Comments for UFO Religions

Comment on Majestic Documents and MJ12: 25th Anniversary by MSH

MSH — Sat, 19 May 2012 23:57:25 +0000

I tend to believe there was at least one “inside group” operating within the official federal government. Operation PAPERCLIP is obviously the best example of that — and that group did indeed do things behind President Truman’s back, and so the idea that even the highest levels of government would know all there is to know about an what a secret agency or program is doing is demonstrably false. None of that, of course, means there is a true ET reality. If one assumes, for example, that Nazi PAPERCLIP scientists were tapping into the Nazi millions (billion?) both squirreled away during the war and created by companies that changed their identities and businesses (I.G. Farben, for example), and then using that cash for research into wingless aircraft — with the approval of their US employers, all that one needs to ask is whether the technology worked. The rogue hypothesis works like the above except that Nazi financiers and scientists are working independently (or passing what they were doing for us or the Russians to others working outside in isolated places like Brazil or Argentina). Who knows?

Comment on Majestic Documents and MJ12: 25th Anniversary by aeneas

aeneas — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:16:50 +0000

It does seem like the MJ-12 documents are fakes or mostly fakes; however, I wonder if such a group like it did exist and still exists in some form today. I’ve finally found time to begin reading Richard Dolan’s UFOs and the National Security State. I’m nearly half way into the first volume and already Dolan’s narrative suggests there are higher-ups who have inside knowledge about UFOs. On p. 104 he cites Edward J. Ruppelt’s meeting with a scientist from an unknown agency who apparently predicted the Washington D.C. UFO wave of 1952. Dolan points out that the scientist, and the agency he represented is still unknown today.
For me, this is significant. Here you have a scientist—not a politician or another military officer—predicting a huge UFO sighting that does indeed manifest shortly after. In my mind, this does suggest a secret organization that somehow knows things about UFOs that not even the military knows. Later in the book (p. 107), a certain Canadian research, Wilbert Smith, alludes to a secret group that is higher up than the military and CIA.
Of course there may not be any truth to any of this. Ruppelt and Smith could have been lying to cover up the truth. However, if Dolan’s narrative throughout his book is to be believed—and he certainly offers compelling evidence—it seems like the military, CIA, FBI, and Washington politics have no idea what’s really going on when it comes to UFOs. But maybe someone out there does.

Comment on Review of Nick Redfern’s Final Events by MSH

MSH — Fri, 11 May 2012 04:03:05 +0000

Constance Cumbey’s work is awful. I do textual criticism, as my doctoral degree is in Hebrew Bible. She’s an example of how not to think clearly, use ad hominem attacks instead, and knows next to nothing about textual transmission of the biblical manuscripts.

Comment on Review of Nick Redfern’s Final Events by czechbrudda

czechbrudda — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:28:05 +0000

Rather than address anything I’ve pointed out factual, conspiratorial or otherwise your time is too precious to do anything but make snide comments which have no founding.

Have you read anything by Constance Cumbey? You say that you “know the myth” of The Aquarian Conspiracy??? If you did have a legit view and opinion against it, you would have and could have expressed it at this point. However, you are not familiar with it and it is very obvious…

Comment on Review of Leslie Kean’s UFOs by MSH

MSH — Tue, 08 May 2012 05:28:06 +0000

thanks – did not know that.

Comment on Review of Nick Redfern’s Final Events by MSH

MSH — Tue, 08 May 2012 05:27:38 +0000

If you think this blog doesn’t tap into scholarly journals, you haven’t spent any time looking. That would be YOUR problem, not mine. Nick Redfern isn’t the only source that gets read or linked to on this blog.

Thanks for another feckless, silly conspiracy theory, too. When data can’t be produced, resort to conspiratorial arguments. It’s very poor, but common.

Comment on Review of Leslie Kean’s UFOs by benkeshet

benkeshet — Mon, 07 May 2012 02:01:48 +0000

b”h

Hello, Dr. Heiser,

Just to mention that, following a few paragraphs on Chuck Missler, you are given a brief line or two in Richard Dolan’s and Bryce Zabel’s _A.D. After Disclosure: When the Government Finally Reveals the Truth about Alien Contact_. I got the latest revision in a Kindle version for ~ $10. It is quite clear they favor approaching UFOs from an angle other than the typical Christian “demonic” view though they don’t out-and-out dismiss that view either.

Best wishes

Comment on Review of Nick Redfern’s Final Events by czechbrudda

czechbrudda — Sun, 06 May 2012 07:07:01 +0000

Yeah OK. Scholarly material like Nick Redfern? He’s working for the people that he’s exposing if you haven’t figured it out, kind of like Alex Jones, Icke, Etc.

Redferns Publishing company is Simon & Shuster, whom is a subsidiary of Viacom, Inc., of which the owner/chairman and CEO is Sumner Redstone. This guys is a known Luciferian. Duh, even the MTV2 symbol (viacom owned) is the 2 headed dog. Anyway…

Good luck with your real research. Maybe you should subscribe to “Atlantis Rising” where you and read this type of UFO DISINFO all day.

Peace,

Ryan

Comment on Review of Nick Redfern’s Final Events by MSH

MSH — Sat, 05 May 2012 19:45:51 +0000

In order:

1. No
2. Sometimes, though I have better things to do. I read … scholarly material … not Wikipedia or YouTube.
3. Yes; I know of the myth.
4. No .. but people can be programmed to believe such nonsense.
5. I think I just did.

Comment on Review of Nick Redfern’s Final Events by czechbrudda

czechbrudda — Sat, 05 May 2012 06:11:36 +0000

Mike,

Have you ever rejected god? Did you watch the youtube video? Are you familar with the aquarian conspiracy? Do you think music can be programmed with magic?

Can you make sense of those questions?

Peace,

Ryan