Visitors to UFO Religions
Follow on Twitter
Order The Facade!

Archive for July, 2009

I blogged on this over at PaleoBabble and thought this audience would enjoy it.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Several people have emailed me about the news that the Russians have de-classified their UFO records (we actually do NOT know how many, yet the claims make it sound like all of them or the motherlode–a logic lesson in itself).

I’ve read a few different blog posts on the announcement, and it came as no surprise that at least two leaps of logic were made (read: two examples of bad logic).

First, bloggers breathlessly relate how the Russian records have eyewitnesses saying the craft traveled at “incredible speeds”. Yeah — let’s have the numbers. So far I’ve read the records say anywhere from 400 mph to 1000 mph. So what?  Again, those of you who haven’t done so need to read Joseph Farrell’s research here. Those numbers are NOT outside the patented physics he supports with documentation that the Nazis had (and we and … lo and behold … the RUSSIANS had after WWII as a result of the scramble to get Nazi scientists over here or behind the iron curtain).  Nothing new or non-human at all. But here’s the biggest logic blunder.  Let’s ask ourselves a simple question: how many mph are needed to interplanetary / interstellar space travel?  Hmmmm.  Well, the Space Shuttle’s orbital speed is 17,500 mph, FAR in excess of UFO reports (here or from the Russians).  That would mean that these “incredible speeds” are NOT capable of interplanetary or interstellar space travel. In case you don’t get the point, our Space Shuttle isn’t slated to be our solution for a journey to Mars, for example.  And since the aliens are supposed to come from places like Zeta Reticuli, the speed of these eye-witnessed craft ain’t even close.  ”But Mike,” you might object, “maybe the eyewitnesses saw only a low speed; maybe they can go much faster.” True–maybe they can. Maybe chocolate pudding is like kryptonite to them, too. If THAT “maybe” is your defense of the extraterrestrial hypothesis here, then your argument isn’t based on what has been observed, it’s based on what HASN’T been observed (which is another way of saying “nothing” or “speculation” — same goes for the chocolate pudding). This points to a true, oft-repeated logically incoherent point of argumentation for the ET view. Logic lesson one for this post.

Second, I’m SURE that the Russian de-classified files would NEVER contain any disinformation.  Right.  Like ours don’t!  This is in fact a time-honored technique for classified material.  You mix in bogus information with real information, so that double agents or moles get caught or misdirected. Those in the know on the originator’s end know what is real and what isn’t.  It’s also a technique for passing on information WITHIN a classified community to people who are an inner circle. Any reading in intelligence materials / espionage will remind you that this IS done.  Joseph Farrell has something to say in that regard as well.  For instance, he goes through several Majestic documents and finds something very curious: alongside information that points to aliens (and that material is always biological – mention of bodies or EBEs) you have other material IN THE SAME DOCUMENTS at times that point very clearly to HUMAN-created craft (mentions of GEARS in wrecked saucers, citations of specific technological components traceable via documentation back to Nazi black programs, etc.). You have both sides in the same material.   A genuine ET craft capable of interstellar travels is ruled out by the technology described, contrary to what UFO “researchers” (i.e., very biased reporters) say. So what are the explanations that are possible for ALL the information components?

1. Human craft, bodies of what witnesses thought were not humans are actually humans (after all, body witnesses only saw the remains for literally a few seconds).

2. Misidentified bodies could be human unfortunates (Redfern, The Facade) or Japanese (Redfern), or perhaps chimps (see here as well).  And as for the Russian account of pursuing “humanoid” creatures under water–on what basis are we to believe they KNEW they weren’t human?  Just because they were unexpected? Or because someone had seen a disk craft before the event? When it comes right down to it, the Russian eyewitnesses were GUESSING. Their statement wasn’t based on scientific analysis of what they were chasing.  Or maybe that was excluded in this “disclosure” dump.

3. Classified documents that our Air Force was mystified by UFOs (while other documents have military people saying they were military) and by an alien presence served to influence Russian spies (and British spies) that what they were seeing in their skies may not have been American–and this was useful for Cold War posturing.  Same for the Russians; they aren’t stupid.

So, like all the other items, the Russian “disclosure” actually proves nothing. Again.

Lest I be misunderstood on this and the previous logic post. I have no problem with the idea that there could be ETs and that they might be visiting earth.  In principle, there is nothing incoherent (or in my case, theologically alarming) about that. But I want REAL PROOF, not speculation, and not “evidence” that is propped up only by very poor logic.  UFO researchers OWE IT to those who follow their work to put up something of value, not something that is made to fit the hypothesis articualted with inept thinking.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

It occurred to me that many readers may not have the major academic books on this subject. Here’s a short (16 pp) PDF on the subject by Michael Crowe that appeared twelve years ago in the scholarly journal ZYGON.

Well, a couple days ago the world was told that a high-ranking UK military officer “admitted” that the famous Rendlesham event involved extraterrestrials.  This story and “admission” is actually a wonderful example of the disappointing level of “proof” works in the UFO investigative community. In short, we have only more piece of “evidence” driven by the psychological predisposition to attribute what we’ve never seen to aliens.  Here’s the story:

London, Jul 9 (ANI): For years, Britain’s biggest UFO mystery had been kept under wraps, but now an Air Force official has admitted that an “extra-terrestrial” craft did visit the air base at Rendlesham Forest in 1980.

Former Deputy Base Commander Col Charles Halt claimed that even though the incident was later covered up, “extra-terrestrials” had been the cause of the close encounter in Suffolk.

Halt had led a group of airmen who reported seeing a triangular UFO taking off into the air, leaving traces of radiation behind.

“The UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since,” the Daily Star quoted Col Halt, now retired, as telling investigator Gary Heseltine.

“I believe the objects that I saw at close quarters were extra-terrestrial in origin,” he said.

He added that the Air Force later issued “dis-information” to throw the public off the scent.

His comments were hailed as “sensational” by former Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope.

“This may help us to finally solve Britain’s biggest UFO mystery,” Pope said.

“It blows the MoD’s line that these events had ‘no defence significance’ out of the water,” he added. (ANI)

The first (and really only) question we need to ask is this: WHAT WAS IT that drove Col. Halt to conclude that the craft he saw were extraterrestrial in origin? Was it scientific analysis of something the craft left behind, or perhaps a fragment of it? Was it some biological material analyzed by science? No. The answer is plainly stated by Col. Halt: ““The UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since.” In other words, since he had never before or since seen such craft, they MUST have been extraterrestrial.  Really?  There are no other possibilities? His “admission: is based on his own admitted absence of explanation, nothing more.  That isn’t science.

Anyone who has read Reich of the Black Sun by Joseph A. Farrell KNOWS there is at least one other possible interpretation of such craft. Farrell painstakingly details the very real post-German unification documentary evidence that shows (contrary to official history) the Nazis had a high level of competence in nuclear power and were already researching technologies associated with what would eventually become known as quantum physics.  Farrell skillfully explains how official history arose and how the new documents released after German unification show the official party line about Nazi nuclear capabilities to be a deliberate farce. This important book by Farrell was followed by two others (The SS Brotherhood of the Bell and Nazi International) that detail how the Nazi technology fell into the hands of other countries during the Cold War and, importantly, how it relates to the UFO issue.

Until someone can come along and refute Farrell’s expose of this new evidence, not found in any prior work on German wingless/saucer technology, reports such as the new Rendlesham revelation can be filed into your “more cultural acclimation for ET visitation” folder.  With Farrell’s work, the burden of proof is now squarely on those who insist on an ET hypothesis for UFOs (and even on those who see only a spiritual explanation).

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

What can you say about a trip to the UFO festival in Roswell?  A little weird, a little informative, a little depressing (wiht respect to how ET has become a religion to many).  Overall, though, very worthwhile. I enjoy meeting interesting people and catching up with friends. So, some random thoughts:

Rich and Karyn Dolan – it was great to have dinner with Rich and Karyn. I always enjoy listening to them. Rich’s new book (the follow-up to his “UFOs and the National Security State”) will be finished and available in the next couple weeks, Rich assured me. Can’t wait for it.

Derrel Sims – Derrel is always fun and interesting. Visit his website for why that might be! Since I was mostly a tourist this year, I got to attend two of his workshops: one on implants and another on forensic evidence related to the abduction experience.

The Christian UFO Symposium – The symposium was organized under the auspices of Roswell’s “Alien Resistance” team of Guy & Nicole Malone, Joe Jordan, and Chris Ward.  The event marked the ten year anniversary of the ARHQ.  I really didn’t hear much fallout with respect to last year’s controversy set off by Joe Jordan’s talk about how abductees stop the experience through faith in and appeals to Jesus Christ. In fact, person who would not be in the Christian camp told me he thought the controvesy was overdone since Joe has a gentle personality. Just an observation. Chris and Guy were a blessing; I enjoy hearing them pray at these things. Incidentally, I have heard that (sometime in August?) there is supposed to be a debate between Joe Jordan and Peter Robbins on the matter of ET and religion. I don’t know much more than that, excep tto say that Peter Robbins is slated to give a talk related to that issue at MUFON’s 40th International UFO Symposium in November. I don’t think Peter Robbins has any formal training in religion, or any ministerial experience, so this talk has the feel of a potential diatribe against people like Joe being involved in studying UFOs. I hope that isn’t the case. His talk’s title gives me that vibe: “Politics, Religion, and Human Nature: Roadblocks on the Path to Disclosure.” Pretty odd. I don’t know any Christian involved in the subject that doesn’t want the public to know what is going on with respect to UFOs. The title suggests Robbins is competely (blissfully?) unaware of the recent surveys on ET life and religious people like the Peters Survey. Who knows.

Bill Alnor – I didn’t know Bill was suffering from cancer. He came to Roswell in the middle of his chemo treatments. I pray for his healing and joy at this awful time. Bill was a pioneer in terms of Christian involvement in the UFO subject. I was struck again through his talk and Guy Malone’s how much contactee testimony is directed squarely at Christian theological concepts and no other world religion. Pretty striking. For those who doubt that (and who have something of a grasp of Christianity), I’d recommend his book.

Gary Bates – Really enjoyed meeting Gary for the first time. Gary represents Creation Ministries International, which promotes a literalist approach to the Genesis creation account (i.e., the traditional six 24 hr. day creation view). There were some at the event that seemed to think we were at odds with each other. The only reason I can think for that was my review of his book some years ago. While I stand by the review, only someone who thinks disagreement means dislike (some pretty sloppy logic there) would conclude I have any problems with Gary. I don’t. I was impressed with his character and sincerity throughout the event. More bluntly: I liked him. Readers know that I am much more tolerant of evolution than he is, but the fact of the matter is that I am so for two simple reasons: (1) I have personally known a number of top-flight scientists who are serious evangelical Christians who are theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists,1 and (2) I’m not a scientist, so I don’t really know when any of the arguments and counter-arguments about science are right or wrong. There are certainly some things about evolution that seem to defy coherence and logic in my mind, and my “non literalist Genesis” friends certainly were “guilty” of some pretty questionable exegesis at points in their understanding of Genesis. Likewise, I don’t think Answers in Genesis has a consistent hermeneutical approach to Genesis either. And that brings me to the heart of the matter: I care about the biblical text and what it can sustain since that’s my area of expertise. Genesis 1 allows a fairly wide latitude of interpretive options. I say this not because I care about making scientists happy, but because I understand Hebrew grammar and syntax and the ancient Israelite worldview. Gary and I can disagree on items, but for my part, I like him.

Russ Dizdar – This was also the first time I met Russ, whose focus and vocational experience deal with ministry to victims and law enforcement personnel in the area of satanic ritual abuse, as well as those who suffer from dissociative disorder. Russ also has a depth of knowledge with respect to the occult.  Enjoyed meeting him and talking to him.

Mike Bennett (aka, “Dr. Future”) – Mike is an engineer (complete with PhD in that field) who hosts a daytime Christian radio show in Nashville (“Future Quake“) that includes serious interviews in the fields of occult, conspiracy, politics, UFOs, and anything else that floats his boat. That makes him something of an anomaly in Christian radio, which basically focuses on preaching and music. He’s pulled off some real interview “coups” recently (national figures) so check him out. I’ve known Mike for a few years and always look forward to time spent with him.

Transformers 2 – Saw it in Roswell (where else?). I’d give it a 7 out of 10. Amazing special effects, same old tired-out ancient astronaut mythology (and hardly as thoughtful as Knowing or other recent films).

Tattoos - my daughter got her first tattoo this year in Roswell. Isaiah 41:10 in paleo-Hebrew script. Frankly, I was amazed at how cool it looked.  Amy is very skilled at her art / vocation. She and her husband Free were major forces behind the city of Roswell’s festival organization. I heard they had well over 700 registered conference attendees, which was a total that witnessed to the success of the events and their efforts. Both of them are a blessing (but no, I’m not getting a tattoo).

Lastly, I really enjoyed meeting readers of The Facade, readers of my blogs, and others interested in what I do. Makes the effort worthwhile. In particular Keith, Kevin, Mike, Flynn, David, Barney, and Gary were brand new acquaintances that made my week.

  1. For those readers who went into shock with that last line, let me introduce you to the American Scientific Affiliation and Reasons to Believe.