert Bigelow funded the project. MUFON has been somewhat tight-lipped
about the results, Sheaffer tells me, but they are generally conceded to be
hugely disappointing. It did not give them the results they hoped for.
Sheafffer has written about other rapid response efforts prior to the STAR
Team in his Psychic
Vibrations column of July/Aug, 2009 of Skeptical Inquirer. In
1967, J. Allen Hynek proposed and later implemented a national toll-free UFO
Hotline. Experienced screeners manned the lines twenty-four hours a day. They
contacted local police and/or other investigators who would rush to the scene.
Hynek expected this method would yield excellent evidence. Even with the
cooperation of the FBI, years later, it did not produce the expected results.
In 1977, the French government created an agency called GEPAN to
investigation UFO reports. After producing nothing convincing, official UFO
investigations in France ended in 2004. The British UFO desk was closed in
2009 despite a surge of sighting reports. Nothing was distillable from the
reports.
In the late 1990s, the Los Vigilantes of Mexico City was organized
to respond to a flap of UFO sightings in the area. Cameras were at the ready to
respond to UFO reports on short notice. Sheaffer says, as far as he was aware,
they never obtained anything of significance.
MUFON still gets hundreds of cases a month and there is considerable backlog
of investigations. Thats a hefty work load for volunteers. There is a need to
sort the wheat from the utter chaff but there still are valid means to find out
what people probably saw in the sky. Most reports will have a satisfying answer
if diligently investigated. But that may not happen or the eyewitness may not
accept it.
Pariss API group is in contact with the new leadership at MUFON and is
encouraged that a more sound approach to the field is on the horizon. This may
be a new dawn for UFOlogy as the old guard dies away and the new, more centered,
serious thinkers take over. UFOlogy is undergoing a transformation once again.
For now, UFOlogy attempts to sound sciencey, but it is not nearly up to the
standards to be called science. Can it be science? Only with a wholesale
change in assumptions and approach. Drop the fascination with conspiracies and
abductionsgo back to nuts and bolts.
Sharon will be participating in UFOCon14 in Baltimore,
Maryland in 2014.
Remark from Peter 2011 -- Why do a scptic ( = a doubter!) knows always all better? Sceptisme means that you believe in nothing, only in science... They do doubt about all things. I wonder if they do exist?... And if they believe so in Sciences? Why can't the academics cure diseases , as cancer, AIDS,... Following me, most of the sceptics do have perhaps a high IQ, but their EQ is ZERO...
The Other Side of Truth podcast - Episode 2.9: Kevin Randle
Episode 2.9 Kevin Randle Roswell
Revisted
Veteran researcher / author Kevin Randle joins host Paul Kimball
for a wide-ranging discussion about the Roswell UFO incident, and Randles work
over the past two years with the Dream Team (Tom Carey, Donald Schmitt,
Anthony Bragalia, Chris Rutkowski, David Rudiak, and Randle), who have been
re-examining the evidence for and against the crash of an extraterrestrial
spacecraft near Roswell in July, 1947. Kimball challenges Randle to make the his
best case for the crashed spacecraft scenario, and then the two of them dig
deeper to see how well the evidence has held up over the past thirty years. The
answers may surprise people familiar with Randles long-held view that the
Roswell incident was indeed a crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft. Towards the
end of the episode, Kimball and Randle briefly discuss the other famous /
infamous crashed spacecraft story from the late 1940s, the Aztec incident, and
why both of them agree that it was a hoax / con.
This episode was recorded on 23 August, 2013.
Opening Theme: The Other Side of Truth mixed by Paul Kimball, and
featuring Iron Man by Soundjay
Closing music: Perfect Tourists written by Jason MacIsaac
performed by The Heavy Blinkers.
Just minutes ago I received
some very sad news. Jesse Marcel, Jr. died of a heart attack on August 24. He
was alone, at home, apparently reading a UFO book when he
died. I have known Jesse for more than a quarter century. I first met him
while we both were in Roswell to film a segment for the old Unsolved
Mysteries that aired on NBC. We had gone out to dinner with a number of
those in town for the program and since we shared a military background,
including that of Army Aviation, we connected immediately. As medical doctor, he
was trained as a flight surgeon and I, of course, had been a helicopter
pilot.
From that point I met him quite a few times as we both explored the
Roswell UFO crash case. He, as a young man, boy really, of eleven was exposed to
metallic debris that his father had brought home late that July night. He told
the story to all who would listen with little in the way of
variation.
I learned of the special bond hed had with his father. He told me that
that one day, he had asked his father what the atomic bomb looked like and
Jesse, Sr. had drawn a picture of Fat Man. He then shredded it and burned the
pieces. Although reluctant to share they story outside a small circle of
friends, he did mention it at the Citizen Hearing in Washington this last
May.
Over the years, I had the opportunity to interact with Jesse and
never had reason to doubt his sincerity. He truly believed that he had handled
material made on another planet and might have the first person in modern
history to have seen writing created on another world. He had small, replica
I-beams made with those symbols on it, and while it is just a replica, it is a
very interesting one.
But what I think of mostly, these days is his military service. He had
retired from the Montana National Guard as a colonel but was recalled to active
duty for service in Iraq. Before he deployed, he asked me if he should take a
personal computer with him and I said it had been the best investment I had
made, if only for the DVD player in it.
His service there seems to have affected him more deeply than did mine.
He spent a year there treating those who needed his help, but came back
suffering from PTSD. The deployment cost him his medical practice because he
could no longer trust his hands. Loud, sudden noises caused him to jump. He was
more on edge, nervous, than he had been before going to Iraq. It was something
that the government failed to recognize in the way they should have. He was a
patriot who served without complaint, did what was asked of him and made the
sacrifices he had to make.
I last saw Jesse in Washington, D.C. in May. He was there with
several family members and offered his story to the former representatives and
senators. They all seemed captivated by what he said, probably because he was
one of the few first-hand witnesses to some of the Roswell events present. While
many of us could talk of what we had been told by witnesses over the years,
Jesse could talk about what he had seen and done personally in July 1947. He
handled the debris.
He did call the International UFO Museum in Roswell this year telling
them that this would probably be the last year he could attend. His health,
while seeming not all that bad, did limit what he could do and how far he could
travel. I suspect that he thought his health would deteriorate making a trip to
Roswell extremely difficult if not impossible in the near future.
Jesse was a friend and a fellow warrior. I always believed that he
understood more about my service in foreign lands because he shared those
experiences. We connected on a level that others could not because of that
military experience. Though we were never in the war zones at the same time, we
did see many of the same places under similar circumstances. He served when he
was needed, helped those who needed it, and contributed to our knowledge. I know
that I will miss him, though not as much as his family.
The
late Marjorie E. Fish is mentioned as one of the contributors to this book
written by Cresson H. Kearny (foreword was written by the late Edward Teller).
Kathleen Marden informed me that Marjorie Fish worked as a research assistant at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She also was a highly intelligent woman - a MENSA
member - who was more comfortable working with scientists than with
children.
The author takes this opportunity to thank the following persons for their
special contributions, without many of which it would have been impossible to
have written this book:
L. Joe Deal, James L. Liverman, and W. W. Schroebel for the essential support
they made possible over the years, first by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
next by the Energy Research and Development Administration, and then by the
Department of Energy. This support was the basis of the laboratory work and
field testing that produced most of the survival instructions developed between
1964 and 1979, given in this book. Mr. Schroebel also reviewed early and final
drafts and made a number of improvements.
John A. Auxier, Ph.D., health physicist, who for years was Director of the
Industrial Safety and Applied Health Physics Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL)-for manuscript review and especially for checking statements
regarding the effects of radiation on people.
Conrad V. Chester, Ph.D., chemical engineer, civil defense researcher,
developer of improved defenses against exotic weapons and unconventional
attacks, nuclear strategist, and currently Group Leader, Emergency Planning
Group, ORNL-for advice and many contributions, starting with the initial
organization of material and continuing through all the drafts of the original
and this edition.
William K. Chipman, LLD, Office of Civil Preparedness, Federal Emergency
Management Agency-for review in 1979 of the final draft of the original ORNL
edition.
George A. Cristy, M.S., who for many years was a chemical engineer and civil
defense researcher at ORNL-for contributions to the planning of the original
edition and editing of early drafts.
Kay B. Franz, Ph.D., nutritionist, Associate Professor, Food Science and
Nutrition Department, Brigham Young University- for information and advice used
extensively in the Food chapter.
Samuel Glasstone, Ph.D., physical chemist and the leading authority on the
effects of nuclear weapons-for overall review and constructive recommendations,
especially regarding simplified explanations of the effects of nuclear
weapons.
Carsten M. Haaland, M.S., physicist and civil defense researcher at ORNL-for
scientific advice and mathematical computations of complex nuclear
phenomena.
Robert H. Kupperman, Ph.D., physicist, in 1979 the Chief Scientist, U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, Department of State-for review of the final
draft of the 1979
David B. Nelson, Ph.D., electrical engineer and mathematician, for years a
civil defense and thermonuclear energy researcher at ORNL, an authority on
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) problems-for manuscript review and contributions to
sections on electromagnetic pulse phenomena, fallout monitoring instruments, and
communications.
Lewis V. Spencer, Ph.D., for many years a physicist with the Radiation
Physics Division, Center for Radiation Research, National Bureau of
Standards-for his calculations and advice regarding needed improvements in the
design of blast shelters to assure adequate protection of occupants against
excessive exposure to initial nuclear radiation.
Edward Teller, Ph.D., nuclear physicist, leading inventor of offensive and
defensive weapons, a strong supporter of' civil defense at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and worldwide-for contributing the Foreword, originally written for
the American Security Council 1980 edition, and for his urging which motivated
the author to work on this 1987 edition.
Eugene P. Wigner, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician, Nobel laureate,
Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics, Princeton University, a principal
initiator of the Nuclear Age and a prominent leader of the civil defense
movement-for encouraging the writing of the original edition of this book,
contributing the About the Author section, and improving drafts, especially of
the appendix on expedient blast shelters.
Edwin N. York, M.S., nuclear physicist, Senior Research Engineer, Boeing
Aerospace Company, designer of blast-protective structures-for overall review
and recommendations, particularly those based on his extensive participation in
nuclear and conventional blast tests, and for improving both the original and
this edition.
Civil defense officials in Washington and several states for information
concerning strengths and weaknesses of official civil defense preparations.
Helen C. Jernigan for editing the 1979 manuscript, and especially for helping
to clarify technical details for non-technical readers.
May E. Kearny for her continuing help in editing, and for improving the
index.
Ruby N. Thurmer for advice and assistance with editing the original
edition.
Marjorie E. Fish for her work on the photographs and drawings.
Janet Sprouse for typing and typesetting the additions in the 1987
edition.
Book Page: 5
SELF-HELP CIVIL DEFENSE
Your best hope of surviving a nuclear war in this century is self-help civil
defense - knowing the basic facts about nuclear weapon effects and what you,
your family, and small groups can do to protect yourselves. Our Government
continues to downgrade war-related survival preparations and spends only a few
cents a year to protect each American against possible war dangers. During the
10 years or more before the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) weapons can
be invented, developed and deployed, self-help civil defense will continue to be
your main hope of surviving if we suffer a nuclear attack.
Most Americans hope that Star Wars will lead to the deployment of new weapons
capable of destroying attacking missiles and warheads in flight. However, no
defensive system can be made leak-proof. If Star Wars, presently only a research
project, leads to a deployed defensive system, then self-help civil defense will
be a vital part of our hoped for, truly defensive system to prevent aggressions
and to reduce losses if deterrence fails.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS BOOK
This book is written for the majority of Americans who want to improve their
chances of surviving a nuclear war, it brings together field-tested instructions
that have enabled untrained Americans to make expedient fallout shelters, air
pumps to ventilate and cool shelters, fallout meters, and other expedient life-
support equipment. ('"Expedient" as used in civil defense work, describes
equipment that can be made by untrained citizens in 48 hours or less, while
guided solely by field-tested, written instructions and using only widely
available materials and tools.) Also described are expedient ways to remove even
dissolved radioiodine from water, and to process and cook whole grains and
soybeans, our main food reserves. Successive versions of these instructions have
been used successfully by families working under simulated crisis conditions,
and have been improved repeatedly by Oak Ridge National Laboratory civil defense
researchers and others over a period of 14 years. These improved instructions
are the heart of this updated 1987 edition of the original Oak Ridge National
Laboratory survival book first published in 1979.
The average American has far too little information that would help him and
his family and our country survive a nuclear attack, and many of his beliefs
about nuclear war are both false and dangerous. Since the A-bomb blasted
Hiroshima and hurled mankind into the Nuclear Age, only during a recognized
crisis threatening nuclear war have most Americans been seriously interested in
improving their chances of surviving a nuclear attack. Both during and following
the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, millions of Americans built fallout shelters
or tried to obtain survival information. At that time most of the available
survival information was inadequate, and dangerously faulty in some respects as
it still is in 1987. Widespread recognition of these civil defense shortcomings
has contributed to the acceptance by most Americans of one or both of two false
beliefs:
One of these false beliefs is that nuclear war would be such a terrible
catastrophe that it is an unthinkable impossibility. If this were true, there
would be no logical reason to worry about nuclear war or to make preparations to
survive a nuclear attack.
The second false belief is that, if a nuclear war were to break out, it would
be the end of mankind. If this were true, a rational person would not try to
improve his chances of surviving the unsurvivable.
This book gives facts that show these beliefs are false. History shows that
once a weapon is invented it remains ready for use in the arsenals of some
nations and in time will be used. Researchers who have spent much time and
effort learning the facts about effects of nuclear weapons now know that all-out
nuclear war would not be the end of mankind or of civilization. Even if our
country remained unprepared and were to be subjected to an all-out nuclear
attack, many millions of Americans would survive and could live through the
difficult post-attack years.
Book Page: 6
WHY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND ALMOST ALL OTHER AMERICANS ARE LEFT UNPROTECTED
HOSTAGES TO THE SOVIET UNION
Unknown to most Americans, our Government lacks the defense capabilities that
would enable the United States to stop being dependent on a uniquely American
strategic policy called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD maintains that if
both the United States and Russia do not or can not adequately protect their
people and essential industries, then neither will attack the other.
An influential minority of Americans still believe that protecting our
citizens and our vital industries would accelerate the arms race and increase
the risk of war. No wonder that President Reagan's advocacy of the Strategic
Defense Initiative, derisively called Star Wars, is subjected to impassioned
opposition by those who believe that peace is threatened even by research to
develop new weapons designed to destroy weapons launched against us or our
allies! No wonder that even a proposed small increase in funding for civil
defense to save lives if deterrence fails arouses stronger opposition from MAD
supporters than do most much larger expenditures for weapons to kill
people!
RUSSIAN, SWISS, AND AMERICAN CIVIL DEFENSE
No nation other than the United States has advocated or adopted a strategy
that purposely leaves its citizens unprotected hostages to its enemies. The
rulers of the Soviet Union never have adopted a MAD strategy and continue to
prepare the Russians to fight, survive, and win all types of wars. Almost all
Russians have compulsory instruction to teach them about the effects of nuclear
and other mass-destruction weapons, and what they can do to improve their
chances of surviving. Comprehensive preparations have been made for the crisis
evacuation of urban Russians to rural areas, where they and rural Russians would
make high-protection- factor expedient fallout shelters. Blast shelters to
protect millions have been built in the cities and near factories where
essential workers would continue production during a crisis. Wheat reserves and
other foods for war survivors have been stored outside target areas. About
100,000 civil defense troops are maintained for control, rescue, and post-attack
recovery duties, The annual per capita cost of Russian civil defense
preparations, if made at costs equivalent to those in the United States, is
variously estimated to be between $8 and $20.
Switzerland has the best civil defense system, one that already includes
blast shelters for over 85 percent of all its citizens. Swiss investment in this
most effective kind of war-risk insurance has continued steadily for decades.
According to Dr. Fritz Sager, the Vice Director of Switzerland's civil defense,
in 1984 the cost was the equivalent of $12.60 per capita.
In contrast, our Federal Emergency Management Agency, that includes nuclear
attack preparedness among its many responsibilities, will receive only about
$126 million in fiscal 1987. This will amount to about 55 cents for each
American. And only a small fraction of this pittance will be available for
nuclear attack preparedness! Getting out better self-help survival instructions
is about all that FEMA could afford to do to improve Americans' chances of
surviving a nuclear war, unless FEMA's funding for war-related civil defense is
greatly increased.
PRACTICALITY OF MAKING SURVIVAL PREPARATIONS DURING A CRISIS
The emphasis in this book is on survival preparations that can be made in the
last few days of a worsening crisis. However, the measures put into effect
during such a crisis can be very much more effective if plans and some
preparations are completed well in advance. It is hoped that persons who read
this book will be motivated at least to make the preparations outlined in
Chapter 16, Minimum Pre-Crisis Preparations.
Well-informed persons realize that a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union is
unlikely to be a Pearl-Harbor-type of attack, launched without warning.
Strategists agree that a nuclear war most likely would begin after a period of
days to- months of worsening crisis. The most realistic of the extensive Russian
plans and preparations to survive a nuclear war are based on using at least
several days during an escalating crisis to get most urban dwellers out of the
cities and other high risk areas, to build or improve shelters in all parts of
the Soviet Union, and to protect essential machinery and the like. The Russians
know that if they are able to complete evacuation and sheltering plans before
the outbreak of nuclear war, the number of their people killed would be a small
fraction of those who otherwise would die. Our satellites and other sources of
intelligence would reveal such massive movements within a day; therefore, under
the most likely circumstances Americans would have several days in which to make
life-saving preparations.
Book Page: 7
The Russians have learned from the devastating wars they have survived that
people are the most important asset to be saved. Russian civil defense
publications emphasize Lenin's justly famous statement: 'The primary productive
factor of all humanity is the laboring man, the worker. If he survives, we can
save everything and restore everything. . . but we shall perish if we are not
able to save him." Strategists conclude that those in power in the Soviet Union
are very unlikely to launch a nuclear attack until they have protected most of
their people.
The reassurance of having at least a few days of pre-attack warning, however,
is lessening. The increasing numbers of Soviet blast shelters and of
first-strike offensive weapons capable of destroying our undefended retaliatory
weapons will reduce the importance of pre-attack city evacuation as a means of
saving Russian lives. These ongoing developments will make it less likely that
Americans will have a few days' warning before a Soviet attack, and therefore
should motivate our Government both to deploy truly defensive Star Wars weapons
and to build blast shelters to protect urban Americans.
Nuclear weapons that could strike the United States continue to increase in
accuracy as well as numbers; the most modern warheads usually can hit within a
few hundred feet of their precise targets. The Soviet Union already has enough
warheads to target all militarily important fixed site objectives. These include
our fixed-site weapons, command and control centers, military installations, oil
refineries and other industrial plants that produce war essentials, long
runways, and major electric generating plants. Many of these are either in or
near cities. Because most Americans live in cities that contain strategically
important targets, urban Americans' best chance of surviving a heavy nuclear
attack is to get out of cities during a worsening crisis and into fallout
shelters away from probable targets.
Most American civil defense advocates believe that it would be desirable for
our Government to build and stock permanent blast shelters. However, such
permanent shelters would cost many tens of billions of dollars and are not
likely to be undertaken as a national objective. Therefore, field-tested
instructions and plans are needed to enable both urban evacuees and rural
Americans to build expedient shelters and life-support equipment during a
crisis.
SMALLER NUCLEAR ATTACKS ON AMERICA
Many strategists believe that the United States is more likely to suffer a
relatively small nuclear attack than an all-out Soviet onslaught. These possible
smaller nuclear attacks include:
° A limited Soviet attack that might result if Russia's rulers were to
conclude that an American President would be likely to capitulate rather than
retaliate if a partially disarming first strike knocked out most of our
fixed-site and retaliatory weapons, but spared the great majority of our cities.
Then tens of millions of people living away from missile silos and Strategic Air
Force bases would need only fallout protection. Even Americans who live in large
metropolitan areas and doubt that they could successfully evacuate during a
nuclear crisis should realize that in the event of such a limited attack they
would have great need for nuclear war survival skills.
° An accidental or unauthorized launching of one or several nuclear weapons
that would explode on America. Complex computerized weapon systems and/or their
human operators are capable of making lethal errors.
° A small attack on the United States by the fanatical ruler of an unstable
country that may acquire small nuclear weapons and a primitive delivery
system.
° A terrorist attack, that will be a more likely possibility once nuclear
weapons become available in unstable nations. Fallout dangers could extend clear
across America. For example, a single small nuclear weapon exploded in a West
Coast city would cause lethal fallout hazards to unsheltered persons for several
miles downwind from the part of the city devastated by blast and fire. It also
would result in deposition of fallout in downwind localities up to hundreds of
miles away, with radiation dose rates hundreds of times higher than the normal
background. Fallout would be especially heavy in areas of rain- out; pregnant
women and small children in those areas, following peacetime standards for
radiation protection, might need to stay sheltered for weeks. Furthermore, in
localities spotted across the United States, milk would be contaminated by
radioiodine.
Surely in future years nuclear survival know-how will become an increasingly
important part of every prudent person's education.
Book Page: 8
WHY THIS 1987 EDITION?
This updated and augmented edition is needed to give you:
° Information on how changes since 1979 in the Soviet nuclear arsenal -
especially the great reductions in the sizes of Russian warheads and increases
in their accuracy and number - both decrease and increase the dangers we all
face. You need this information to make logical decisions regarding essentials
of your survival planning, including whether you should evacuate during a
worsening crisis or build or improvise shelter at or near your home.
° Instructions for making and using self-help survival items that have been
rediscovered, invented or improved since 1979. These do-it- yourself items
include: (1) Directional Fanning, the simplest way to ventilate shelters through
large openings; (2) the Plywood Double-Action Piston Pump, to ventilate shelters
through pipes; and (3) the improved KFM, the best homemakeable fallout
meter.
° Facts that refute two demoralizing anti- defense myths that have been
conceived and propagandized since 1979: the myth of blinding post-attack
ultra-violet radiation and the myth of unsurvivable "nuclear winter"
° Current information on advantages and disadvantages, prices, and sources of
some manufactured survival items for which there is greatest need.
° Updated facts on low cost survival foods and on expedient means for
processing and cooking whole-kernel grains, soybeans, and other over- produced
basic foods. Our Government stores no food as a war reserve and has not given
even civil defense workers the instructions needed to enable survivors to make
good use of America's unplanned, poorly distributed, large stocks of unprocessed
foods.
° Updated information on how to obtain and use prophylactic potassium iodide
to protect your thyroid against injury both from war fallout, and also from
peacetime fallout if the United States suffers its first commercial nuclear
power reactor accident releasing life endangering radiation.
° Instructions for building, furnishing, and stocking economical, permanent
home fallout shelters designed for dual use-in a new chapter.
° Information on what you can do to prevent sickness if fallout from an
overseas nuclear war in which the United States is not a belligerent is blown
across the Pacific and deposited on America - in a new
chapter.
EXOTIC WEAPONS
Chemical and biological weapons and neutron warheads are called "exotic
weapons". Protective measures against these weapons are not emphasized in this
book, because its purpose is to help Americans improve their chances of
surviving what is by far the most likely type of attack on the United States: a
nuclear attack directed against war-related strategic targets.
Chemical Weapons are inefficient killing agents compared to typical
nuclear warheads and bombs. Even if exterminating the unprepared population of a
specified large area were an enemy's objective, this would require a delivered
payload of deadly chemical weapons many hundreds of times heavier than if large
nuclear weapons were employed.
Biological Weapons are more effective but less reliable than chemical
weapons. They are more dependent on favorable meteorological conditions, and
could destroy neither our retaliatory weapons nor our war-supporting
installations. They could not kill or incapacitate well protected military
personnel manning our retaliatory weapons. And a biological attack could not
prevent, but would invite, U.S. nuclear retaliatory strikes.
Neutron Warheads are small, yet extremely expensive. A 1-kiloton
neutron warhead costs about as much as a I-megaton ordinary warhead, but the
ordinary warhead not only has 1000 times the explosive power but also can be
surface-burst to cover a very large area with deadly fallout.
REWARDS
My greatest reward for writing Nuclear War Survival Skills is the
realization that the hundreds of thousands of copies of the original edition
which have been sold since 1979 already have provided many thousands of people
with survival information that may save their lives. Especially rewarding have
been the thanks of readers - particularly mothers with small children - for
having given them hope of surviving a nuclear war. Rekindled, realistic hope has
caused some readers to work to improve their and their families' chances of
surviving, ranging from making preparations to evacuate high risk areas during
an all too possible worsening crisis, to building and stocking permanent
shelters.
Because I wrote the original Nuclear War Survival Skills while working
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the American taxpayers
Book Page: 9
expense, I have no proprietary interest either in the original 1979
Government edition or in any of the privately printed reproductions. I have
gotten nothing but satisfaction from the reported sales of over 400,000 copies
privately printed and sold between 1979 and 1987. Nor will I receive any
monetary reward in the future from my efforts to give better survival
instructions to people who want to improve their chances of surviving a nuclear
attack.
AVAILABILITY
None of the material that appeared in the original Oak Ridge National
Laboratory un- copyrighted 1979 edition can be covered by a legitimate
copyright; it can be reproduced by anyone, without receiving permission. Much
new material, which I have written since my retirement in 1979 from Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, has been added, and is printed in a different type. To
assure that this new material also can be made widely available to the public at
low cost, without getting permission from or paying anyone, I have copyrighted
my new material in the unusual way specified by this 1987 edition's copyright
notice.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Work to persuade the President, your Congressmen, your Senators, and other
leaders to support improved nuclear war survival preparations, starting with
increased funding for war- related civil defense. Urge them to approve and fund
the early deployment of truly defensive weapons that tests already have proven
capable of destroying some warheads in flight. (Attempts to develop perfect
defenses postpone or prevent the attainment of improved defenses.)
Obtain and study the best survival instructions available long before
a crisis occurs. Better yet, also make preparations, such as the ones
described in this book, to increase your and your family's chances of
surviving.
During a crisis threatening nuclear attack, present uncertainties regarding
the distribution of reliable survival information seem likely to continue.
Thoroughly field-tested survival instructions are not likely to be available to
most Americans. Furthermore, even a highly intelligent citizen, if given
excellent instructions during a crisis, would not have time to learn basic facts
about nuclear dangers and the reasons for various survival preparations. Without
this understanding, no one can do his best at following any type of survival
instructions.
By following the instructions in this book, you and your family can increase
the odds favoring your survival. If such instructions were made widely available
from official sources, and if our Government urged all Americans to follow them
during a worsening crisis lasting at least several days, additional millions
would survive an attack. And the danger of an attack, even the threat of an
attack, could be decreased if an enemy nation knew that we had significantly
improved our defenses in this way.
Marjorie Eleanor Fish Obituary: View Marjorie Fish's Obituary by
News Herald
Marjorie Eleanor Fish
OAK RIDGE, TN:
Marjorie Eleanor Fish, 80, of Oak Ridge, TN, and formerly of Lakeside & Oak
Harbor, OH, passed away Monday, April 08, 2013 at Riverview Healthcare Campus,
Oak Harbor, OH.
Marjorie was born on September 19, 1932 in Cleveland, OH,
the daughter of Oren and Mary (Underwood) Fish Jr. The Fish family moved to
Lakeside, OH, when Marjorie was young. She graduated from Danbury HS in 1950 and
Juanita College, Huntington, PA in 1954. Marjorie worked at Gibbs Studio in
Lakeside and for a photographer in Toledo for a few years. She attended Bowling
Green State University (Ohio), to obtain her teaching certificate. She taught
kindergarten at Catawba School and Portage School before taking a position at
Benton, Carroll, Salem Schools teaching 1st and 3rd grades. She is fondly
remembered by her students for playing "America" on the organ as class started
and teaching "My Country 'tis of Thee". As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an
investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late
1960's using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill's
drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, after newer data
was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too
close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement
that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely. The History Channel
portrayed her in at least one series. She moved to work at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. She retired with over 20 years of research service
for the U. S. Department of Energy.
Marjorie shared her love of art,
learning the out-of-doors, camping, gardening and many other interests with her
nieces and nephew: Connie (Jeffrey) Limpert, Helen (Robert) Denney, Joel (Dawn)
Lowien, Julia (John) Empcke and Joann (Jeff) Wilber; nine great-nieces and
nephews,; four great-great-nephews and a great-great-niece.
Marjorie was
preceded in death by her parents and sister: Jean (Bernell)
Lowien.
Visitation will be 11-1pm, Thursday, April 11, 2013 in the
Gerner-Wolf-Walker Funeral Home & Crematory, Port Clinton, OH, followed by a
funeral service conducted by Pastor Bruce-Batchelor-Glader at 1:00pm, in the
funeral home. Burial will be in Sackett Cemetery, Marblehead,
OH.
Memorial donations in memory of Marjorie may be given to the , 2500 N. Reynolds Rd.,
Toledo, OH 43615 or the Ottawa County Humane Society, 2424 E. Sand Rd., Port
Clinton, OH. Online condolences may be shared with the family at www.walkerfuneralhomes.com.
We Don't Care Whether It Is American, Russian Or Martian We Want The Technology!
In
August 1989, Chris Gibson, a Scottish oil-exploration engineer and, at the time,
a member of the British Royal Observer Corps (ROC), was working on the oil rig
Galveston Key in the North Sea when he noticed an aircraft in the shape of a
pure isoceles triangle refuelling from a KC-135 Stratotanker alongside two
F-111s. The unknown aircraft, cruising in a formation northward through
Air-to-Air Refuelling Area (AARA) 6A, is what people have come to believe, is
the mysterious Aurora hypersonic spyplane. Another possible aircraft, which
could have been seen over the North Sea however, is Northrop's A-17 stealth
attack plane. Chris Gibson's observation of the mysterious flying triangle is
often cited by UFO researchers when the subject of Aurora rises. Below, Chris
Gibson explains precisely what happened, as well as giving an insight into
himself.
While
most reports of flying saucers are quickly dismissed by defence chiefs, the
previously classified papers show the sighting, which took place near Pitlochry
in 1990, was taken extremely seriously. A former MoD official who investigated
the case told Scotland on Sunday that despite strenuous efforts they could find
no earthly explanation for the craft.
Witnesses
reported seeing a large, diamond-shaped object hanging in the air next to a RAF
Harrier above the A9 at Calvine, north of Pitlochry, on August 4. The UFO is
said to have hovered for about 10 minutes before zooming skywards at high speed
and disappearing from view.
The
apparent close encounter of the Caledonian kind was photographed by members of
the public whose images appear to show a blurry, diamond-shaped craft next to a
jet. Fearing the pictures would spark significant media interest, the MoD
decided to bring it to the attention of the Government. A Whitehall official
wrote in a memo: "Such stories are not normally drawn to the attention of
ministers. "On this occasion, however, the MoD has been provided with six
photographic negatives of an alleged UFO... and has been asked for comments
almost certainly for inclusion in a forthcoming story."
The
memo suggested the media should be told that "no definite conclusion had been
reached regarding the large diamond-shaped object". It has also emerged the MoD
went on to commission a series of line drawings of the object the following
year, noting that the "sensitivity of the material suggests very special
handling". Former MoD civil servant Nick Pope, who dealt with UFO reports,
described the image as the "most impressive" ever shown to his
department.
He
said: "The MoD has all sorts of equipment and expertise that we used to analyse
and enhance imagery to tell whether there were any signs of fakery.
"This
picture was assessed by our digital experts, who concluded it was a real
photograph showing a solid-structured craft which was estimated as being around
25m in diameter. There were no wings and no visible signs of any propulsion
system. It was exotic and unknown in a way far beyond even the most modern
stealth aircraft being trialled at that time."
Pope,
who served in the MoD for 21 years until 2006, claims they were unable to come
up with any firm answers about the craft and its origins.
"I
remember going to a briefing with the defence intelligence staff where the
photograph was discussed. My opposite number in defence intelligence pointed his
finger to the left and said, 'It is not the Americans,' then to the right,
saying, 'It is not the Soviets,' and finally, he said, 'That only leaves...' and
pointed his finger directly up."
During
his time with the ministry, Pope had a blown-up copy of the photograph on his
office wall until it was personally taken down by his superior. He recalled: "My
head of division removed it and put it in his drawer because he was convinced,
wrongly in my opinion, that it showed a top secret prototype craft.
"Somewhere
along the line the photo disappeared, but I have no idea whether it was
genuinely misplaced or whether it was treated as something we shouldn't have
seen and put through a shredder."
Meanwhile,
another newly released file reveals how efforts to create a computer database of
UFO reports were halted amid fears of a potential public relations disaster
should its existence come to light. The aim was to produce a database which
could supply information and explanations when ministers were asked questions in
Parliament about sightings.
A
memo from March 1988 revealed the project was to be ditched because it
"contravened" statements from ministers saying UFOs did not pose a threat to the
UK. The official wrote: "I also understand that there was some concern about
public reaction if knowledge of the work being undertaken emerged in the
media."
A
further file insists that the death of an US Air Force pilot attached to the RAF
was a "tragic accident" rather than the result of a UFO encounter. Captain
William Schaffner's fatal crash into the North Sea on September 8, 1970, made
headlines over allegations he was on an secret operation to intercept a glowing,
unidentified craft. But an MoD report concluded: "There is no reason to suggest
that there is any sort of UFO incident in any way connected with the tragic
crash."
Atlanta (CNN) -- Georgia Institute of Technology student
Nicholas Selby is a force to be reckoned with.
The sophomore is a Mechanical Engineering major, co-leads Team Solar Jackets
-- Georgia Tech's team that built and raced a solar-powered car in the Formula Sun
Grand Prix -- and is a president's scholar, representing the top 2% of
enrolled students at the university.
It's safe to say he must have a lot of energy -- and it appears to have been
unleashed during his welcome speech Sunday to this year's freshman class.
It started out like many other convocations. Faculty, staff and notable
guests, including Selby -- dressed in a traditional black robe with his
mortarboard perfectly perched upon his head -- addressed the new recruits: "We
chose Georgia Tech because we want to do the impossible."
But then, something unexpected started to unfold. Music from "2001: A Space
Odyssey" began as Selby quoted Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is
by standing on the shoulders of giants."
As the trumpets from the iconic movie theme song swelled, so did Selby's
passion, with the cadence a drill sergeant would envy.
"Crush the shoulders of the giants upon whom we stand. We here are all such
innovative people. So I am telling you: If you want to change the world, you're
at Georgia Tech! You can do that! If you want to build the Iron Man suit, you're
at Georgia Tech! You can do that! And if you want to play theme music during
your convocation speech like a bad ass, we're at Georgia Tech, we can do that! I
am doing that!"
Selby breathlessly finished the speech with his arms raised in victory, to
applause from the roughly 4,000 people in attendance -- some of whom seemed a
little shell-shocked from his intensity.
After a brief pause, Selby deadpanned with a smirk: "Congratulations on your
acceptance and brace yourselves for a hell of a ride on your way to becoming a
hell of an engineer."
Freshmen, wearing their traditional yellow caps slightly askew, appeared
stunned; and they weren't the only ones.
Video of the speech is going viral with over 340,000 hits since being posted
Monday.
Comments on the video range from poking fun at Selby's appearance -- "Welcome
to Hogwarts," a reference to Selby's Harry Potter-like appearance -- to
enthusiasm. One person commented, "I am 30 yrs old, I already went to college. I
am married, I have a kid, and a full time job in New York... and after watching
that, I just applied to Georgia Tech."
Another person felt the speech was so epic that becoming Selby's best friend
feels possible "Because I go to Georgia Tech!"
Below you will find Brad Sparks' comments and his analysis report re the
Mantell case. This report is still in process, so it is not his final or
complete report.
Kind regards.
André
ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!!
Date:
Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:56:32 -0400 (EDT) To: nicap@insightbb.com Subject: Questions for MANTELL Doubters From: Brad Sparks
Questions for MANTELL Doubters
1. Where was the Skyhook balloon located? (If you do not know then how can you "know" that Mantell chased a Skyhook balloon to his death?)
2. Did you know that the General Mills Skyhook balloon Flight B was tracked for over three hours from its launch site in Minnesota then it passed almost directly over St. Louis at about 7:30 AM the morning of Mantell's chase and that it was on a consistent southeast heading (since passing Iowa), at a speed of about 27 mph?
3. Did you know that the Skyhook Flight B continued on this SE course at about 27 mph until it then passed west and south of Nashville, Tenn., where it was seen by numerous people using binoculars and telescopes and from aircraft sent up after it, and even famed astronomer Carl Seyfert tracked it by telescope from Vanderbilt Observatory?
4. If you look at the attached Skyhook Flight Path Map do you see where the Skyhook balloon was located in Tennessee at the time of Mantell's crash in Kentucky at 3:18 PM? How far was the Skyhook from Godman Tower then? How far was the Skyhook from Mantell when he crashed?
5. How far away can a 70-foot Skyhook balloon be seen with the naked eye in daylight? Ever hear of Minimum Angle of Resolution (MAR) in human eyesight, physiological optics? (Standard 20/20 vision is 1 arcminute MAR, which translates to a 70-foot object at 45.6 miles -- this involves simple high-school math.)
6. If the Skyhook balloon was over 140 miles from Godman Tower then how could Tower personnel have seen it and how could Mantell have chased it if he could not even see it? If Mantell crashed nearly 60 miles from the Skyhook balloon then how could he have even seen it at his closest approach??
7. Can you see a 70-foot object at 140 miles away? Can you see a 7-foot wide truck from directly behind on a freeway at a straight-line distance of 14 miles? (The 1/10 scaling is so simple you won't even need a calculator to get it.) Try it sometime.
8. How far would Mantell have flown in his nearly straight line course at ~300 mph for the ~20 minutes after he flew over the Godman Control Tower until his crash at 3:18 PM? This is simple arithmetic. Where approximately would that put Mantell's crash on a map? (This is to provide a common-sense reality check on where Mantell was located during and at the end of his chase so you can believe that his location is 100% certain and he didn't have time to fly around on wild zigzags all over the State of Kentucky.)
9. If Mantell somehow did get close enough to the Skyhook balloon to see it with his naked eye to chase it, wouldn't he have had to fly directly over Nashville, Tenn., and then would have crashed in Tennessee instead of Kentucky (Franklin, Ky.)? Why didn't numerous people watching the balloon see and hear Mantell and his wingman flying over and chasing after it in their F-51 fighters?
10. What is your response to the AF accident report stating that Mantell had oxygen equipment on board - - public AF assertions to the contrary notwithstanding?
11. Was Mantell reckless and irresponsible for going to 20,000+ feet "without oxygen" if in fact he had oxygen on board or thought he did?
12. What is your response to Project Sign's internal classified documents stating in Oct-Nov 1948 that the Mantell case was "unexplained" and not Venus or any other IFO explanation such as balloon?
The Guardian destroyed the
computer containing information leaked by Edward Snowden
David Cameron ordered Britain's most senior civil
servant to contact the Guardian over classified information leaked by the
whistle-blower Edward Snowden, it has emerged.
Whitehall sources confirmed Sir Jeremy Heywood approached the newspaper.
It came after the Guardian published details about secret US and British
surveillance programmes.
Editor Alan Rusbridger said it was forced to destroy the computer hard drives
storing the information in July.
Mr Rusbridger said his conversations with the government prior to that
happening on 20 July had been with "a very senior official claiming to represent
the views of the prime minister".
But he did not say exactly who he had spoken to.
Meanwhile, the partner of a Guardian journalist held for nine hours at
Heathrow airport under anti-terror laws on Sunday has described his "feeling of
invasion" after being forced to divulge email and social media account
passwords.
David Miranda told the BBC his interrogators threatened that he could go to
prison if he did not co-operate.
'Threat to
UK'
On Tuesday, the
Independent and the
Daily Mail reported that Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy had made contact with
the Guardian.
BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said these reports were accurate.
David Miranda told the BBC he felt very threatened during his detention
Whitehall sources emphasised it would have been a "total abdication of their
responsibilities" not to talk to the Guardian.
The government feared that if secret data held by the newspaper fell into
what it called "the wrong hands" it could have been a threat to the UK, the
sources added.
The conversations between Whitehall and the Guardian took place with the
explicit approval of Mr Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Foreign
Secretary William Hague.
Following the conversations, Mr Rusbridger agreed to what he has called one
of the most bizarre incidents in the newspaper's history.
Two GCHQ security experts oversaw the destruction in a basement of computer
files containing information from America's National Security Agency leaked by
Mr Snowden.
Files copied
Mr Rusbridger said: "We were quite clear we were not going to hand this
material back to the British government so we destroyed it ourselves under
advice from a couple of GCHQ intelligence experts, who told us which bits of the
hard drive to smash up, in what way."
The editor said he believed handing the hard drives to the government would
have been a betrayal of the newspaper's source.
It is understood the files had already been copied and the Guardian is
expected to continue pursuing the Snowden story, but from the US.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is the chairman of the Intelligence and Security
Committee, told Radio 4's Today programme: "Neither Mr Snowden nor the editor of
the Guardian - or the editor of any other newspaper - is in a position to
necessarily judge whether the release of top-secret information may have a
significant relevance in the battle against terrorism."
He went on: "Sometimes you might genuinely think you can release a document
and it's not going to be of any assistance to a terrorist when in fact you might
be wrong - and that's simply a question of your inability to judge if you are a
newspaper editor or a journalist as opposed to somebody involved in the
intelligence work that has to be done."
Alan Rusbridger: "It was made plain that the government was on the verge of
launching legal action against the Guardian"
Former National Security Agency contractor Mr Snowden has been granted asylum
in Russia despite requests from the US that he be returned.
Asked about the Independent's story, a spokeswoman for the Guardian told the
BBC: "We're not going to comment on this."
Elsewhere, it has emerged that Mr Miranda - the partner of Guardian
journalist Glenn Greenwald who has covered stories based on leaks by Mr Snowden
- is launching legal action over his detainment at Heathrow airport.
He wants his confiscated electronic equipment returned and assurances that
his private data will not be distributed on to other parties.
For the first time, researchers have teleported 10,000 bits of information
per second from point A to point B across a distance of about six millimeters
and inside a solid state circuit, similar to a computer chip.
Although the accomplishment differs from teleporting mass, like a person
such as that seen on science fiction shows like Star Trek the remarkable feat
demonstrates what could be possible with a quantum computer.
The scientists, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in
Zurich, report their findings in this weeks issue of Nature.
In their experiment, the team spaced three micron-sized electronic circuits
on a seven-by-seven-millimeter computer chip. Two of the circuits worked as a
sending mechanism, while the other served as the receiver. The scientists cooled
the chip to near absolute zero and ran a current through the circuits.
At that frigid temperature and small scale, the electrons in the circuit
which are the quantum bits of information, the qubits started to behave
according to the rules of quantum mechanics. The qubits became entangled. This
means they become linked, sharing identical quantum states, even if physically
separated from one other.
Specifically, the qubits in the sender circuit became entangled with those in
the receiving circuit. The ETH team encoded some information into the qubits in
the sending circuits and then measured of the state of the qubits in the
receiver circuit. Whatever state the qubits had been in the sender was reflected
instantly in the receiving circuit. The researchers had teleported the
information.
This is different from the way information is sent in ordinary computers,
electrons carry information along wires or through the air via radio waves. In
this case, no bit of data physically traveled along a route instead the
information disappeared from one location and reappeared at another.
Other experimenters have teleported quantum bits, too, and have done so
across a larger distance. But those teams only got the teleportation to work
once in a while, perhaps a few percent of the time. The ETH team was also able
to teleport up to 10,000 quantum bits every second, and get it to work right
consistently. Thats fast enough and accurate enough to build a useful computer.
Basically we can push a button and have this teleportation work every time,
Andreas Wallraff, Professor at the Department of Physics and head of the study,
told DNews.
Beste bezoeker, Heb je zelf al ooit een vreemde waarneming gedaan, laat dit dan even weten via email aan Frederick Delaere opwww.ufomeldpunt.be. Deze onderzoekers behandelen jouw melding in volledige anonimiteit en met alle respect voor jouw privacy. Ze zijn kritisch, objectief maar open minded aangelegd en zullen jou steeds een verklaring geven voor jouw waarneming! DUS AARZEL NIET, ALS JE EEN ANTWOORD OP JOUW VRAGEN WENST, CONTACTEER FREDERICK. BIJ VOORBAAT DANK...
Druk op onderstaande knop om je bestand , jouw artikel naar mij te verzenden. INDIEN HET DE MOEITE WAARD IS, PLAATS IK HET OP DE BLOG ONDER DIVERSEN MET JOUW NAAM...
Druk op onderstaande knop om een berichtje achter te laten in mijn gastenboek
Alvast bedankt voor al jouw bezoekjes en jouw reacties. Nog een prettige dag verder!!!
Over mijzelf
Ik ben Pieter, en gebruik soms ook wel de schuilnaam Peter2011.
Ik ben een man en woon in Linter (België) en mijn beroep is Ik ben op rust..
Ik ben geboren op 18/10/1950 en ben nu dus 74 jaar jong.
Mijn hobby's zijn: Ufologie en andere esoterische onderwerpen.
Op deze blog vind je onder artikels, werk van mezelf. Mijn dank gaat ook naar André, Ingrid, Oliver, Paul, Vincent, Georges Filer en MUFON voor de bijdragen voor de verschillende categorieën...
Veel leesplezier en geef je mening over deze blog.